Eric Sentell of Role/Reboot wonders how much better our marriages might be, were we to break with what’s becoming normal and practice abstinence before marriage.
This article originally appeared at Role/Reboot.
Cohabitating is perfectly normal in today’s society. Yet “perfect” is not always what it seems and “normal” may not always be best.
According to the National Survey of Family Growth, a 2002 survey of 13,000 respondents, 61 percent of women in their late 30s had cohabitated at some point in their lives, and 28 percent of couples cohabitated before marriage. Some estimate that two-thirds of today’s couples cohabitate. In popular culture, most sexual relationships begin shortly after a man and woman meet, and marriage is always preceded by cohabitation, as though it is a prerequisite. “From the perspective of many young adults, marrying without living together first seems quite foolish,” claims Professor Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the Population Studies Center.
All of this desperately needs a reboot in 2012 and beyond.
Sixty years ago, cohabitation was universally frowned upon. Now, choosing not to cohabitate is abnormal. But what is “normal” is not always beneficial. Sure, it’s normal for Americans to overeat, not to exercise, and to live sedentary lifestyles. That’s why our country has a severe problem with ever-expanding obesity (pun intended). If Americans strove to be “abnormal,” we’d have much better health and save billions on healthcare costs.
That said, Pamela Smock also claims the survey data demonstrates that “there is not a negative effect of cohabitation on marriages, plain and simple.” However, a closer look reveals that those who live together after planning to marry and/or becoming engaged have roughly the same chance of divorce as those who do not cohabitate; conversely, those without concrete plans to marry have a higher chance of divorce. The couple’s level of commitment—not whether they live together before marriage—seems to be the most important determinant of the relationship’s long-term viability.
Emphasis on “long-term viability.” The survey found that about one-third of cohabitating and non-cohabitating couples had divorced within 10 years of marriage. I’d wager that the divorce rate would increase among cohabitating couples if their representation in the survey (a mere 23% of all respondents) also increased. As we all know, 50% of contemporary marriages end in divorce. Committed or not, American relationships are not faring very well on the whole.
What benefits might result if we chose to be “abnormal” and practice abstinence and live separately prior to marriage? How much stronger could our marriage commitments become? How much longer could our unions last, and how satisfying could they be?
Religious readers should be shaking their heads in agreement by now, but I presume many skeptics are still scoffing. I understand. I was once a skeptic myself.
I was once convinced that living together would provide a perfect “trial run” prior to marriage. My religious wife, on the other hand, strongly believed we should remain in separate homes and beds until our wedding night. After three-plus years of marriage, I can honestly say that she was right. As usual.
Our wedding day wasn’t just another day with the addition of some fancy clothes and copious amounts of cake. It marked a true rite of passage into a mysterious world of love and oneness we could never have experienced if we’d left for the wedding ceremony from our shared apartment and returned to the full dishwasher we used the night before. Learning to live together wasn’t smooth or easy, but it was new and exciting and drew us closer together in myriad visible and invisible ways. I wish our experience and its blessings on every couple.
This is not to say that a relationship can’t thrive if the parties cohabitate. I also don’t claim that not cohabitating will necessarily lead to a stronger relationship. Dating and marriage are much more complicated than that—they require mutual love, affection, respect, service, time, work, and so many other inputs.
Commitment might be the most important input. Commitment to love even when you don’t feel it. Commitment to show respect when it’s not deserved. Commitment to make sacrifices. The kind of commitment that marriage should represent.
For all these reasons, I believe we ought to reconsider the “norm” in supposedly “committed” relationships. After all, if a couple is really committed to each other, then can’t they wait to share a bed and a home?
Eric Sentell lives in the DC-metro area with his emotionally brilliant wife. He teaches college composition and directs a writing center at Northern Virginia Community College. His short fiction has been published or is forthcoming in The Rivendell Gazette, Long Story Short, Red Ink Journal, Moon City Review, Unlikely Stories 2.0, Blink Ink Online, Short, Fast, and Deadly, and Six Minute Magazine. In September 2010, Long Story Short selected “Stolen Thunder” as its Story of the Month.
—Photo Agriturismo Montalbino/Flickr
About Role/Reboot
Not all couples are compatible with each other when living together. People need to find out before marriage. Probably doesn’t need to be said even.
This may actually be the stupidest article I’ve ever seen on this otherwise really intelligent site.
For starters, it’s awesome that it’s in the sex and relationships section and fails to mention SEX even once. Part of cohabitation, as Henry previously said, is seeing how you are compatible with each other when you live together. When you sleep in the same bed every night, your physical intimacy level changes. It can change dramatically for the better, or the worse. Does she fart after she falls asleep? Does his constant scratching turn you off? When you see each other undressed in the morning, does it make you less likely to be turned on in the evening? These things happen.
Also, the author, admittedly an English teacher, doesn’t seem to understand basic math. He says “The survey found that about one-third of cohabitating and non-cohabitating couples had divorced within 10 years of marriage. I’d wager that the divorce rate would increase among cohabitating couples if their representation in the survey (a mere 23% of all respondents) also increased.” One third of 23% is still going to be one third of 73%, if the study was done correctly.
Also, he fails to mention that for many in the non-cohabitation camp, the divorce rate is artificially lower! People, thanks to a commandment of God or otherwise, often wind up staying in an erroneous marriage. The same social factors (religion) that would lead one to avoid cohabitation also drive the pressure to avoid divorce.
My favorite part was him talking about his “true rite of passage” of his wedding. This is pap. The fact that I left my wedding and went home to the home I already shared with my now wife didn’t make the ritual any less meaningful. His personal experience is meaningless as an argument, and had he discovered his new wife was a vicious cover-stealer, or an open door pooper only at that point, he’d be up a creek.
You’d never buy a car without test-driving. You’d never send your child to a university without researching programs, dorms, graduation rates, and future success. You’d never buy a house without checking out the floor plan in advance. People are amazingly dynamic, and everyone has their own idiosyncrasies. Marrying one before living with one is a gamble only a fanatic would take.
Guess what: a woman (and man, for that matter!) is not a car, a house, or even an ivy-league college. We are human beings, not commodities to be “tested out”. This brave article is striving to combat the damaging mentality that human beings are to be used and discarded if you find a flaw in them (like your example of “fart[ing] after she falls asleep” – pardon me, but wtf? Is that honestly a dealbreaker for you?) like any other consumer object. No. Human beings are too complex for that, which you actually hinted at by saying that they are “amazingly dynamic”. This is true. Even if you cohabitate for a number of years before marrying someone, you are definitely not getting a sense of the whole person. They will change, whether you test them out or not!
(No wonder there’s so much dysfunction, unhappiness, and lack of trust between the sexes – we’re walking on eggshells with each other. I.e., I have to keep this body, these smooth running biological functions, or else he/she won’t marry me, or will otherwise divorce me. True intimacy, feeling absolutely emotionally safe enough to be vulnerable, has been eclipsed by “man, he scratches too much. I think I need to dump him”.)
Of course you need to test out compatibility / chemistry before you marry someone. But you can actually do that without sleeping together! Other nonsexual acts of physical affection can actually tell you more accurately whether you feel thrilled with your partner – and sex can eclipse this because it tends to be so all-encompassing of a physical act that it can exist in its own right, whether or not you truly love someone. For example, a better test of chemistry for me is if I want to kiss/cuddle with a person than if I simply want to “do” them – the former implies true intimacy, something I really don’t want to do with just anyone, the latter is more of a biological function / scratching of an itch that I can do with just about anyone. The thing is, that scratching of the itch can bring two people who are otherwise incompatible closer together.
Sex is glue. So those who wait until marriage are using glue at the appropriate time, to seal their life-long vows, after they’ve deemed that this person thrills them and is compatible with them on other extremely important areas. Ideally, this fosters the mentality that the person is special in their own right, which in turn fosters emotional vulnerability, which in turn fosters physical vulnerability, which in turn – you get the idea. ESPECIALLY for a woman (which I am) – the knowledge that you, physically and emotionally, are accepted by your husband completely, that he is committed only to you – in a healthy woman, this is the recipe for a fulfilling sex life (after you’ve determined physical compatibility in the way I described in the previous paragraph). If two people of good will want to make it work – guess what? It will work.
You’re right, human beings, male or female, are not cars. Nor are the relationships we have with them. The people in our lives, and our relationships with them, are FAR more important than any of the items I listed. And yet the suggestion is that we should just trust that we can co-habitate? If you wouldn’t make any of those minor decision without research and careful study, why would you deny yourself the information in the most important relationship in your life.
The article was NOT “striving to combat the damaging mentality that human beings are to be used and discarded if you find a flaw in them.” His argument, in a nutshell was that explicitly waiting to live together would increase the level of commitment. This is sheer nonsense.
As for your test of chemistry, I agree 100% that other intimate gestures (a cuddle, etc) can tell as much, or more. But the chemistry changes when you live together, and can be completely different. Sex or no, interactions in a couple that lives in the same place will inherently be different than those who don’t. But there’s no reason to believe that exploring each other prior to crossing the threshold will inherently make it worse.
And no those aren’t my deal breakers.
Is it really sheer nonsense? If you posit that waiting until you’re married to move in together is a risk – risk actually can bring two people together rather than playing it your, “safe” (though I would disagree), way. The knowledge that this person is committing to you, no holds barred, is incredibly beautiful and romantic. Two people facing a risk together can actually create a powerful bond. And I know, marriage is about the mundane – but I’m arguing that if your marriage is the most unique and powerful relationship in your life, don’t you want your actions to undergird that reality – i.e. by sleeping and living with this one person? Our actions and mentalities inform our chemistry, too – it’s a symbiotic relationship. Sometimes it’s a matter of enacting the reality that you want to see in your life, rather than approaching it with skepticism and distrust, like you would if you insist on living with someone beforehand.
Besides, what about the negotiations that happen throughout marriage? If people are inherently dynamic, doesn’t that also mean that the little things the other person does that you may find disagreeable can also be changed?
It’s really about the mentality you bring with you into marriage – and the action of “trying someone out” may undermine the mentality of accepting this person wholly, as the unique relationship of your life.
Yes, the blanket statement that waiting to move in until marriage inherently increases your commitment is nonsense. For some people it could. For some people it definitely would not.
Nothing of what you have to say precludes pre-marital cohabitation. Nor is skepticism and distrust inherent in the desire for pre-marital cohabitation. I agree with almost every word of your post, except that any of the bond, beauty , or romance would be greater just because you didn’t share a living space beforehand. It could go either way.
Negotiation is a great word choice. All human interaction is a negotiation at some level. Deal breakers can pop up before, during, and after the ceremony. Entering into the most important relationship of your life without truly knowing all of someone is a mistake, in my opinion.
Ultimately, if you are the type of person who would refuse to live with someone before marriage, and your potential partner is someone who insists on it, that’s enough of a litmus test to realize that you are not compatible. The author himself “proved” to his potential spouse that they were emotionally compatible by agreeing to do it. That doesn’t mean that it is more correct for anyone else.
Here! Here!
Separate Beds Until You Wed?
how about separate beds or even bedrooms after the wedding?
a couple of years ago in the uk, there was alot of comment when some historians revealed that it was only recently, like in the last couple of hundreds yrs or so(i cant be bothered to google it or remember it properly) that couples slept in the same bed regularly
Separate beds, or even bedrooms may actually save some marriages – by allowing an alcove of space
I agree that space is essential in a relationship. But I think I prefer people to be having sex most of the time, rather than not having it. This applies to pre-marriage people as well, and doesn’t suppose that all sex is meant to lead to monogamy with the person involved. My problem with the proposed (probably not very actual) sexual culture right now is that it seems intent on recreating the damaged (yes!) sexual culture of my grandparents (I’m 66.)
Henry, I am curious what you mean about recreating the damaged sexual culture of your grandparents. I honestly had never heard this view and would like to know what you mean.
My grandparents had strong Victorian views of sexuality. They used quite a lot of shame and stigmatization to try to taboo sex out of normal behavior. The pill and the sixties started to turn that around, of course. When feminism emerged (unless the authors were lesbian) it was usually characterized by sex-positivity. Not promiscuity, but an openness to exploration. By the 80s feminism had started to turn sex-negative, focusing on the evils that “dog” men might do to women. Probably the start of economic contractions ahd to do with this.
We seem now to have an almost revisitation of Victoriana. I’m always amazed at the amount of sex-negativity on this site. Authors like Bob Jensen and of course HS have taken what I consider to be sex-negative positions here.
Ah okay, I see what you mean. I normally see lots of sex-positive articles, so I considered this an aberration rather than very in touch with actual sexual culture. I was confused. Thanks for clarifying!
Well I guess the idea of this article might work for some people…but it’s very traditional and it’s rooted in all sorts of religious and social values about sex and relationships. For some people a wedding needs to be this big turning point, and one way for it to do that is if it signals the moment when you start living together. But, I’ve known plenty of couples who have co-habitated before getting married, and yet their wedding was still a very important rite of passage. It signified the moment that their relationship was recognized as something permanent. (And as Josh mentioned, a wedding can mean different things to different people).
Co-habitation isn’t just about sex…it’s about figuring out whether you and your partner(s) are compatible. Heck, that’s part of why Mexico has just made it so you can get a 2-year marriage contract. Now waiting until married might work for you…but it’s certainly not something that would work for everyone.
And how do gay men and lesbians fit into this? Is a “commitment ceremony” enough or should we all wait until marriage is legal in whatever country we’re living in? And were we even included in the survey you mention? How about non-monogamous relationships in countries that only allow two-person marriages? How would that work with the idea of waiting until married?
Okay well on the LGBT front…I just had a quick look-through that survey and it’s really freaking heteronormative. I won’t go into detail cuz this isn’t the site for that…but suffice it to say it doesn’t consider cohabitation vs. marriage for same-sex couples.
Probably because they are treated as second class citizens. Until relatively recently, all LGBT folks that co-habitated did so pre-nuptually
.
Exactly my point.
Waiting to live together until married might be fine for some people…….but for a lot of us it’s not even an option.
As a straight guy married almost a decade, I’m rooting for you.
Thanks!
Also, if the author is reading these comments or something…I don’t want you to think I’m attacking your personal choices. That’s not what I’m doing at all. I just don’t think we can say cohabitating or not cohabitating is better…they’re different. I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all for relationships.
This article assumes that cohabitation only occurs as a test of the relationship. In my experience, that is rarely the case. It is more a matter of convenience and cost. Because I share a one room apartment with my boyfriend, my rent is cheaper than any other scenario (studio apartment alone, multi-bedroom apartment with friends). We already spent time at each other’s places all the time anyway, so living together also saved on gas. We are both graduate students with not a lot of money to spare. My boyfriend may even sell his car as we can share my car now.
I would hazard a guess that financial reasons are a major aspect of cohabitation. Not to mention, many of my generation seem to be questioning the institution of marriage, meaning they may not be planning on marrying at all. So this cohabitation may not be a “test” of the relationship, but rather a natural progression of a good relationship.
Also, the whole waiting until marriage to have sex thing is bs. For people who consider sex to be important to a relationship, sexual compatibility can make or break a relationship. If a couple is not sexually compatible, it will definitely strain the relationship and may not be fixable. If you like to have sex every day and your partner would prefer once a month, do you really think you will both be happy?
If you do not consider sex to be important to a relationship, then yes, that would make sense. I don’t want people who are asexual or slightly asexual to feel left out. There are gradations of the importance of sex to different people.
I’d just like to add another “Here! Here!”
Co-habitaton or marriage-what’s the big difference functionally?
Sex before or after marriage? Makes no difference but why should abstinence be abnormal? Under any circumstances?
Since the most important sex organ is the brain-why is abstinence equated to deprivation? Don’t we all have brains? Seriously.
Sex is a physical act which can be completely detached from intimacy,love or care so it should never be used as a pre-requisite or deal-breaker. It can certainly enhance or be enhanced in the right relationships but it’s not a focal point.