Posted on 11/30/2004 4:02:40 PM PST by nickcarraway
The newly analyzed 2000 census data has revealed at least one shocker: The number of men and women 65 and older who choose to live together without getting married has nearly doubled since the 1990 census.
The AARP Bulletin reports that 266,600 unmarried partners over age 65 were cohabiting in 2000, and demographers think the numbers are much higher, since many are reluctant to report their living arrangements.
"What stops many of them from tying the knot is the prospect of financial loss, a worry that trumps any desire for the religious or social blessings of marriage," the Bulletin article states. "Remarriage may mean giving up a former spouse’s pension, Social Security and medical insurance." (Remarriage could also mean later responsibility for long-term care costs, no matter what a prenuptial agreement may state.)
More older couples skip the wedding but still find bliss
By Linda Greider
AARP Bulletin
October 2004
Demographers have been buzzing about one shocker in newly analyzed census data: The number of men and women 65 and older who choose to live together without getting married had nearly doubled in a decade.
In fact, some 9.7 million unmarried partners were cohabiting in 2000. The census counted 266,600 couples in the 65-plus group. Many experts think the numbers are much higher—some couples are reluctant to report their living arrangements—and expect them to climb as baby boomers age and Americans in general stay healthy and live longer.
Two people who weren’t surprised by the statistics are Nancy Myers, 65, and Joe Venable, 64, of Aurora, Colo. They met at a dance four years ago, and in 2003, after a full year of debate, they decided to set up housekeeping together.
"If someone had told me 10 years ago I’d feel this way, I would have said they were crazy," says Myers, a widow who was married for 39 years.
But wedding bells are not in Nancy and Joe’s future. What earlier generations used to call living in sin has become the most reasonable—and economically feasible—way for many older people to have companionship, especially after a divorce or the death of a spouse.
What stops many of them from tying the knot is the prospect of financial loss, a worry that trumps any desire for the religious or social blessings of marriage. Remarriage may mean giving up a former spouse’s pension, Social Security and medical insurance.
Myers, who has hepatitis C and is a breast cancer survivor, would lose the health benefits of her late husband, an Air Force officer, that help pay her substantial medical costs. "What would I do without his health benefits?" she says. "I’d be destitute."
Family Squabbles
Some older couples stay single in order to avoid the objections of their grown children who fear they will be displaced in their parent’s affection—and in their will—or that a new spouse will take advantage of their parent financially or emotionally.
Gerontologist Paul Takayanagi of Charlottesville, Va., mentions one of his favorite couples, Rose and Charlie, bridge-playing octogenarians who got together after their spouses died. They dated for two years, then decided to shack up despite the disapproval of their children, who thought Rose and Charlie were too old to be dating.
The children warmed up a bit when the couple signed a cohabitation agreement separating their assets and making clear who inherited what. But one of Rose’s daughters, who is in her 60s, still won’t speak to her.
For some cohabitants, traumatic marriages and divorces have made them vow never to wed again. Bob Cummings, a 66-year-old retired professor in Yorktown, Va., found that even a prenuptial agreement, prepared before his second marriage, didn’t save him from costly legal and financial hassles when the marriage broke up.
Cummings’ approach to relationships now is ultra-cautious. He’s living with a divorcee in her late 50s, but before they moved in together, the couple tested their relationship during a formal 60-day trial period. He stayed at her house six nights a week, and they hashed out a division of labor and finances to the satisfaction of each.
"I want a friend and confidante," Cummings says. "Someone to hike and travel with, someone who shares my values. I’m not against marriage, but it’s not the right choice for me."
Norman J. Hannay, a geriatric care manager in La Jolla, Calif., says most people are not against marriage—it’s remarriage they oppose. "Our society is based on the expectation of one marriage that lasts a lifetime," he says.
But living together isn’t always the best choice. Hannay tried to mediate one family tangle involving an older couple, both of whom were widowed and wealthy. Lawyers had persuaded the two that commingling their finances was unwise. So the pair turned their long-planned wedding into a "commitment" party and set up unmarried housekeeping together.
Several years later, while the woman was still enjoying golf and cocktail parties, her partner suffered mental and physical declines. Her children complained that their mother was spending all her time taking care of an invalid when she should be out partying. His children said their father needed to be cared for. Although the couple is still together, the family bonds have crumbled, with each set of children jealously guarding their parent’s time and assets.
"An administrative decision not to get married ended up having unhappy consequences," Hannay says. He believes that had the couple married and had their financial issues been settled, their families would have tried harder to get along together.
We’ll Take Romance
While many cohabitation decisions seem based on practicalities, romance can be a big part of the equation. When he worked at a senior center, gerontologist Takayanagi often called it "Senior Center 90210," a reference to the steamy prime-time TV show Beverly Hills, 90210.
"The human drama is the same whether you’re 18 or 88," he says. "Older people are sexual, too."
Not that long ago, he says, an older woman wouldn’t consider romance, let alone sex and cohabiting, if her husband had died. If she did, it was in secret. (Society accorded men much more latitude.)
Takayanagi remembers a widow he calls Stella, whose grown daughter thought Stella’s relationship with a man betrayed her father’s memory. Stella wasn’t buying it. Her daughter had been married three times. Why shouldn’t she have a relationship, too?
But such inhibitions are fading, thanks to the pre-boomer generation, which began easing taboos against divorce and midlife dating in the 1960s, and to their children, who routinely live together while unmarried.
Indeed, some of the older couples now cohabiting are the ones who criticized their kids a few years ago for doing the same thing. "I didn’t want my kids living together," Bob Cummings says. "If they came to my house they slept in separate bedrooms."
The rules don’t apply to him and his partner, he says, because they are more mature and make better decisions, while "young people are running on emotions." His son wants him to be happy, Cummings says, but draws the line on one point: "He doesn’t want his kids introduced to a lot of different women."
Nancy Myers also was concerned about the effect of her relationship with Joe Venable on her 10 grandchildren. "I worried about what kind of example I was setting," she says. "But they don’t seem to notice. They call my guy ‘cool Joe.’ "
A larger struggle for Myers was over the Catholic faith she shares with her partner, which teaches that cohabitation is a sin. The two are active in their church, attend Mass every Sunday but don’t take Communion. "Joe and I ask for God’s blessing every day," she says. "I believe there are all kinds of sins, and I think God’s very forgiving." Their priest assures them that God wants people to be happy, Myers says.
Myers’ husband, before he died, told her and their children he wanted her to have companionship. Those conversations have made her more comfortable in her new relationship, she says, and she and Joe have the blessing of their children.
Friends once "preachy" about their live-in arrangement have also warmed to the idea. Myers’ most judgmental friend has since developed a relationship of her own. That’s a long way from when Nancy and Joe first got together and friends asked, "When are you two lovebirds going to get married?" Myers’ reply: "When I get pregnant."
I think seniors deserve a break. Let them be.
It will double again as the anything-goes 60s generation enters retirement.
When did Viagra come out?
Viagra's another topic. Reprehensible, in my opinion, not that it doesn't have uses but the billions in R&D could have helped a real disease instead.
Assuming, of course, that they're still able to sin.
No. Old people sex is icky, like homosexual sex. On those grounds alone, we should ban it. Yuck.
Old people should have kids, raise us, and never have sex again. In fact, we should have a right to virgin birth. We should have the ability to safeguard our parents' dignity, much like men in Muslim countries have the right to safeguard their female relatives (from choosing to have sex, on pain of death).
Nursing home employees should carry cattle prods and such to break up the disgusting fornicators. The only sex in nursing homes should be between young employees there.
Old people owe it to us to end their lives in chastity.
Just need a little starch....
That's a shame. They primarily doing it so that incomes are not taxed together.
I actually agree with all that.
Hey, that happens. I was leaving the nursing home where my Grandparents where and accidentally passed by the dumster enclosure, where a couple was finishing.
You mean these seniors are basing marriage decisions on how best to maximize government benefits? Shocking! Where's the love? Where's the sanctity? They should be forced to get married.
bump for later
You sound a tad frigid ... .
Hey, if old people want to indulge, then let them. It's a shame they don't marry because of $$$ and benefits.
Obviously, you're unfamiliar with the history of Viagra. It was discovered accidentally while drug researchers were investigating its possible use as a drug for angioplasty. They noticed that some of the patients were pitching "pup tents" in their beds as a side effect, and only then realized its potential. Any money spent on researching Viagra from that point on has probably been recouped a thousand times over from commercial sales.
Also, impotence is a real problem. It can drastically lower someone's quality of life. You wouldn't think of asking someone to spend their life drinking through a straw if a simple pill would allow them to eat normally; why should people be forced to live lives without sex? Viagra is a major accomplishment of the 20th century--at least, if you believe that human happiness is a good thing. I understand there are some sourpuss conservatives who think misery is good for society.
How many older men do you think there are who have chosen not to commit suicide because Viagra or other ED drugs were available to them? If you think suicides are a bad thing, you should be in favor of drugs that improve the quality of our lives.
"No. Old people sex is icky, like homosexual sex. On those grounds alone, we should ban it. Yuck."
Oh I dunno, at least it keeps em off the streets.
"why should people be forced to live lives without sex?"
Because it's VILE, SINFULL and WRONG!
They are all going to burn in hell for all eternity!
Because Jesus loves them.
;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.