| by Mitch Finley (Our Sunday Visitor)
arty and Heather are recent college graduates who grew up in Catholic families. They do not attend Mass every Sunday, but they still consider themselves to be Catholics. Heather and Marty care for each other a great deal, and they speak of love. In fact, they care so much for each other that they decided to share an apartment. They have been sexually active for six months, and they figure living together will help them save money while getting to know each other better. If things work out, later they plan to discuss marriage. For now, they view living together as a trial to see if they are "compatible."
Marty and Heather's arrangement is not unusual nowadays. There is no longer a social taboo against unmarried couples living together, especially if they say they are thinking of marriage. The sociologists, with their inclination to avoid even a hint of moral judgment about anything, call it "cohabitation." Earlier generations, not so reluctant to judge, called it "shacking up," or "living in sin."
On the face of it, cohabitation sounds like a sensible idea. Why not work out the details of "setting up housekeeping" and testing sexual compatibility before making the leap into marriage? Isn't it better for a couple to find out if they get along before making a permanent commitment? Doesn't it make sense that living together is an excellent form of marriage preparation? What difference does "a piece of paper" (the marriage license) make, anyway? Isn't it just a formality?
As it turns out, cohabitation is a dangerous idea. Now that the so-called sexual revolution is more than 20 years old, researchers have had a chance to study the phenomenon of cohabitation, and the news is not good. It turns out that the "old-fashioned" customs of sexual abstinence and living apart before marriage are based on considerable common sense.
Two recent books summarize the scientific research that supports the old-fashioned way: "Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives," by Laura Schlessinger (Villard Books, an imprint of Random House, 1994), and "Marriage Savers," by Michael J. McManus (Zondervan, 1993).
Truth Be Told
The truth of the matter, according to this research, is that cohabitation is bad for the individuals involved, bad for relationships based on love and bad for the future of marriages.
McManus presents some important statistics:
-Yale University sociologist Neil Bennett and his colleagues found in 1988 that cohabitating couples were 80 percent more likely to separate or divorce than were couples who had not lived together before marriage.
- In 1983, a study by the National Council on Family Relations, which focused on more than 300 newlywed couples, discovered that those who "lived together" before marriage were less happy after they married.
Women complained, in particular, about the quality of communication after the wedding.
- The 1989. National Survey of Families and Households reported, "Unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages: 57 percent to 30 percent."
McManus adds that even if a couple does not cohabitate, but are sexually active prior to marriage, that is still a red flag for the future of the marriage.
The survey McManus cited focused on women, but the implications are clear for both men and women: "Joan Kahn and Kathryn London studied 2,746 women in the National Survey of Family Growth and measured the odds. 'Among white women first married between 1965 and 1985, virgin brides were less likely to have dissolved their marriages through separation or divorce than women who had not been virgins at marriage,' they reported in November 1991."
How much less likely? The percentages are mind-boggling. Couples who were sexually active prior to marriage have a divorce rate 53 percent to 71 percent higher than couples who were not sexually active.
According to McManus: "Marriage is one shoe you cannot try on before you wear it!"
Schlessinger, a marriage and family therapist, agrees that statistical studies prove cohabitation is a bad idea.
A U.S. survey of 13,000 adults revealed that couples who cohabitated prior to marriage were one-third more likely to separate or divorce within 10 years. A Canadian national survey of 5,300 respondents reported that those who lived together before marriage were 54 percent more likely to divorce within 15 years.
But young couples often believe they will be the exception to the statistical rule. Granted, there is no guarantee that if a given couple lives together before marriage they will end up in divorce court.
"There are those successful transitions," Schlessinger acknowledged. "But it is not the rule. So why are you willing to play Russian roulette with your life? Why? Desperation. Fear of not having somebody--of not having a life if a man [or woman] doesn't want you."
Instead, why not wait and grow in maturity, independence and security-of-self, Schlessinger and others now advise. This can be difficult to do, especially if you are young, emotionally needy and wanting to escape an unhappy past. It's tough, but the potential payoff, in the long run, is huge.
Maturity Levels
Schlessinger believes cohabitation can retard a person's maturity. A young person's primary task in life is to become a mature person.
Who are you? What do you believe? What do you want to live for? These are essential questions young people need to answer before making a lifelong commitment.
Personal maturity doesn't benefit from living with someone. "Only you can make you happy," Schlessinger said. When a young person blindly leaps for another person, that individual is likely to repeat whatever it is they were trying to get away from.
Denial is often a major factor in the choice to cohabitate, according to Schlessinger. Young people are likely to deny their own needs as well as what the other person is really like. Indeed, Schlessinger said, "living-in can equal giving in." Maturity and healthy self-esteem are based on the will to overcome circumstances, not on giving in to being overcome by another.
Marriage requires a solid foundation. Having sex before marriage, and living with someone with no commitment and no shared life plan, Schlessinger said, are "the behaviors of basically immature, let-me-feel-good-right-now-because-I-want-it-therefore-it-is kind of people." A marriage is far less likely to succeed between two people who never learned to delay gratification, which is what cohabitation is about.
Good decisions require objectivity. When a relationship turns into having sex and living together before marriage, it makes it far more difficult to have the objectivity needed to make good decisions. Premarital sex and cohabitation deprive couples of the distance from each other they need to make a wise choice to marry or not to marry. Sexual feelings can easily be mistaken for love.
"Dating--not living-in--is supposed to be about learning and discerning," Schlessinger said. "Dating is supposed to be a kind of lease with option--so don't get sexual and cohabitate right away and change the meaning of dating to a lease-with-premature-obligations situation."
Men and women tend to live together for different reasons. For men, cohabitation is a convenience, Schlessinger said. Women, on the other hand, often kid themselves with the thought that living together will give them a chance to get a close-up look at a potential mate.
Not true, according to Schlessinger. "Women move in to be protected, taken care of, to be wanted," she said. "And when you are in that mind-set, you can't for a moment wonder (especially not loud) if you even want the guy-you're too busy making sure he wants you."
What can be done? Tactics vary among those who work with engaged couples who are living together. Some ignore it. Others give the couples copies of articles like this one and leave the choice to them.
Some members of the clergy, however, refuse to knowingly witness the marriage of any cohabitating couple. They tell cohabitating couples they must separate if they want to be married in the Church. Is this a hard-hearted tactic likely to drive couples further away from the Church? Or is it "tough love"?
Some couples respond: "We can't afford to separate. Besides, it's only two months until our wedding." A parish council willing to put its money where its mouth is may reply that if it's a financial burden to separate the parish will help.
However, in such cases few couples ask for this help, explained McManus. And the result for couples who agree to separate? "Weeks after separating they say, 'The quality of our relationship has never been better. Our love continues to grow and amaze us.'" |
