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
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.
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… Read more »
I’d just like to add another “Here! Here!”
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… Read more »
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.
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.… Read more »
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!
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Here! Here!
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.