Research indicates the continuance of a rising trend in cohabitation among heterosexual couples. Although most cohabitors eventually marry or break up, there is a subset of cohabitors that are consciously committed to remaining unmarried. Based on interviews with 45 committed unmarried heterosexual couples residing in the United States, this study investigates the reasons why some choose to abstain from legal marriage altogether. Participants indicate a variety of reasons for forgoing legal marriage, including political views, economic practicalities, divorce concerns, and a lack of rationales or incentives to marry. The reasons offered fit into two larger categories: unease about the meanings associated with marriage and concerns about what marriage does to the relationship. As a subset of cohabitors often overlooked in research, it is important to understand what motivates some into saying “I Don’t” to legal marriage.
AguilarM. J. (2008). Activism or escapism: Making sense of 21st century communes. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder.
2.
AllanG. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 205-210.
3.
BernardJ. S. (1982). The future of marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BumpassL.LuH. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
5.
BumpassL.SweetJ. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26, 615-625.
6.
BumpassL.SweetJ.CherlinA. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.
7.
CasperL. M.CohenP. N. (2000). How does POSSLQ measure up? Historical estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 37, 237-245.
8.
ChandraA.MartinezG. M.MosherW. D.AbmaJ. C.JonesJ. (2005, December). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Statistics. Series 23, 25, 1-160.
9.
CherlinA. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.
10.
CopenC.DanielsK.MosherW. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 64, 1-16.
11.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
DalyK. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
EcholsA. (1989). Daring to be bad: Radical feminism in America 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
ElizabethV. (2000). Cohabitation, marriage, and the unruly consequences of difference. Gender & Society, 14, 87-110.
15.
GellerJ. (2001). Here comes the bride: Women, weddings, and the marriage mystique. New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows.
16.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
17.
GlaserB. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
18.
GuzzoK. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179-205.
19.
HeuvelineP.TimberlakeJ. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214-1230.
20.
HuangP.SmockP.ManningW.Bergstrom-LynchC. (2011). He says, she says: Gender and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 876-905.
21.
KennedyS.BumpassL. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663-1692.
22.
ManningW.SmockP. (2002). First comes cohabitation and then comes marriage? A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 1065-1087.
23.
McGinnisS. (2003). Cohabiting, dating, and perceived costs of marriage: A model of marriage entry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 105-116.
24.
PopenoeD. (2008). Cohabitation, marriage and child wellbeing: A cross-national perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project.
25.
PopenoeD.WhiteheadB. D. (2002). Should we live together? What young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage: A comprehensive review of recent research. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project.
26.
RhoadesG.StanleyS.MarkmanH. (2009). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233-258.
27.
RindfussR. R.VandenHeuvelA. (1990). Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single?Population and Development Review, 16, 703-726.
28.
SasslerS.MillerA. (2011). Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 482-506.
29.
SeltzerJ. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247-1268.
30.
SheffE. (2005). Polyamorous relationships: Exploring community, gender, family, and sexuality (Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder.
31.
SheltonB. A.DaphneJ. (1993). Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 401-420.
32.
SkinnerK.BahrS.CraneD. R.CallV. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, and remarriage: A comparison of relationship quality over time. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 74-90.
33.
SmockP. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.
34.
SmockP. J.GuptaS. (2002). Cohabitation in contemporary North America. In BoothA.CrouterA. C. (Eds.), Just living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children and social policy (pp. 53-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
SolomonM. (1987). Emma Goldman. Boston, MA: Twayne.
36.
SolotD.MillerM. (2002). Unmarried to each other: The essential guide to living together as an unmarried couple. New York, NY: Marlowe.
37.
StanleyS.RhoadesG.MarkmanH. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.
38.
StansellC. (2000). American moderns: Bohemian New York and the creation of a new century. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
39.
StraussA. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
ThorntonA.AxinnW. G.XieY. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
VanEveryJ. (1995). Heterosexual women changing the family: Refusing to be a “wife.”Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
42.
WalshM. (2005). Out of wedlock: Why some poor women reject marriage. In IngrahamC. (Ed.), Thinking straight: The power, promise and paradox of heterosexuality (pp. 183-192). New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
WillettsM. C. (2003). An exploratory investigation of heterosexual licensed domestic partners. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 939-952.
44.
WilsonJ. Q. (2002). The marriage problem: How our culture has weakened families. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
