Coeducation and Cohabitation

The advent of coeducation—men and women attending the same college—was radical. Although women had been attending traditionally male colleges since the mid-1800s (beginning with Oberlin College in 1837), they lived in separate dorms from men. Universities operated according to the concept of in loco parentis, which meant taking over the responsibility of parents; students’ activities were strictly monitored, especially when it came to encounters with the opposite sex. However, with the vast cultural changes of the mid-20th century, the way that men and women related to each other changed. Now it was not only acceptable but normal for men and women to be familiar with each other, and to have casual friendships. In accordance with these shifts, students began to ask for coed housing on campuses. Parents and others worried that living in a coed dorm would lead students to engage in copious amounts of illicit sex and drug use [1]. However, numerous studies and surveys conducted to determine the effects of coed housing in the early 1970s found that, rather than encouraging undesirable activities, coed dorms simply helped students feel more comfortable around each other. As one dean put it, “there is no longer a mystique about male and female qualities because students like to know one another as persons, friends, classmates, not as future mates and sex objects." [2] Fairly soon, there was no demand for single-sex dorms at all; in fact, many schools today do not have single-sex dorms [3].

Along with this shift in gender relations came a shift in courtship. It was now normal for dating to involve intimate activities and sex outside of marriage. This change, which made coed living possible, also made possible the widespread acceptance of cohabitation on college campuses.

Cohabitation is defined as a situation where an unmarried heterosexual couple lives together. Whereas coeducational living involves male and female students living in the same building, cohabitation involves male and female students sharing a room. After coed dorms became the norm, cohabitation was still radical. Studies from the 1970s, when cohabitation was becoming popular, reported that over half of cohabiting students at most universities did not tell their parents of the situation, and made an effort to conceal it from them [4]. Even today, when cohabitation is common on college campuses, many parents would be very opposed to their child living with someone of the opposite gender.

In many ways, the phenomenon of cohabitation has become a modern replacement for the grisette. Both relationships involve a college-age heterosexual couple living and having sex together outside of marriage. Additionally, they both respond to the same needs, namely the performance of domestic tasks and—most notably—companionship and preparation for marriage.

In 1830s France, grisettes took care of male students’ domestic duties as part of a mutual agreement [5]. While cohabiting college students today have some of these needs taken care of for them by dining halls and janitorial staff, there are still tasks that must be done for themselves. Partners in cohabiting relationships have had to negotiate the performance of these tasks. While some studies have reported that couples shared some household tasks, there is greater evidence that in most relationships it was girls who performed most domestic duties [6]. Therefore, the division of labor in cohabiting relationships is similar to that in the relationships of grisettes. In both situations the male college student’s domestic needs are mostly being taken care of by a girl he has some kind of relationship or agreement with.

The most important parallel between grisette-student relationships and cohabiting students’ relationships is that of companionship and preparation for marriage. Several studies of cohabitation report that a common motivation for entering into this relationship, as well as a perceived benefit of it, is companionship [7]. Both grisettes’ relationships and cohabiting relationships have been described as a method of preparation for marriage. Modern cohabitation has been identified as a step in the courtship process potentially leading to marriage, functioning as a “trial marriage” [8]; cohabiting couples who married reported having an easy transition to marital roles, because they had already been practicing them [9]. To the 19th century student, the grisette was effectively a “temporary wife” [10], practice for when he eventually graduated from university and found a wife within his own social class [11]. Both relationships give young people an opportunity to simulate marriage before actually marrying, which would serve to increase the quality of their relationship once they did marry.

 

[1] Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Marshall, W. J., & Clark, C. (2009). The Decline of In Loco Parentis and the Shift to Coed Housing on College Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1): p. 26-27

[2] Poulson, S. L. (1995). From single-sex to coeducation: The advent of coeducation at georgetown, 1965-1975. U.S. Catholic Historian, 13(4): p. 132.

[3] Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Marshall, W. J., & Clark, C. (2009). The Decline of In Loco Parentis and the Shift to Coed Housing on College Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1): p. 28.

[4] Macklin, Eleanor D. 1972. “Heterosexual Cohabitation among Unmarried College Students.” The Family Coordinator 21(4): p. 468.

[5] De Labedollierre, E. 1840. "L'Etudiant en Droit." Pp. 18-24 in Curmer, L. Les Français Peints Par Eux-Mêmes : Encyclopédie Morale Du Dix-Neuvième Siècle, edited by L. Curmer. Paris: Imprimerie de Decourchant, p. 18. (http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/9286144)

[6] Stafford, Rebecca, Elaine Backman, and Pamela Dibona. 1977. “The Division of Labor among Cohabiting and Married Couples.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 39(1): p. 50.

[7] Macklin, Eleanor D. 1972. “Heterosexual Cohabitation among Unmarried College Students.” The Family Coordinator 21(4): p. 466.

[8] Henze, Lura F. and John W. Hudson. 1974. “Personal and Family Characteristics of Cohabiting and Noncohabiting College Students.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 36(4): p. 726.

[9] Risman, Barbara J., Charles T. Hill, Zick Rubin, and Letitia Anne Peplau. 1981. “Living Together in College: Implications for Courtship.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 43(1): p. 82.

[10]  De Labedollierre, E. 1840. "L'Etudiant en Droit." Pp. 18-24 in Curmer, L. Les Français Peints Par Eux-Mêmes : Encyclopédie Morale Du Dix-Neuvième Siècle, edited by L. Curmer. Paris: Imprimerie de Decourchant, p. 18. (http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/9286144)

[11]  De Labedollierre, E. 1840. "L'Etudiant en Droit." Pp. 18-24 in Curmer, L. Les Français Peints Par Eux-Mêmes : Encyclopédie Morale Du Dix-Neuvième Siècle, edited by L. Curmer. Paris: Imprimerie de Decourchant, p. 19. (http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/9286144)