Cohabiting, Marriage, and Living Alone

Contemporary society has given people more options than ever regarding relationships and living arrangements. Although marriage was once considered the norm, many people today opt to live alone with no partner or cohabit with someone. The question arises whether cohabiting, living alone, and being married are best seen as distinct lifestyles or simply different stages within diverse contemporary relationship histories. An argument is posited in this paper in support of the latter. From this perspective, individuals may move in and out of different living arrangements depending on their relationship goals and personal circumstances. For example, an individual may choose to cohabit with their partner before leading to marriage or live alone before eventually marrying their partner. Rather than viewing these varying living arrangements as distinct lifestyles, living alone and cohabiting are best recognised as part of a more extensive, evolving relationship history that most people go through before they commit to marriage.

According to Smart, Neale, and Wade (2001), the nuclear family continually evolves as an institution based on how it is generally structured and the relationships formed within it. Lesthaeghe (1995) developed the second demographic transition to show the different family structures, relationship breakdown, and family reorganisations in the West. Family structures have changed visibly because of delayed marriages, an increased number of individuals cohabiting and living alone, and the rise of cohabiting couples giving birth (Lesthaeghe, 1995). According to Goldscheider (2000), SDT resulted from the first demographic transition (FDT), and its main characteristic was a rise in cohabitation and divorce. Thus, men and women had less stable unions. Goldscheider (2000) further affirms that as divorce rates increase, men become more likely to move in and out of women's and children's lives (Goldscheider, 2000). Consequently, parenthood becomes less established in a man's life than a woman's.

However, Coleman (2004) has criticised the SDT, stating that it is not a “transition” or demographic but a limited evaluation of an alternative lifestyle. Coleman (2004) argues that the SDT is not transitional because a transition must be irreversible and complete like the first demographic transition was. However, he views the SDT as a cyclical transient change instead of an irreversible movement shared by a significant portion of the population. Coleman (2004) also posits the absence of the SDT’s demographic because it focuses on marriage and its alternatives instead of population growth and mortality. Unlike the first demographic transition, the SDT also fails to refer to domestic or international migration; thus, this disqualifies it from being demographic.

However, Lesthaeghe (2010) defends the SDT, stating that the decline in fertility during the first demographic transition was controlled by significant economic and emotional investment in the child, while the SDT is based on adult awareness, focusing on the parent’s position as an accomplished and content adult. The invention of highly effective contraceptives sustained the change. Throughout the first demographic transition, couples used contraception to avoid pregnancy, while in the second demographic transition, people decided to discontinue using contraceptives to pave the way for procreation.

Lesthaeghe (2010) also discusses the differences between the first and second transitions as a defence for SDT. First, regimes of nuptiality, which describe the evolution of wage labour in Western Europe, caused late marriages to decline, with a rise in early marriages, which continued into the mid-1960s (Lesthaeghe, 2010). However, after 1965, the ages of marriage began to increase due to premarital cohabitation, leaving home later, and an increase in single living and the number of people ever married began to decrease. The SDT also features the increase in premarital cohabitation and the resulting childbearing. More nuptiality contrasts include divorce and remarriage rates. During the FDT, divorce legislation was more rigorous, reinforcing families and marriages. Thus, there were lower divorce rates at the time.

On the contrary, the SDT saw higher divorce rates, which society viewed as challenging the church’s and state’s moral order (Lesthaeghe, 2010). On remarriage, the SDT saw only widows and widowers remarrying. However, the SDT was characterised by cohabitation and other living arrangements, such as living alone together, which were favoured over marriage.

A diversified and fragmented family life has characterised contemporary UK society. According to an observation by Coleman (1977), many people still spend part of their lives in a nuclear family setting. No significant change in family diversity has occurred, and many people still desire to belong to a nuclear family. He argues that the statistics that show that marriage and the formation of nuclear families have declined only provide a snapshot and may often ignore family life cycles (Coleman, 1977). Despite these arguments, it is crucial to acknowledge the apparent decline in marriage, with statistics showing that among people aged between 25 and 35 years, there are 1.2 million more unmarried people than there were in 2011 for the same age bracket (Booth and Correspondent, 2023). That figure has more than doubled from 2.7 million in 1991 to 5.8 million, as seen in the 2021 census (Booth and correspondent, 2023). Thus, it is becoming more difficult not to question the impact of such a decline on the institution of marriage. According to the Office for National Statistics, the decline in marriage is not necessarily because of increased cohabitation rates. Instead, the decline can be explained by the rise in the number of men and women who choose to wait before committing to marriage (Office for National Statistics, 2022b). These findings suggest that the rise in cohabitation and singlehood means that they have not necessarily become an alternative to marriage but stages that many individuals go through before finally committing to marriage.

Over the years, the number of people living alone in the UK has increased substantially. According to the Office of National Statistics (2022), there has been an 8.3% increase in the number of people living alone in the UK over the past ten years. According to Roseneil and Budgeon (2004), Western societies are no longer centred on heterosexual couples, especially ordinary married couples with kids. The authors discuss that the shift in post-modern living arrangements has resulted from increased divorce rates, the number of wedlock births, single mothers, women opting not to have children, and the number of one-person households. As relationships and living trends continue to change, the meaning of singlehood has also been altered. Calling someone single instead of a “bachelor” or “spinster” has become more common. In the past, women were often characterised by marriage and motherhood, but the perception has changed as women enter the labour market and develop themselves through educational opportunities.

According to Budgeon (2013), staying single has become more acceptable over marriage and cohabitation. According to the Office for National Statistics (2022), the fastest-growing household has become the single-person household in the UK, indicating the start of what many refer to as “the singles century”, suggesting that staying single for some people is a permanent choice that may not lead to marriage or cohabitation. However, there may be a misuse of the evidence on Budgeon’s part. Single-person households also include people who will marry or get married; they may choose to do this later in life. Additionally, positive single identities can still exist in a society where heteronormative couple relationships are encouraged. However, Budgeon (2013) points out that the pressure to conform to marital expectations counterbalances positive single identities.

Society may still view single women negatively, seeing them as needing something more. Reynolds (2008) argues that single women face significant stigmatisation; they are marginalised and are frequently portrayed as being exterior to conventional family structures and relationships. As a result, single women may want to escape this and are more likely to conform to societal expectations of them, getting married and having a child. Therefore, although not all women may desire marriage, they may submit to societal pressure and get married to avoid the stigma accompanying singlehood. According to research by Macvarish (2006), women between 34 and 50 find it challenging to be single and suggest that modern descriptions must reflect these challenges fully. Contemporary definitions imply that the demands or responsibilities of relationships do not burden single individuals. However, the research’s participants show that this is not a factual representation of their position because many may fear that they will never leave singlehood or become mothers. Most women in the study stated that while they felt happy and content being single, they desired more for the future than singlehood (Macvarish, 2006). Thus, singlehood is a temporary stage on the path towards marriage.

Gittins (1993) offers an alternative view on the idea that women are pressured to enter marriage, pointing out that social and cultural values have changed over the years, reducing societal pressure for women to marry. Instead, there has been an increased acceptance of women remaining single. The differences in women’s economic dependence show fewer women enter marriages to gain financial security. According to Greenstein, societal influences such as feminism have given women greater access to employment and financial independence. Therefore, women can opt not to get married if they want and choose to live alone or cohabit. However, Fletcher (1988) suggests that women reject the idea of conventional marriage and family setup. Thus, women may be staying away from marriage because of what they view as a traditional marriage setup, not because of the institution itself.

Additionally, same-sex marriages have risen in demand, suggesting that feminists are not advocating for the abolishment of marriage entirely; they are criticising the traditional and patriarchal institution of heterosexual marriage. The fight to legalise same-sex marriages suggests that marriage is still desirable. Thus, individuals may want to marry and get married instead of cohabiting.

Some individuals also opt to cohabit; some as an alternative to marriage, while others view it as preliminary before marriage. According to the Office for National Statistics (2022a), there has been a 22.9% increase in the number of cohabiting couples, with figures currently standing at 33.6 million. The modern increase in cohabitation has been accompanied by a shift in people’s attitudes regarding marriage and parenthood. According to the last marriage-related British Attitudes Survey (2014), most people in the past did not live together before marriage. Now, it is more unusual for people to get married without cohabiting first. More couples choose to live together without formalising their relationships, which is quickly becoming the norm. Couples that end up having children during such cohabitation are less likely to marry than cohabiting couples with no children. According to Morgan (2000), there is a higher probability of cohabiting couples with limited education or financial burdens having children during cohabitation than well-educated couples. Additionally, well-educated couples are more likely to end up in marriage from cohabitation (Morgan, 2000). Advancing from cohabitation to marriage has been linked to financial status, with a higher likelihood of dissolution among couples where one or both experience unemployment.

According to Weeks, Heaphy, and Donovan (2001), attitudes toward family diversity have been shifting for a long time since the 1950s. The authors posit that this shift is because of the changing attitudes surrounding sexual relationships and society becoming more accepting towards family diversity. However, Weeks, Heaphy and Donovan (2001) also reaffirm that the change is not drastic and that in most cases, families remain a traditional entity where couples still raise the child, and most end up in marriage. McRae provides insight into the importance of greater family complexity and diversity, increased choices, and continuing commitment to some family-related cultural norms. The growing variety of relationships is evident because of factors such as the increase in relationship types; thus, people have more freedom in constructing the kind of family they want than society expects of them. Therefore, these factors play a role in the increase in cohabitation rates. Influences from secularisation have also led to reduced stigma towards cohabitation. The number of people rejecting sex before marriage has been reducing; thus, one can conclude that cohabitation has become a favoured family type. According to Kiernan and Cherlin (1999), cohabitation and marriage are intertwined. Therefore, cohabitation is not simply replacing marriage.

Statistics show that premarital cohabitation leads to higher dissolution rates after marriage, possibly due to different values between cohabiting and married couples. Cohabiting couples are less optimistic about legal marriages and more desire for relationships where they value sex and shared values. Thus, this suggests that cohabitation could be a form of “trial marriage” to test whether a formal marriage would work. Unfortunately, this may result in a greater likelihood of marital breakdown due to factors such as different commitment levels between cohabiting individuals and those who do not want a marriage-type relationship. These facts suggest that cohabitation may be more successful when not viewed as a temporary stage used for marriage readiness, and therefore, it could be a genuine alternative to marriage.

However, Kiernan and Cherlin (1999) question the validity of the proposed effect of cohabiting before marriage and its proposed effect on marriage dissolution. The authors note that controlling for previous cohabitations removes the impact of cohabiting before marriage and the risk of the marriage being dissolved. Couples who cohabit before marriage only have an increased risk of the marriage being dissolved if it is not their first cohabitation. Therefore, a poor correlation exists between cohabiting before marriage and marital dissolution. This further supports the argument of this paper that cohabitation is not a distinct lifestyle. Instead, it acts as a trial marriage, eventually leading to a formalised union.

Haskey (1995) demonstrates that cohabiting before marriage is more likely before remarrying. The spread of cohabiting before the second marriage is always more likely than before the first marriage. Approximately half or more of the individuals who cohabit after marriage live in stepfamilies, with a child from one or more of their previous marriages, plus possible children from the new cohabiting relationship. Thus, there remains a significant relationship between cohabitation and marriage. Haskey (1995) observes that during the mid-1960s, about 5% of women had, at some point, cohabited with their partners. By the 1990s, the number had risen to 70%. Ermisch and Francesconi (2000) confirmed these figures but observed that these partnerships lasted only two years on average and were mainly experimental and not intended to lead to permanent relationships. Haskey (2002) also notes that 2% of women who married in the 1960s had previously cohabited with their partner, and the number had risen to 80% of all women getting married.

The same trend continues today, with more young people choosing to cohabit. For some, cohabiting acts as a trial marriage. It may help individuals prove that they can settle down when it eventually becomes their time to marry or get married. Cohabiting becomes a way to test the intentions and behaviour of one’s partner to determine whether they are a suitable candidate for marriage. Thus, it becomes a trial period before making any possible marriage commitment. The rise in cohabitation levels can be partly attributed to the trend of men and women marrying later in life. Many cohabiting couples may also believe it is easier to walk away if things do not work as they hope, which would be more difficult in marriage. Before marriage, both men and women may engage in serial cohabitation as they move in and out of several relationships until they feel they have found the perfect mate for marriage and eventually marry. Therefore, this further supports the idea that living alone and cohabiting are not distinct lifestyles but temporary stages that conclude in marriage.

Research by McRae (1993) further supports the idea of cohabiting as a tested marriage. Unmarried women in the study believed that cohabiting was their way of feeling like part of a couple and testing the water without marriage complications. Couples who had never been married also shared this desire for a trial marriage (McRae, 1993). The women who had cohabited and then later married after having children stated that one of the advantages of cohabiting is that it allowed them to test their relationships before getting married (McRae, 1993). Women who had children in their cohabiting relationship also ended up getting married as a way of ensuring their children’s security. Over two-thirds of cohabiting women who had children before marriage gave this response (McRae, 1993). Thus, cohabiting remains a temporary stage that results in marriage.

In conclusion, despite the change in societal attitudes on cohabitation and living alone, marriage is still prevalent because cohabitation and living alone have been shown to result in marriage eventually. It would be amiss to overlook that cohabitation and living alone are alternatives to marriage for some individuals. However, cohabitation and living alone do not mean the same thing to everyone. Nevertheless, the findings of this paper show an intertwining between living alone, cohabiting, and marriage. Thus, the main conclusion of this work is that cohabitation and living alone are preludes to marriage, which outweighs the argument that they are distinct lifestyles.

Reference List

Booth, R. and correspondent, R.B.S. affairs (2023). Slump in Younger People Marrying Sparks Calls to Protect Cohabiting Rights. The Guardian. [online] 22 Feb. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/22/slump-younger-people-marriage-protect-cohabiting-rights-england-wales#:~:text=Amid%20a%20continuing%20decline%20in [Accessed 17 Mar. 2023].

British Social Attitudes (2014). Personal relationships. [online] NatCen Social Research. Available at: https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-30/personal-relationships/marriage-matters.aspx [Accessed 17 Mar. 2023].

Budgeon, S. (2013). The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony: Femininities, Masculinities and Social Change. Sociology, 48(2), pp.317–334.

Coleman, D. and Salt, J. (1992). The British Population. Oxford University Press, USA.

Coleman, D.A. (1977). Assortative Mating in Britain. In: Equalities and Inequalities in Family Life. London: Academic Press.

Ermisch, J. and Francesconi, M. (2000). Cohabitation in Great Britain: Not for long, but Here to Stay. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 163(2), pp.153–171.

Fletcher, R. (1988). The Abolitionists: the Family and Marriage under Attack. London; New York: Routledge.

Gittins, D. (1993). The family in question: changing households and familiar ideologies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Goldscheider, F.K. (2000). Men, children and the family's future in the third millennium. Futures, 32(6), pp.525–538.

Haskey, J. (1995). Trends in marriage and cohabitation: the decline in marriage and the changing pattern of living in partnerships. Population Trends, (80), pp.5–15.

Kiernan, K.E. and Cherlin, A.J. (1999). Parental Divorce and Partnership Dissolution in Adulthood: Evidence from a British Cohort Study. Population Studies, 53(1), pp.39–48.

Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The Second Demographic Transition in Western countries: an Interpretation. In: Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), pp.211–251.

Macvarish, J. (2006). What Is ‘the Problem’ of Singleness?. Sociological Research Online, 11(3), pp.81–88.

McRae, S. (1993). Cohabiting Mothers. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Morgan, P.M. (2000). Marriage-lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and Its Consequences. Civitas.

Office for National Statistics (2022a). Families and Households in the UK. [online] Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2021 [Accessed 17 Mar. 2023].

Office for National Statistics (2022b). Marriages in England and Wales. [online] Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2019 [Accessed 17 Mar. 2023].

Reynolds, J. (2008). The Single Woman. London: Routledge.

Roseneil, S. and Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of Intimacy and Care beyond ‘the Family’: Personal Life and Social Change in the Early 21st Century. Current Sociology, 52(2), pp.135–159.

Smart, C., Neale, B. and Wade, A. (2001). The changing experience of childhood: families and divorce. Cambridge: Polity; Malden, Ma.

Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C. (2001). Same-Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. London; New York: Routledge.