“Cohabitation: Couples living together”
"God intended for sex to be between two marriage partners
– one man and one woman for the rest of their lives.
Not only am I glad I waited because God commanded it,
but also because I was able to give my husband a part of me
that I had not shared with anyone else in the world."
- Jenifer Hendrix, Sierra
The process of an unmarried couple living together is known as cohabitation. In earlier years this was a form of taboo, it was a cause of great concern and morality among most people. To live together before marriage meant that you were having premarital sex, which was the greatest area of concern in this moral debate. By the subjects involved this was a way to trial a marriage, a kind of relationship standard, "let's see if we can make it before we commit."Between the nineteen sixties and nineteen eighties, cohabitation began to emerge as a solution for people married forcedly during years before, and also as a result of having parents that stood together but didn’t love each other anymore. As consequence of this behaviour, this new generation establishes a pattern in their way of living. They cohabited first, then they got married, then they divorced and then they remarried.
In the nineties, the young generations now living their adulthood were following similar patterns; they cohabited first, then they got married, then they divorced, they cohabited again, and then they remarried.
Some people believe that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. This has become so established among researchers it is called “the cohabitation effect.”
Barbara Markey (1999) notes three groups of cohabitors: those headed toward marriage, those cohabiting as a temporary alternative, and those cohabiting as a permanent alternative to marriage. Roland Johnson, describes four categories of Cohabitors summing up the vast majority of cohabitating relationships he finds among college-age individuals. They are: Linus Blanket, Emancipation, Convenience and Testing Relationships (Johnson 1996). A brief description of each are:
1. Linus Blanket Relationship. (Sense of Security). This type of cohabiting relationship is founded on the need to be involved with somebody. This person needs the security of being loved and cared for and will accept anyone. In cohabiting, the end comes when one walks out. The remaining person feels lost, abused, and used. They are often left in an extreme state of rejection, devaluation, and loss of self-esteem.
2. Emancipation Relationship. This type of cohabiting relationship occurs when the person wants to prove to their parents that they are free to make their own choices and not bound by restrictions.
3. Convenience Relationship. This type of cohabiting relationship is convenient for economic reasons. The intention is to split expenses 50/50. However, studies have found that women support the men. They contribute more than 70% of the income in a cohabiting relationship. Instead it moves into traditional role patterns: male dominant, female submissive. The woman finds herself cleaning, cooking and doing laundry. So this relationship it is very convenient for the man, but not convenient for the woman.
4. Testing Relationship. This type of cohabiting relationship tests the water before jumping in. They are committed or think they are committed to getting married. They want to first see if they are compatible by practicing marriage. Most cohabiting couples are not living together after four years. The people who move in together, who plan to someday marry, who are ‘so in love' and are ‘so happy', are not going to be together at all within four years.
Next I will mention some facts about different aspects of cohabitation like health, average time together, statistics and more. To begin with, the average age for most unmarried partners who live together are 25 to 34 years old. Cohabitation is far more common in other countries such as
Some effects caused by cohabitation are, the problem that Cohabitation today has become a subtle form of courtship, with over half of all first marriages preceded by cohabitation, compared to virtually none earlier in the century (Bumpass and Lu 1998). Americans are marrying less and succeeding less often at marriage because alternatives have become more attractive, relative to marriages. The other rwo effects are premarital sex and certain myths as well. Premarital sex leads to certain aspects like the followings:
Premarital sex tends to break up couples before marriage takes place; many men do not want to marry a woman who has had intercourse with someone else. The strange logic seems to be, “Its okay for me to have sex with the girl you marry, but it’s not okay for you to have sex with the girl I marry.” Also it has been proved that those who have premarital sex tend to have less happy marriages. The physical relationship is an inadequate foundation upon which to build a lasting relationship. Finally, Persons and couples who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well.
The second effects are certain myths. There are a number of reasons given today for living together, most of which are based on current popular myths. Several of the most common myths of the day are: "Everybody's doing it!" First, Everybody is not "doing it." Statistics show that of the college-age people, 65 to 80 percent are sexually active and some of those are living together (Marco 1997). Johnson (1996) estimates 30 to 40 percent of college students cohabit during their time at college. Although this is a large number, this also indicates that somewhere between 20 and 35 percent are not sexually active and somewhere around 60 to 70 percent of students do not cohabit. Therefore, to say "everybody's doing it," is a myth and does not hold up as a valid justification for cohabiting. (Tom McNichol, "Sex Can Wait," USA Weekend, March 25-227, 1994, pp. 4-6.) The Catholic Bishops of Pensylvania they said, "Just because everyone does something doesn't make it right or any less serious. A couple's choice to live together is not simply made in isolation. It affects everyone in relationship with these two people - parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and even other members of the parish. A cohabiting couple implicitly communicates that there is nothing wrong breaking God's law. This can be especially misleading to young children - nieces, nephews, and children of friends - who are impressionable and whose moral reasoning is immature."
Another myth is: "But we’re going to be married anyway." This is an arrogant, naive, and wishful thinking. There is often one person in the relationship who doesn't think in terms of a permanent, lifelong relationship. The lingering question is: "If one gives in to moral temptation before marriage, what's going to be different and prevent them from repeating the behavior once the honeymoon is over?"
The third and last myth I will mention says: "The marriage license is only a piece of paper, and it doesn’t automatically make two people committed to each other."
It won't make me love you more." "We are already committed to each other; we don't need a piece of paper to prove it." Dunagan (1993) presents the other side of the argument: "If there's no difference in your relationship, what's wrong with adding one more symbol to your total commitment?" Evidently, marriage consists of more than just a piece of paper. Who has ever objected to buying a ring (or anything nice) just to prove their love? ”
To try to understand what people think when they cohabit, we must search for reasons to explain it to us. To make sure I cover all areas, I will refer to the Psychological, Legal, Religious and Sociological reasons.
Psychological reasons. As mentioned in Webster's Dictionary, cohabitation is defined as "living together as or as if husband and wife." Those living together often do so to "prove" their love to their partner.
The partner who demands sex as proof of love is absolutely abusive. He or she is looking out for number one at the other person's expense. How the other person feels about it is not his or her primary concern. There is an ego and physical desire to satisfy, and the other party will be used to fulfill it. Such a person can become a dominating tyrant who demands compliance and may even become abusive. These early patterns of behaviour carry over into the marriage.
Legal reasons.Those living together have no legal property ownership rights. When the couple splits up and can't agree, there are often serious and expensive legal battles unless they prepare a detailed written contract making clear who owns what — especially if there is much property involved (Oldham, 2000).
Those living together have additional parenting issues because they are not automatically recognized as the legal parents.
Both parents need to be listed on the birth certificate and the father needs to sign a statement of paternity.
Those living together cannot make financial decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney."
Without this important legal document, huge emotional and practical problems have resulted.
Those living together expose themselves to litigation over issues of income and palimony when they split up. Although each person starts out owning all of his or her job-related income, many states allow this to be changed by an oral contract or even a contract implied from the history of the living circumstances and financial arrangements. These types of contracts are ripe for misunderstandings and court actions.
Religious reasons. Marriage is a living symbol of Christ's relationship with the church (Eph. 5:32) and is therefore a model of love. Marriage was created for man and woman as an exclusive relationship for the purpose of intimacy and procreation. There is a commitment to each other like no other which provides an environment of security, trust, and stability for each partner and one in which they can nurture their children. Today, society promotes casual sexual relationships - pleasure before commitment. Casual sexual relationships devalue the person, causes emotional trauma, and has serious effects on the personal well-being of those involved.
The Scriptures set the foundation for marriage, outlining God's ultimate design and purpose: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number'" (Gen. 1:27-28); "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24); "So they are no longer two, but one, Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matt. 19:6 NIV). The scriptures tell us to "flee fornication" (1 Cor. 6:18), and to "flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness" (2 Tim. 2:22).
Those who live together in sexual intimacy outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage are sinning against God. Such a relationship outside of marriage is a sinful distortion of the holiness and beauty God intended for marriage alone. Sexual relationships (whether adultery [extramarital] or fornication [premarital]) outside of marriage is clearly prohibited by God. Ninety three times in the Old Testament illicit intercourse between man and woman is mentioned. The New Testament reinforces the serious nature of sexual sins. The biblical commitment is always to sexual purity as God's will for our lives. Jeff VanGoethem (2005:105) says, "The simple truth is that the practice of cohabitation does not follow God's wisdom on how to establish permanent love relationships. Little wonder they fail at the rate they do."
Sociologycal reasons. Those living-together avoid dealing with some of the joint decisions that married couples have to make. For example, money and property tend to be either 'his' or 'hers', not 'ours'. Consequently, it isn't all that important how
he or she spends his or her money. In-laws are rarely a factor; they often disapprove and stay aloof from the couple. Nor do most in-live arrangements have to adapt to children (Dunagan 1993).
Those having premarital sex may be fooled into marrying a person who is not right for them. Sex can emotionally blind. Real love can stand the test of time without the support of physical intimacy. "If you establish a mutually satisfying sexual relationship, you lose objectivity and actually cheat on the test of time. The only way to rationally decide whether your love is for keeps is to remove any preoccupation with eros, sexual love. Otherwise you may marry a mirage, not a person you really know."
Those who live together have more difficulty resolving conflicts.
Attempts are made to resolve conflicts with a hug, kiss, or more, rather than developing the ability to talk through them. The qualities that hold a relationship together like trust, honesty, openness, deep friendship, spiritual intimacy, take time and effort to develop. When you focus on the physical aspect, you short-circuit that process. Physical intimacy is a mistaken attempt to quickly build emotional bridges, but relationships built on such an inadequate foundation eventually collapse (Brown & Booth 1997).
Another factor that may influence in people cohabitating is the anti-marriage sentiments. These people are deliberately seeking for an alternative to traditional marriage believing it to be "repressive," "irrelevant" and saying "we're not trapped by marriage" or "a marriage license is only a piece of paper" or "it gives us more freedom to come and go" (Sweet & Bumpass 1992 and Rindfuss)
In conclusion I would like to say that besides all of the reasons and factors that I just explained, there is another feature that I haven’t yet mentioned, and it’s the lack of understanding of what real love is. With so many people brought up in broken homes, there are no models to guide their own lives after. They believe love is an act rather than a commitment.
It is overwhelmingly clear that cohabitation is very harmful for a number of reasons. In fact, there is not a single good reason to cohabit that stands up under sociological, psychological, health (either emotional or physical), legal or religious scrutiny. For those who own Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, only one reason is needed to not cohabit, that is His disapproval. We don't need additional research to clarify or explain. The seventh commandment and other scriptures prohibiting adultery and fornication is all we need to know to stay far away from the sin.
Markey, Barbara (1999) Preparing Cohabiting Couples for Marriage A Study Guide
Johnson, Roland H. III, "Cohabitation--Good for Him, Not Her," 1996.
URL: http://personalwebs.myriad.net/Roland/cohab1.htm
Seltzer, J. A. (2000). "Families formed outside of marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247-1268.
Hall, David R. and John A. Zhoa, "Cohabitation and Divorce in
Bumpass, Larry and Hsien-Hen Lu, "Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's Family Contexts." Unpublished manuscript, Center for Demography,
Wu, Zheng, "Premarital Cohabitation and the Postmarital Cohabiting Union Formation," Journal of Family Issues 16 (1995) 212-232.
Bumpass, Larry L., R. Kelly Raley and James A. Sweet, "The Changing Character or Stepfamilies: Implications of Cohabitation and Nonmarital Childbearing" NSFH 63, Demography 32(1995):425-36.
URL: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfh63ab.htm
Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S. J. "Continuity and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000." Journal of Marriage and Family. 65, 1-22, 2003
Qian, Zhenchao, "Changes in Assortative Mating: The Impact of Age and Education, 1970-1990." Demography 35(1998)279-292.
Thornton, Arland; Axinn, William G., and Jay D. Teachman, "The Influence of School Enrollment and Accumulation on Cohabitation and Marriage in Early Adulthood." American Journal of Sociology 98(1992)628-651.
Willis, Robert J. and Robert T. Michael, "Innovation in Family Formation: Evidence on Cohabitation in the
Hering, Marianne K, "Believe Well, Live Well". Focus on the Family, September 1994, 4.
Brown, Susan L. and Alan Booth, "Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality." Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996)668-678.
Stets, Jan E. "The Link Between Past and Present Intimate Relationships," Journal of Family Issues, 14(1993)236-260.
Thompson and Colella, "Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?" Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(1992)259-267.
McNichol, Tom "Sex Can Wait,"
Dunagan, Mark, "Living-Together Myths," June 13, 1993,
URL: http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Living_Together_Myths.html
URL: http://familycenter.byu.edu/marriageconf/media/oldham.pdf
VanGoethem, Jeff, Living Together: A Guide to Counseling Unmarried Couples, Kregel Publications, 2005.
Dunagan, Mark, "Living-Together Myths," June 13, 1993,
URL: http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Living_Together_Myths.html
Sweet, James A. and Larry L. Bumpass, "Young Adults' Views of Marriage, Cohabitation, and Family." The Changing American Family. Ed. Scott J. South and Stewart E. Tolnay.
