Sasha Otanez

Swinging and Cohabitation in the United States

In the United States, marriage is generally seen as a prerequisite to an adult sexual lifestyle and is the context in which most
sexual experiences are expected to occur. Marriage is traditionally
regarded as the only context in which sexual behavior and sexual
experiences are expected to occur. Infidelity in marriage has been a
concern historically. The civil codes in the ancient world prohibit
adultery in things such as the Code of Hammurabi in Babylonia (900
BCE), Draco in Ancient Greece (620 BCE), and Solon in Rome (590
BCE). The religious tradition of the Jewish Torah provides condemnation
of infidelity however this was mostly directed towards women as at the
time, as women were considered property. However while the societal
view of women and marriage has changed over the years, so has
adultery. The idea of marriage as a social, economic, or strategic
arrangement between families has given way to a more accepted view
of marriage as a reflective of romantic love. Some researchers attribute
this to the 1880s Victorian period in America introducing the idea of
extramarital sex, which became a fabric of American social culture.
Popular literature that glorified romantic and marital love encouraged
men and women to satisfy their partners sexual needs. Religious
dogma controls social morality and while it tolerates divorce, it still has
problems with adultery and extramarital sex. The negative social value

Sasha Otanez
held towards extramarital sex exists with the idea that infidelity is a
strong threat to the marital relationship. Infidelity within a marriage
violates the norms that regulate the level of a couples emotional and
physical intimacy which leads to divorce, spousal battery, and in some
cases homicide.
The progression of the moral code regarding co-marital sex can
be seen in the behaviors of the early American colonists. In colonial
New England there have been numerous reports of extra marital sex
and pre-marital sex. Then in the 1660s the Puritans of Massachusetts
enforced a strict sexual moral code, and any literary works promoting
sexual behavior was banned. In the second half of the 19th century
sexual morality and prostitution became national concerns, and the
Social Purity Movement was created whose goal was to eliminate
prostitution. A common attitude towards marital sex in the 19th century
was that it was generally an unhappy event and only necessary in
terms of procreation. Indulgence in sex between married couples was
seen as a development of nervous or physical disorders. In 1948, one
researcher argued that most social organizations in our society were
based on a code of morals dictated by religion that influenced the
development and implementation of marriage customs and
expectations. According to him, the development and enacting of the
legal code as applied to sexual behaviors was based on this morality.
The legal code provides for the legal rules of sexual behaviors as a

Sasha Otanez
reflection of the societal code of morality. Later researchers in the
1960s proposed the idea that deviance within a society is necessary
and support the social order. Swinging, even though it completes the
pre requisite of being married to have sex, still is seen as socially
deviant and an act of infidelity. It is an activity that includes infidelity
making it deviant within society, yet is done with the consent of both
partners, which may be a main reason why it is seen as immoral by
society. Taking infidelity, something that is usually hidden and kept in
secrecy, and instead promoting it and incorporating it into ones
marriage is something that doesnt follow Americas Puritan ways
historically.
The NASCA (North American Swing Clubs Association) defined
swinging as the popular and internationally accepted term for
recreational, social sex between consenting adults. Swinging is a nonmonogamous sexual activity that can be experienced as a couple.
Swingers, according to Claire Kimberly, can be separated into three
different types: stable groups of non-monogamous couples who have
cohesion and very little turnover, relatively stable groups who know
each other, but have somewhat fluid membership, and unstable groups
who come together only for one night. Swinging is often mixed up with
open marriages and polyamory that were established in the 1970s
as well. However open marriages promote non-possessive love, and
tolerance of infidelity in their spouses, and polyamory is the love of

Sasha Otanez
many people at once. Swingers are couples that reserve emotional
commitment for their spouse/partners and only engage in physical
interactions with other couples.
The history of swingers can be dated back to the early 1900s,
starting in the Greenwich Village district of New York City. It was here
that the Bohemian free movement took root and from 1915-1925, the
self-proclaimed love radicals started producing parties in the late
20s where individuals engaged in open sexual activity. In the 1950s
more organized mate swapping clubs emerged and following World
War II, key clubs were created. Key clubs were where husbands would
throw their keys into a pile and the wives would pick a set at random;
whoever was the owner of the keys became the sexual partner for the
night. In the 1950s the media referred to swinging as wife-swapping
and articles portrayed swingers as immoral, deviant individuals,
showing a psychopathological behavior. In the 1970s the NASCA in the
US was established to represent swingers and swinging clubs
throughout the country. Also in the 70s, those who participated in
swinging urged to change the term from wife-swapping to swingers
in the media. This was because wife swappers implied that husbands
swapped their wives as merchandise or a possession and that the
wives were unwilling participants. In the 1980s participants started
referring to swinging as the lifestyle in order to shed the
stereotypical term swingers and instead show that extra-dyadic sex

Sasha Otanez
occurring outside of the committed relationship - was a part of the
couples lifestyle instead of deviant behavior.
While swinging is fairly established and recognized, there is not a
lot of research on it; very few studies have been done. In the 1970s
the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, womens liberation, gay
pride, and readily accessible birth control encouraged differing
opinions on marriage and family, making alternative lifestyles popular.
Mass media attention shifted to lifestyles that seemed to rapidly
become a part of American family scene like cohabitation, stepfamilies,
and single parenthood, with little attention to swingers. Some
researchers say that the appearance of AIDS may have led to the
assumption that these lifestyles had disappeared. Also, there was a
lack of research funding and limited academic rewards for examining
personal and family choices that were often viewed as being at odds
with achieving status, acceptance, and success in contemporary
society. Other forms of alternative lifestyles that received attention did
not attribute the basis for their existence to the concept of multiple
sexual partners, therefore not threatening the cultural image of what
marriage is supposed to be, as swinging did. Authors of Todays
Alternative Marriages: The Case of Swingers emphasizes that
swinging should be of scholarly interest because the attempt to
combine sexual non-monogamy with emotional monogamy is
fundamentally deviant from the Western model of romantic love

Sasha Otanez
which assumes that sexual and emotional monogamy are mutually
reinforcing and inseparable. They state that any attempt at redefining
love and the marital bond is worthy of our attention and state if
swingers have found a way to enrich the lives of couples, we would be
remiss if we did not take their lifestyle and their redefinition of
monogamous love seriously. Another reason there might be little
research on swinging is that the media doesnt want to research into
and in turn promote a lifestyle they believe to be immoral. Their
solution instead is to ignore it completely, leaving large gaps in history,
denying any proof of these alternative lifestyles. A quote found stating
the couples who mutually agree that adultery is alright are a strange
and interesting phenomenon in American life todayand that it is
surely indicative that something extraordinary is happening to one of
the most firmly established of our customs.
While little research has been done in swingers, scholars have
been able to create a small demographic and statistics on those in the
swinging community. Research gathered from the NASCA says that
15% of couples in the US have at some point incorporated swinging
into their marriage. Data gathered by private swing clubs indicate that
90% of swingers identify a religious preference and 47% regularly
attend religious services. The majority of swingers fall into the middle
to upper-middle class, tend to be conservative, and tend to be in
professional and management positions. A survey done at a swinging

Sasha Otanez
convention helped create a more accurate idea of who swingers are.
The surveys participants consisted of 85% of both sexes being
married, and the rest were single, divorced or separated. The average
swinger was 39 years old, had 2 years of college education, had been
married 1.5 times, was in a current marriage lasting 10.5 years and
had been involved with swinging for 5 years. From the sample 90.4%
were white, 4.1% African American, 3.0% Hispanic, and 1.5% identified
as other. The survey created not only a demographic, but asked
about the quality of the swingers relationship. 62.6% of swingers found
that swinging improved their marriages, 35.6% said their relationship
stayed the same, and 1.7% said they became less happy. Out of the
swingers who put that their marriage was very happy before
swinging, 49.7% said they became happier after. In the unhappy
marriages, 90.4% said they became happier after swinging. The survey
also showed that for many swingers, the act of swinging is more than
sex with strangers and instead they find mixing socially with likeminded people is an important part of their social and emotional lives.
With divorce rates for first marriages approaching 60%, and 37%
of husbands and 29% of wives admitting to having at least one extra
marital affair, swinging is seen as a healthy alternative. King (1996)
claims that 3-7 years into marriage there is less sexual excitement as
there was originally and couples that find a way to reconnect physically
and emotionally are more likely to make it through this period. At this

Sasha Otanez
mark, marriage infidelity increases and divorce rates peak but swinging
is seen as a solution since it provides not only sexual variety and one
living out ones fantasies, but also can be done as a couple without
secrecy and deceit. Butler (1996) says a reason couples turn to
swinging is because once they are in their late 30s, they no longer feel
the pressure of childbearing, establishing a career, or finding their
passion in life. It is the first time they have an opportunity to diversify
their interests and swinging permits a non-threatening exploration of
sexuality, which extends beyond monogamous marital bed.
Swinging is a lifestyle that goes against the common notion of
sexual exclusivity within marriages in the US, however the motivations
and outcomes of swingers are comparable to those in traditional
marital relationships. There has been common societal disapproval and
belief that swingers have unsatisfactory marriages or are unhappy with
their primary relationship although there is no evidence supporting this
claim. Within a swinging relationship, emotional monogamy,
commitment to the love of relationships with ones marital partner,
remains the primary focus. Swinging is done in the presence of ones
spouse and requires the consent of both. This removes the dishonesty
inherent in ones natural desires for sexual variety and by removing
the destructive baggage of jealousy and secrecy, a new level of trust
and openness about all of ones feelings is achieved and couples can
explore their fantasies together. By being open and honest, couples

Sasha Otanez
eliminate mental hang-ups and are in control of their emotional and
physical love. There are four general rules of swingers: loyalty to the
primary relationships, restriction on physical engagement with extradyadic partners, no emotional involvement with extra-dyadic partners,
and honesty and openness about involvement with other people.
Swinging is a valid lifestyle, but only if your belief system allows it,
meaning that there cant be any guilt or remorse. Swinging would be
morally wrong if the foundation of participation wasnt based in truth
the couple must have a fundamental alignment on values regarding
sex, marriage, and communication. Some swingers stated that only
those who are socially well adjusted and of good mental health can
manage this successfully. A disadvantage most swingers found were
people outside of swinging who didnt understand or didnt try to
understand. One swinger said narrow minded people who think they
can dictate their morality onto others is the downside.
Union formation, by marriage or cohabitation, is one of the
primary events in adulthood. Cohabitation is a living arrangement in
which two people romantically involved choose to live together without
making the formal commitment of marriage. It is a common choice for
people in the 21st century in Western countries led by changing social
views regarding marriage, gender roles, and religion. Today in the
United States, cohabitation is seen as a natural step in the dating
process.

Sasha Otanez
Until the mid-18th century the difference between marriage and
cohabitation was unclear until Hardwickes Marriage Act passed in
1753. This Act declared that all marriage ceremonies were to be
conducted by a minister in a church or chapel of the Church of England
to be legally binding. However, common-law marriage still remained
popular after the act was passed. Cohabitation has existed for a long
time, yet the modern trends on which its based upon are different
than the past. It increases in a context where conventional marriage is
a clearly defined and dominant social institution. In the South, anticohabitation laws are closely intertwined with racial segregation. In
various states interracial cohabitation and interracial marriage were
illegal until the 1960s. When both of those became legal, race-neutral
anti-cohabitation laws remained law. Historian Elizabeth Peck believes
that cohabitation has remained the most common on the lower end of
the socioeconomic scale. In her novel Not Just Roommates Peck
states that cohabitation was often considered poor peoples marriage
as it is more flexible than formal matrimony. She further states that
historically, poor people dependent on public aid have been subjected
to the midnight raid which targeted welfare mothers in order to find
cohabiters and to throw the mother off welfare aid. Peck says that the
government heavily invests in the federal funding of the promotion of
legal marriage and that the government is committed to the belief

Sasha Otanez
that poverty can be reduced by the government walking the welfare
mother down the aisle.
Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo through ought the 19th
century until the 1970s. As with swingers, there has been little
research done on cohabiters. Before 1995, the U.S. Census Bureau
identified any unrelated opposite sex couples living with no other
adults as Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters yet this is
difficult to measure as in many studies cohabiters are included with
other unmarried persons such as never married, divorced, widowed,
and separated. Since cohabitations are generally shorter-lived unions,
researchers report that there are not clear start and end dates, and
that the long-term effects of cohabitation are difficult to document.
Research increased in the 1980s as the trend accelerated and data
sources provided nationally representative datasets designed for
studying cohabitation.
Increase of cohabitation was first noted in the 1970s, which was
initially inferred from household composition because of few data
sources. The deinstitutionalization of marriage the weakening of
social and legal norms that regulate peoples behavior towards
marriage is a major factor in the rise of cohabitation. Other major
factors had influence as well, such as higher divorce rates, older age at
first marriage, and more births outside marriage. Historically, Western
countries have been influenced by Christian doctrines on sex, which

Sasha Otanez
opposed unmarried cohabitation. A few social factors and changes still
led to an increase in cohabitation despite this. Cohabitation regained
acceptance during the sexual revolution in the 1960s and 1970s. High
rates of participation of women in the workforce, along with
widespread availability of highly effective contraceptives, led towards
women making individual choices over their reproduction with
decreased reliance on male partners for financial stability. Postwar
illustrated marriage is no longer the permanent institution it once was
due to divorce, remarriage, stepfamilies, and single parenthood. The
fall of Communist governments in Central and Eastern Europe in the
late 1980s and early 1990s, led societies to enter a new era of
increased social freedom with less rigid rules. The rise of cohabitation
and the legislation of same sex relationships have contributed to
popular and political anxieties about family transformation and its
social implications. Researchers found that cohabitation is used as a
form of courtship a pathway to marriage or a tried marriage for
different sex couples. As same sex formalization becomes legally
possible, same sex couples now also begin to view cohabitation as a
trial marriage. The growing secularization of American life means that
people are less likely to feel stigmatized for cohabiting. People prize
the freedom and flexibility that cohabitation affords them. It is also
more difficult for Americans without college degrees to get and stay
married; in one study researchers found that women with bachelors

Sasha Otanez
degrees or higher were more likely to be currently married (63%) than
those who did not have a high school diploma or GED (49%). With men
the ration was 62%: 53%. Cohabitation became central to the rise of
individualism, secularization, and the de-traditionalization of society.
In the United States there are 112 million unmarried people over
the age of 18, which represents about 47% of the adult population (US
Census 2012). The rise of cohabitation comes in very large numbers,
however whether this is due to the popularity of cohabitation rising, or
lack of earlier research, its difficult to tell. Before 1970 living together
outside of marriage was uncommon but by the late 1990s at least 5060% of couples cohabitate. . In 1960 when cohabitation was illegal in
the U.S., there was an estimated 450,000 couples living together and
by 2011 that number increased by 7.5 million. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau over 3 million people were unmarried and living
together in 1991 and the number rose to 8 million in 2012. The number
of cohabitating unmarried partners increased by 88% between 1990
and 2007. About 75% of cohabiters plan to marry their partners
(Cohabitation in the US 2002) and about two-fifths of children are
expected to live in a cohabitating household at some point (U.S.
Census Bureau 2000). In a population study done in 2000, it was found
that 41% of first births by unmarried women are born to cohabiting
partners. Outside of the United States cohabitation exists as well, if not
even more. In Sweden it is estimated that almost all couples that get

Sasha Otanez
married live together first and it has been the norm since the 1970s.
In Sweden it is almost a universal experience with 96% of married
Swedish women had been previously been in a cohabitational
relationship by the late 1970s. Canada began to record data on
cohabitation in 1981 and since then found that 1 in 7 families are
composed of unmarried couples, compared to fifteen years ago when it
was 1 in 17. In France 65% of all first unions were cohabitational by the
early 1980s. According to the Yearbook of Nordic Statistics 1996, in
1994 the percentage of unmarried cohabiting couples was: 10% of all
family units in Denmark, 13% in Finland, and 9% in Iceland. In England,
cohabitation before marriage grew from 1 in 4 couples in the 1960s to
7 in 10 couples in the early 1990s. In fact, because the number of
cohabitation is large enough in England and Wales, a legal right had to
be given to cohabiting partners incase the relationship dissolves.
Cohabitation is widely more popular in most areas other than
American. Among people who are currently married, approximately
two-thirds say they lived together before making a marriage
commitment. Cohabitation is not as socially acceptable as marriage,
but is socially tolerated because its expected that cohabiting partners
will eventually become married.
There are various reasons why couples choose to cohabitate.
Since half of marriages end in divorce, cohabitation is a way for
couples to live together without committing to marriage right away.

Sasha Otanez
Many couples state that the primary reason for cohabitation is to find
out if they are compatible; they see it as a way to determine whether
they can agree to a longer-term marital commitment. Cohabitation
gives couples an opportunity to see how they would adjust to each
others habits on a more intensive basis. Couples also move in together
in an effort to spend more time together since things like working
different jobs, living in different states, and having different routines
make it difficult to spend time together. By cohabitating, couples have
the convenience of more time to include both routines and interests
into the relationship. Another reason to cohabitate is for couples to
save money once couples have established that they care for each
other and want to see their relationship move forward, they view
cohabitating as a way to save money on food, rent, and other living
expenses. Some people who cohabitate dont have marriage as the
end goal, being that they oppose traditional marriage based on
connotations of ownership, disagree with religion and gendered roles,
or are indifferent to it because they think marriage offers no real
advantage. Historically, social pressure has been for cohabiting couples
to marry for different sex couples, however for same sex couples it has
taken the form of opposition to their sexual orientation. Cohabitation is
common among same sex couples due to being unable to marry.
Researchers argue that those who cohabit before marriage have
different characteristics than those who dont cohabit. They state that

Sasha Otanez
cohabits have less commitment to marriage as a permanent
institution; accept divorce as an appropriate means to end a poor
relationship, and an emphasis on individualism. Other factors and traits
that affect who cohabit can be defined by age, socioeconomic status,
and personal attitude. Cohabiters tend to be younger than people in
marital relationships U.S. Census shows 38% of all cohabiters are
between ages 25 and 34 and another 20% between ages 35 and 44.
Within cohabiting relationships children are less likely to be born and a
major reason for low fertility rates is because couples tend to abandon
cohabitation when children are in the immediate future. Those who
cohabit often have lower education levels and poorer employment
status. Another characteristic researchers found was that those who
were children of divorce were more likely to cohabit, with a survey
stating women who didnt live with both parents at the age of 14 were
more likely to be cohabiting than those who grew up with both parents.
Cohabiters often partially reject societies dominant value system and
tend to perceive social rules in flexible terms.
Cohabitation opposes traditional marriage, as it is not always its
intended goal to be in a monogamous relationship, procreate, and
follow the standard Christian tradition. However, cohabitation has also
become an alternative to early marriage being that it is less
institutionalized and doesnt have the same long-term horizon as
married couples, so its not surprising that they have some similarities.

Sasha Otanez
Cohabitation, like marriage, involves a shared household between
intimate partners, pooled economic resources, sexual exclusivity, and a
gender division of labor in the household. Yet with these similarities,
there are still pretty clear differences. Cohabitation can be entered into
at any time with no formal requirements and can also be ended simply
and informally upon agreement of both parties. Cohabits can define
terms of their relationship without being bound by marriage laws, and
dont have to follow strict procedures to dissolve the living
arrangement. Unlike in a divorce, cohabits dont have an obligation to
divide their property, yet this can create more conflict without legal
guidelines. The law is traditionally biased in favor of marriage as public
policy supports marriage as necessary to the stability of the family
the basic societal unit. In order to preserve and encourage marriage,
the law reserves many rights and privileges to married persons. Since
cohabitants dont have the same rights as married individuals, marital
property laws and laws regarding distribution of property at death, do
not apply to them. In some states there is recognition of common-law
partners after 2 years and are equivalent to a legal marriage in terms
of child support, spousal maintenance, income tax, and unemployment
insurance. California leads the nation in the number of cities and
counties that provide benefits to domestic partners. In addition, New
York City, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia all allow couples to
register as domestic partners and to dissolve their partnership if they

Sasha Otanez
separate. Cohabits are advised to address issues in a written
agreement similar to a premarital agreement. This should include an
outline for dividing expenses, property, bank accounts, and death.
Cohabitation is seen as similar to marriages, yet the law and society
makes it difficult to sustain a happy relationship. Compared to those
planning to marry, those cohabiting have an overall poorer relationship
quality.
There are various reasons why marriage can be good for ones
mental health. Marriage connects spouses with one anothers social
networks, which expands the number of people who can be drawn on
for assistance. Through marriage people achieve a positively valued
social status that other people respect and support. People benefit
from the institutional nature of marriage marriage involves social
norms and expectations that clarify spouses rights and responsibilities
towards one another and reduce relationship ambiguity. Marriage
provides financial advantages over singlehood because since its
institutionalized, there are benefits such as access to spouses health
insurance, tax deduction for ones spouse, the option to file joint tax
returns, and the right to make medical decisions for one spouse. Longterm commitment implied by marriage reduces relationship insecurity
and the gradual accumulation of a shared history with ones spouse is
a source of meaning and identity to many people. There are many
societal pressures from parents, older relatives, and friends, who view

Sasha Otanez
formalization as a higher level of commitment. Many long-term
cohabitants who later marry often say their wedding made a difference
to their identity or to how others treat them. In a survey now married
couples stated that they felt more secure or settled since they married.
For the previous cohabits, marriage enhanced feelings of dedication
between partners as well as security because they viewed being
married meant that they were no long on trial, being that
cohabitation is often understood as a trial marriage. Most cohabiting
couples feel they need to accomplish a set of goals before they marry
and increased economic security prompts heterosexual cohabitants to
convert their relationship to marriages. For different sex couples
marriage is often viewed as a rite of passage, an act of maturity or
greater commitment, the creation of a new durable family unit, or that
marriage provided a secure environment to raise children. For same
sex couples, marriage is expected to provide them with more legal
rights and protections, a stronger sense of belonging, better links with
kin, and a greater respect and acknowledgement for their
relationships. Cohabitation provides a choice for couples, as it is a
possible compromise for some, or a possible form of stability for
others.
While cohabitation is generally a short-term arrangement,
couples who lived together before marriage tend to divorce early in
their marriage. Marriages following cohabitations during the 1970s to

Sasha Otanez
1990s had a higher rate of divorce than marriages that began without
prior cohabitation, however studies show that age is a small factor in
this. Those committed to cohabitation or marriage at the age of 18 saw
a 60% rate of divorce but those at 23 saw a 30% divorce rate. Many
couples once their lives become entwined through joint assets or rental
agreements slide from dating to cohabitation without fully considering
the implications. This process of sliding is known as the inertia effect.
The inertia effect is when in a relationship, it tends to become more
difficult for couples to break up because of their greater investment in
the relationship over time and its difficult to accept the relationship
isnt working. This results with the couple that would otherwise not
have married, sliding into marriage anyway. This process of sliding
tends to be gendered, and making a public commitment through legal
marriage while enhancing feelings of dedication, also provides more
constraints to separation. Most couples instead of making a conscious
decision to share their life together, they pick marriage over the
inconvenience of a break up.
Most objections towards cohabitation come from religious
opposition to non-marital units, and there is a heavy social pressure for
couples to get married. Many societies have certain norms regarding
the status a person is to achieve by a certain age. For example, young
people are expected to get an education, find a job, leave the parents,
and create an independent life, which may or may not include getting

Sasha Otanez
married and starting a family. In countries where young adults remain
unmarried this can be seen as avoiding responsibility and
commitments and can create a negative impact on their family
relationships. In some cases choosing cohabitation as a living
arrangement may lead to deterioration in a young persons relations
with his or her family. In some societies, it is a moral view that
marriage is the only correct route to forming a family; therefore
cohabitation is not viewed as a proper living arrangement.
Cohabitation is often found immoral based on the religious beliefs that
sex before marriage and living together in a non-marital relationship is
a sin, and also creates a possibility for single parent homes or homes
with unmarried parents. There has also been found a greater risk of
STDs the rate of STDs among cohabits is 6 times higher than among
those married. Cohabiters also have higher poverty rates; those who
never marry have 28% less wealth than those continuously married.
The biggest concern and opposition towards cohabitation other than
religious reasons, is the well being of children within cohabiting
families.
Data from the National Survey of Family Growth in 2002 states
that 2.9 million children under the age of 15 lived with an unmarried
parent and his or her unmarried partner. Results showed two fifths of
children will live in a cohabiting household before the age of 16 and
that children who are 12-17 years old with cohabiting parents are 6

Sasha Otanez
times more likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems. The
poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is 5 times greater
than those in married households. Poorer child outcomes are linked to
lower household incomes and greater instability in cohabiting unions.
Studies also show children living in families where the mother is
cohabiting do not fare as well as those where the mother is married.
Women often end up with the responsibility of marriage and caring for
children without legal protection. Cohabiting parents may face legal
difficulties if they separate without a written parenting agreement.
Generally an unmarried father must acknowledge paternity by filing an
affidavit and both parents must actively participate in the raising of the
child in order to have a legitimate claim to custody. Traditionally
children of unmarried couples were considered illegitimate and did not
have the same legal rights as children of married couples but the laws
changed in the 70s as the Supreme Court found that treating
illegitimate children differently violated the 14th Amendment. By
legitimating their children and being involved in the childs upbringing,
unmarried parents establish their right to seek custody or visitation if
the family breaks up. Legitimization is also important for inheritance.
Cohabitation and swinging are both seen as threats to the
institution of marriage but in different ways. Cohabiters threaten the
tradition of marriage because there is a possibility of raising a child in a
house with unmarried or single parents a general societal

Sasha Otanez
disapproval, even though that possibility is present in marriages as
well, even more so with divorce rates rising. Swinging threatens
traditional marriage because while those who swing are in fact
married, their lifestyle promotes infidelity and promiscuity, and
American society does not support or approve of expressing such
behaviors.
The philosophical foundation of cohabiters and swingers are
along the same ideas. Cohabitation follows David Humes philosophy
that morality is relative and what is good for one person is not good for
another. Hume believes that there is nothing wrong with going against
tradition - which is based upon extended family, cultural expectations,
and community - if it makes you happy. If it there is a conflict between
happiness and culture norms, it is noble to choose your happiness first.
Hume believes that if your family believes there is only one right thing
to do like get married, it may not always be the best thing for you to
personally do Hume follows passion over tradition. Cohabiting also
follows John Stewart Mills philosophy, being that as long as it is not
harming children, breaking the law, or infringing upon anyones
freedom then it is no one elses business. While research shows that
children have poorer outcomes within cohabiting unions, it is not
intentionally harming children, instead falling victim to socioeconomic
status with little support for those in poverty. Mills philosophy applies
to the swinging philosophy as well. Swinging is a consensual activity

Sasha Otanez
for all parties, and it isnt against the law which follows Mills idea that
one cannot infringe upon anothers freedom everything we do
together has to be consensual. For swingers, little research has been
done on the outcome of swinging on children. This is mostly because
those who swing are often older and their children are not in the
household, or the only harm done is emotionally to the swingers as
they feel shamed for their lifestyle and feel like they have to hide who
they are from their children and acquaintances, for fear they wont be
accepted. Societys disapproval stems from religious influence and can
be compared to Nietzsches statement on empty temples. When
Nietzsche says we are worshipping in empty temples and that there is
no God, he is saying that we are continuing the tradition of attending
church not for God but out of routine; a respect for traditions and
culture. In this sense, America is a Puritan society that bases its morals
on the previous religious influence the nation was founded on, yet
most people continue to live by this moral code even if theyre not
religious. Nietzsches empty temples can be compared to the customs
and morals we follow when considering traditional marriage and what
falls outside its boundaries.
Cohabitation and swinging is not approved by the general society
cohabitation is not acceptable and a long-term choice, and swinging
is not a lifestyle society feels it should acknowledge, which is shown in
lack of research. The lack of research on both topics is an incredible

Sasha Otanez
example of how our society views alternatives to marriage. If any
aspect of it poses a small threat to society or the idea of marriage,
instead of investing resources to see if this is true, American society is
more likely to sweep it under the rug all together. Alternative lifestyles
that are ignored like this creates the idea that these lifestyles are
immoral and the media promotes this. Instead of educating the nation
on alternatives to marriage, Americas intentional ignorance creates a
cloud of deviance and secrecy around these topics, however it is
immoral to do so. It is the job of a society to be accepting of all
lifestyles, and we have a duty to be educated on all of the various
alternatives to marriage. We do not benefit as a society, if the society
we rely on to help us grow as people, refuses to acknowledge these
popular lifestyles.

Citations

Sasha Otanez

Dr. Bergstrand, Curtis; Williams, Jennifer; Todays Alternative

Marriage Styles: The Case of Swingers; Electronic Journal of
Human Sexuality; Volume 3; 10 October 2000
Bergstrand, Curtis; Sinski Jennifer; Swinging in America: Love,
Sex, and Marriage in the 21st Century; 2000
Fernandes, Edward; The Swinging Paradigm: An Evaluation of
the Marital and Sexual Satisfaction of Swingers; Electronic
Journal of Human Sexuality; Volume 12, 23 January 2009
Ray, Barbara; Cohabitations Effect on Kids; Psychology Today;
19 May 2013
Brown, Susan; Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and
Policy Perspectives; J Marriage Fam; 1 October 2010
Gaspard, Terry; Cohabitation With Children: What Are The
Risks?; Huffpost Divorce; 12 November 2013
Fox, Lauren; The Science of Cohabitation: A Step Toward
Marriage, Not A Rebellion; The Atlantic; 20 March 2014
Jenks, Richard; A Comparative Study of Swingers and
Nonswingers: Attitudes and Beliefs; Indiana University
Southeast; Lifestyles: A Journal of Changing Patterns, 1985
Kimberly, Claire; Permission To Cheat: Ethnography of a
Swingers Convention; Sexuality and Culture; 19 July 2015
Rubin, Roger; Alternative Lifestyles Revisited, or Whatever
Happened to Swingers, Group Marriages, and Communes?;
Journal of Family Issues; Volume 22; No. 6; September 2001
Baranowski-Rataj, Anna; What Would Your Parents Say? The
Impact of Cohabitation Among Young People on Their
Relationships With Their Parents; 15 October 2013
Fitch, Catherine; Goeken, Ron; Ruggles, Steven; The Rise of
Cohabitation in the United States: New Historical Estimates;
University of Minnesota; March 2005
Goodwin PY; Mosher WD; Chandra A; Marriage and
Cohabitations in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on
Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth;
National Center for Health Statistics; Vital Health Stat 23 (28);
2010
Amato, Paul; Marriage, Cohabitation, and Mental Health; Family
Matters; No. 96, 2015
Baker, Maureen PHD; Vivienne, Elizabeth PHD; Tying the Knot:
The Impact of Formalization After Long-Term Cohabitation;
Department of Sociology; University of Auckland; Journal of
Family Studies; 2013; pg. 254-266
Kuperberg, Arielle; Age at Coresidence, Premarital Cohabitation,
and Marriage Dissolution: 1985-2009; Journal of Marriage and
Family 16; April 2014

Sasha Otanez

Franck, Dennis; No Marriage? No Ring? No Problem!

Wests Encyclopedia of American Law; Edition 2; 2008; The Gate
Group; 18 April 2016
Stritof, Sheri; Cohabitation Facts and Statistics You Need to
Know; About Relationships; 21 March 2016
Cohabitation Trends and Patterns; Marriage and Family
Encyclopedia
Martin, Nicole; Practice of living together Without Marriage Has
Long, Complex History; 15 August 2013
Pleck, Elizabeth; Not Just Roommates: Cohabitation After the
Sexual Revolution
Cohabitation; International Encyclopedia of Marriage and
Family; 2003