It came as a surprise to me the other day when I overheard a conversation. One girl was telling the other of how she was considering moving in with her boyfriend of two weeks. Expecting her friend to act surprised, I instead heard her encourage this quick decision.
This got me thinking. Not long ago 'husband and wife' unions were the relationship norm. Today, cohabiting 'partner' arrangements are becoming almost more common in North America.
Is cohabitation now considered a societal norm?
This alternative is challenging the traditional mold of marriage followed by our parents' generation. Perhaps so many are 'doing it' because it is assumed to be the norm, or they want to be part of setting a new trend.
If so, what does living together offer that marriage does not? Is it a positive alternative for couples?
From all the research and advice I've read by psychologists, I've seen overwhelming evidence showing that living with someone before marriage or living with someone as a substitute to marriage can have serious negative effects on relationships and individuals.
But, of course, statistics and psychoanalyses are not enough to deter a couple from living together. Unless compelling and realistic reasons are given, why listen to professional counsel? Why resist the societal trend of cohabitation?
So I went looking for the answer. But I did not want to find some abstract, incomprehensible arguments against cohabitation. Rather, I wanted the hard, straight facts of why people live together before marriage and why they might reconsider this alternative lifestyle.
Where Did This Alternative Come From?
Most of our parents grew up in the generation that followed the insecurity of World War II. In North America, the end of World War II ushered in a new confidence in personal freedom and choice.
A new way of thinking was introduced to this upcoming generation, thus opening it wide to movements of liberalism, feminism, and individualism.
Our parents' generation received the security our grandparents' generation longed for throughout the World War era. As a response to this overwhelming amount of security, our parents' generation reacted in rebellion. Desiring 'freedom,' they sought it through new experiences and began opening the doors to what had always been closed.
We don't have to speculate too hard about what these 'new experiences' were. They were written about in song and portrayed in movies. Drugs, sex, and rock 'n roll. And we don't have to speculate too hard about the consequences. Since then, divorce rates since have skyrocketed and almost 50% of marriages today are said to end in divorce.
All families are vulnerable to the breakdown of the marriage relationship. Considering the North American culture's emphasis on individualism the degeneration of the family unit should not come as a surprise.
The traditional institution of marriage is now deemed too 'constrictive,' unstable, and unrewarding. As a result, our generation wants to make things different for us and our children. We've had enough of heartbreak! We want to be happy. So, we've decided to take matters into our own hands and to throw out the traditional rulebook of marriage.
Since we don't want fall into the same hole as our divorced, mistake-ridden parents, we run from having a broken family, by not having 'families' at all.
This is where we are today: we've blamed the institution of marriage for relationship problems. We've disposed of the marriage handbook and invented a new handbook called 'living together.' Like a new diet, the news is out, "This alternative seems better," "Try it out!" But is this trend worthy of our following?
Back to top
When I was a child, they promised me that they would never get a divorce 1.2.3.
Related Reading
Copyright iamnext.com 2003. May not be reprinted without permission.
