| 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.'" |