Cohabitation Nation

Will a Panopticon prevent cohabitation at Vanderbilt? | Posted 9:03 AM

Vanderbilt University considers installing cameras at the entrances to dorms:

At the Interhall meeting, however, several voiced their concerns regarding the tapes being used to get students in trouble for violating university alcohol or cohabitation policies.

"We have a lot of other things we could be doing than seeing if someone was spending the night in someone else's dorm," Atwood said.

However, Assistant Vice Chancellor Mark Bandas said that if a tape were pulled due to a reported crime, and a student was seen violating a university policy, action would have to be taken against him.

"When we go back and review the tapes, we see what we see," Bandas said. "If Vanderbilt students are doing something wrong, it will be pursued."

Suggested reading for Vanderbilt students, a favorite from my college days, Foucault's Discipline and Punish:

Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers...

Similarly, it does not matter what motive animates him: the curiosity of the indiscreet, the malice of a child, the thirst for knowledge of a philosopher who wishes to visit this museum of human nature, or the perversity of those who take pleasure in spying and punishing. The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed. The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power.

In other words, Vanderbilt students must live with the knowledge that video cameras will film them if they enter their significant other's dorm, yet they don't know if the tapes will ever be watched. Yet the possiblity of being caught is something they take that into account every time they consider cohabitation. Suggested alternative: unitcest.

On the front lines in Des Moines | Posted 9:40 PM

The article on legislation in Iowa speaks to lengths opponents of cohabitation will go.

Honorarily British | Posted 9:20 AM

The Times of London article appears to have been reprinted in The Halifax Herald Limited with the headline, "British couple pens book to show how happily unmarried people can be." Honored to be British for a day.

"Welfare reform must be Washington's idea of reality programming" | Posted 9:07 AM

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman writes:

Just as we recover from the abject humiliation of "Joe Millionaire," along come our friends from Fox with another variation on the theme.

The new, slightly more democratic offering invites the public to do the matchmaking. Under the banner, "You Watch, You Vote, They Marry," we are asked to pair up five couples. These daring duos will meet for the first time on their engagement day and go off on a journey to marriage "in hopes they have found their one true love."

This show is dubbed, "Married By America." But it is by no means the only, or even the most official way to be married by America this year. In Washington, Congress is ready to turn itself into a hitching post.

On the eve of Valentine's Day, the House passed a bill that would allot $1.5 billion over five years to promote marriage as part of welfare reform. The Senate version would raise the federal dowry another $50 million a year.

If only we can get the Fox News Channel -- otherwise known as the official broadcasting station of the Bush administration -- to sign on, we could have a prime-time show matching poor single mothers on welfare with the men of our dreams. ...

"The significant-other rule" | Posted 9:28 PM

Marcia Chambers of Golf Digest asks "What's a family?":

The bedrock of country club life in America is marriage and the family. It is the unit upon which club policies are built in every area: membership, voting rights, inheritance, access to the golf course. But lifestyles have changed. How couples live today is vastly different than how they lived when country clubs took form more than a hundred years ago.

Twenty years ago, no country club in the nation would give a member's steady girlfriend the same rights as a spouse. These days, some clubs have adopted a policy, known typically as "the significant-other rule," that permits full golf rights, some even permitting a new person to be named on a yearly or less than yearly basis.

But what if the couple is of the same sex? In a lawsuit believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, a gay couple has asserted discriminatory practices at a country club....

To bed but not to wed | Posted 11:45 PM

The Times of London article.

Unmarried In The News | Posted 4:38 PM

The Associated Press reports:

It used to be that love and marriage went together. These days, that's not necessarily the case.

The 2000 U.S. Census found that nearly 5.5 million households, or about one in 20, consisted of unmarried partners. They range from young couples living together before marriage to elderly couples living together for convenience, and about 10 percent are gay couples.

While state and federal laws include many financial protections for traditional couples, such as estate tax exemptions, there are often no such provisions for unmarried couples. That makes it imperative that they take steps to ensure their joint financial security, financial advisers say.

Would you this marry this man? | Posted 7:40 PM

"Sandy Grossman is serious about finding a bride by Valentine's Day, and drives around in a 1959 Cadillac ambulance topped with a billboard advertisement for a bride.

The electric sign promises 'Free Sports Car With Marriage' and lists his e-mail address, photo and vital stats: "43, 5'11, 175 pounds and NEVER MARRIED.'"

Gawker Party Update | Posted 7:33 PM

LS recounts his conversation with RM.

Will cohabitation bring the downfall of Yale? | Posted 8:52 PM

The nation's oldest collegiate daily editorializes about cohabitation, and one alum warns that nothing less than the school's reputation is at stake:

I care as much about Yale as anyone. And I know that this policy appeals to many students. And I know these students care about Yale as much as I do. But as a mother, a liberal, and an alum I have to voice a concern that I think should be heard... Please don't take Yale out of the mainstream by changing this policy - one word: dads. As backward as they may be, most dads don't want their daughters shacking up with university approval. I know it's going to happen, but let's not advertise it. It's hard enough to send your daughter off to school at seventeen, let alone send her off to co-habitate with some guy she'll break up with and then have to endure his bringing other women home to their suite. In short, Yale will lose good kids because of this policy, a policy which symbolically hurts Yale while pragmatically changing nothing - if some students insist on sharing a lease (rather than just sleeping together like we did), they are free to move off campus.

In the larger sense, this liberalization of the housing policy will indeed make Yale more like Oberlin, Brandies, and Swarthmore. Is this really what we want? These schools are way out in left field and are basically meaningless in the national landscape - degrees from these schools are worthless compared to Yale's. And it's because they attract the kind of people who approve of policies like this - people who do not succeed in the real world. Let's all do what's best for Yale's reputation, and thus our degrees, and thus what's best for us, and keep the policy we have.

[To read other comments, scroll to the bottom of the editorial and click on "discuss this article."]

Dating In America, continued | Posted 12:03 PM

G. writes with update on her date last night:

OK, so I am officially "in like", and totally laughing at myself for not being able to tell if our post-show coffee date was a success or not because we didn't kiss or anything. Laughing at myself because that is quite normal behavior -- to not kiss -- the first time a man and woman meet. Oh yeah. I forgot.

And now I am in the girl position of ihopehecalls. Eeek...I'm going to bed now...

The purpose of dating is to have fun. | Posted 10:14 AM

Voice of America, which is funded by U.S. government and broadcast worldwide, chose dating in America as a topic for a pre-Valentine's Day feature:

There are a number of ways to find someone to date. Some people meet at work. Others meet by chance in a public place. Still others visit places where other single people go. Or they can use businesses that help organize dates. Many men and women find dates through services they find on the Internet computer system.

The purpose of dating is to have fun. Sometimes people who date develop a close relationship. Some people decide to live together, yet remain unmarried. Others decide to get married.

In the past, young people in America usually lived with their parents until they got married. Today, some still do. Yet most young people live a more independent life. They have a job. They travel. They rent or own their own apartment or house. They wait longer to get married. While waiting, they date....

Often a friend will plan a meeting between two unmarried people who do not know each other. The friend thinks the two people will like each other. This is called a “blind date.” The people involved are not blind. They just have never seen each other. However, most unmarried people have to find their own dates. Many go to public eating, drinking or dancing places. Every city in America has them. Some places are popular with young people. Others are for older people....

When single people finally get together, what do they do on a date? People of all ages like to do many of the same things. They go to restaurants or night clubs. They go to movies, museums and concerts. They watch sporting events, or play sports themselves.

Dating in America can be fun. It is also a serious business. Why? One woman gave this answer: "People are always looking for the perfect relationship," she says. "No matter how old they are, they are always looking for this thing called 'love'. And love is sometimes hard to find."

"It's definitely been my best housing year ever" | Posted 8:30 PM

Jane Pek writes in the Yale Herald about the debate over co-ed housing at Yale. The student-led effort to promote co-ed housing calls it "cohabitation," which is a bit of a misnomer, considering that many friends in platonic relationships wish to share co-ed suites. Nonetheless, the story is a highly entertaining read. A few highlights:

[Dean Richard] Brodhead mentioned tension over co-ed bathrooms, which he believes shows continuing concerns over cohabitation. “I have spent far more of my life than I ever would have dreamed answering questions about shared sex bathrooms at Yale,” Brodhead said. “My sense is that this is not the matter of easy and casual comfort for everybody that people like to pretend it is.”

Calhoun experimented with co-ed housing under Dean Eustace Theodore, PC ’63, in the 1970s, Sledge said. “[Theodore] said it was just a disaster—almost always, tensions arose among the people involved. Ambiguity arose about the nature of people’s relationships, and it became too complex to negotiate friendships when romance was a possibility,” Sledge said. “They had to stop doing it, not because of any moralistic or ethical reason, but because it was too impractical to administer.”...

Lindsay is supportive of her college’s co-ed housing rules. “Living with members of the opposite sex is a valuable life skill, and one that most people have already had to face at home with brothers or sisters,” Lindsay said. “I think that manufactured gender separations are outdated except in cases where people ask for them,” Lindsay said....

One student who would love for Yale to adopt a cohabitation policy spoke only on the condition of anonymity, as she lives in violation of current undergraduate housing rules. While she technically stays in a single, her room is connected to a suite of male students through a firedoor that is illegally kept open, making her living situation the equivalent of one big suite. “It’s definitely been my best housing year ever,” she said. “Guys are so much easier to live with. There’s no beating around the bush the way you have when you’re living with seven girls.”

The naughtiness has shed from living in sin | Posted 10:32 PM

Davina Baum and Sara Bir write from two different "perspectives on a girl's big day, prolonged." Bir writes:

Over the years, the naughtiness has shed from living in sin. In our present cultural climate, it's not even sinful. Not that it matters much to begin with. For many couples, it's just a fact of life, put into being by a series of circumstances--rent, careers, companionship, love. Ideally, love.

But what's so bad about making it official? "When I was young, people just didn't do that," a relationship expert otherwise known as my mother reminds me. "A couple would never, ever just live together." In forgoing the courtship for the convenience of cohabitation, she says, a couple misses out on that anticipation, the other side of the rainbow to come, the longing the Beach Boys expressed so sweetly and sincerely in "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

I can see her point: if two people are serious enough about each other to share their snoring habits, dirty underwear, and utility bills, why not get the papers to prove it? I can also see that in love and war, things are not always best done by the book.

Living Together Lyrics: Part I | Posted 8:27 PM

In honor of music blogger Mike Palmer, today begins an ongoing series of unmarried song lyrics. For the first installment, Let's Live Together, by Robbie Fulks:

The moment I saw you, I wanted to know you
I guess I fell for you right from the start
Now I want to have you always beside me
So let's live together, sweetheart.

Yeah, let's live together: these ain't the cave times
I'm not a hunter-gatherer, or a backwater Baptist
I want your lovin', I don't want babies
(alt: I want your lovin', not a long line of strangers)
So let's live together, sweetheart.

Now, not very long ago, this would be scandal
From friends and from loved ones, we'd be forced apart
But those days are over; we're free, white, and single
So let's live together, sweetheart

Now, side by side, each night, we watch the sun falling
Life's easy on a two-earner income
One day when we die, we'll be boiled in a cauldron
But right now, we're having some fun.

Yeah, let's live together! This ain't Alabama!
I'm not a dull Rotarian! You're not a Jesus moron!
I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies,
So let's live together, sweetheart!

Valentine's Day in Eugene | Posted 9:33 PM

February 14 marks the start of a domestic partner registry in Eugene, Oregon. "I think we have four or five (couples) lined up already, and this is just word of mouth,” said Mary Feldman, an employee at Eugene city record’s office. “People have called in asking about it, and we have taken the appointments,” she said. “Now we’re really going to start getting the word out.”

Groundhog Day Roundup | Posted 11:29 AM

Goundhogs may actually be seeking "sweethearts, not shadows, a researcher says. What’s more, the girl groundhogs invite the boys in for a visit." What's even more is that they may cohabit for up to two days without mating... Cullen Murphy on his own private Groundhog Day in The Atlantic Monthly... Groundhog Day, the movie, as therapy...

Will you be my de facto?: Language, Part III | Posted 7:35 PM

My earlier post on "de facto" reminded me of an email I received from D.S. in Australia, which I am re-posting an excerpt of here with his permission:

In the recent article at Salon.com you talked about the problem of terminology. Here in Australia we call the sort of relationships you're talking about 'de facto' relationships to distinguish them from marriage, which by definition is a de jure relationship. That much at least is very simple, and avoids the sort of problems with 'unmarried' or 'single' you mentioned. Our terminology is clear and non-offensive. De facto relationships have had essentially the same rights and responsibilities as marriages for years.... Anyway, here's hoping America catches up to the late twentieth century sometime soon.

Out-of-wedlock, illegitimacy: Language, Part II | Posted 4:20 PM

The Washington Times is harping again about "out-of-wedlock" births. Dorian and I wrote an op-ed in The Times in May 2001, in response to a series of articles the paper ran about what they termed "illegitimate births."

"Decades ago we stripped the word 'illegitimate' of its meaning as a legal category because most people agreed that innocent children should not be punished because of their parents' marital status. If we believe that every individual child has value as a human being, it's time for those who claim to care about children to stop labeling them with an anachronistic word that says they're not genuine, not legal, and not acceptable," we wrote.