Is Cohabitation a Good Idea before Marriage - Literature review Example

Is Cohabitation a good idea before marriage? Is Cohabitation a good idea before marriage Introduction Marriage, as a critical decision in a person’s life, is related to a series of responsibilities. In addition, taking a divorce can be a long lasting process, depending on the local laws and the existence or not of both parties’ consent. Cohabitation has been considered as a practice for avoiding the negative aspects of the marriage. However, strong doubts have appeared in the literature in regard to the actual value of cohabitation as a practice for checking the potentials of a couple to proceed to a successful marriage. This role of cohabitation is reviewed in this paper. Emphasis is given on the criteria on which cohabitation is based, meaning especially love and human sexuality. It is proved that cohabitation can serve critical human needs, as also marriage, but it cannot be used for replacing marriage. Also, the success of cohabitation for identifying the potential perspectives of a marriage is not guaranteed. 2. Cohabitation and Marriage In order to understand the potential value of cohabitation if used before marriage it would be necessary to present primarily the characteristics of cohabitation. According to a definition provided by Kendall (2010) cohabitation refers ‘to two people who live together, and think of themselves as a couple, without being legally married’ (Kendall 2010, p.489). 2.1 Cohabitation and marriage as means for covering critical human needs – love and human sexuality Marriage is not independent from love. In fact, marriage is based on ‘a promise to love’ (Midgley & Midgley 1992, p.15). Commonly, when evaluating the success of a marriage the issue of love is ignored (Midgley & Midgley 1992). However, love is the basis of marriage, at least in most cases. From this point of view, marriage cannot be considered as not being involved in covering the human need for love (Midgley & Midgley 1992). From a similar point of view, the relationship between marriage and human sexuality should be evaluated. As noted above, human sexuality is often used as an argument for promoting the idea of cohabitation. Still, human sexuality could be also addressed in the context of marriage (Kornblum & Smith 2007). The problems and the routines of daily life, that are common in marriages, are often used for justifying the choice of cohabitation, instead of marriage, for covering the human needs related to sexuality. However, these problems and routines can also appear in cohabitation (Kornblum & Smith 2007). Thus, the claims supporting the value of cohabitation in regard to human sexuality are more based on the following fact: cohabitation, as a relationship, can be resolved easier than marriage (Kornblum & Smith 2007). This means that if one of the parties of such relationship can decide to exit the relationship whenever he/ she desires without even offering relevant explanations. In marriage, such decisions are rather difficult (Ben-Ze’ev 2004). The procedure of a divorce can be quite long, especially in countries where law is opposed to divorce or where a long period of time is set as minimum before the completion of the divorce process. In other words, cohabitation is not more favorable to the development of human sexuality; it is rather more appropriate for relationships that do not have many perspectives (Ben-Ze’ev 2004). Individuals who are opposed to the idea of long – term commitment are more likely to use cohabitation for covering their needs related to sexuality compared to individuals who are supporters of commitment (Ben-Ze’ev 2004). The latter can fully cover their needs for love and sexuality in the context of a marriage. At this point, it would be necessary to review the concepts of love and human sexuality, as of their characteristics and their implications. Also, the changes that these concepts have faced the last decades should be presented in order to explain the level of involvement of these concepts in cohabitation and marriage. Kornblum & Smith (2007) highlight two important characteristics of love: ‘a) all of us could feel love for a person who loves us and b) relationships that suffer from love inequalities are easier to be destroyed’ (Kornblum & Smith 2007, p.399). This means that love, as a feeling, has the power to influence the perceptions and the feelings of others depending on the conditions of the social environment and the personal beliefs/ own experiences in regard to the specific feeling (Kornblum & Smith 2007). Another characteristic of love is its strong dependency on the mode of life of people. This phenomenon is analyzed in the study of Kornblum & Smith (2007). These researchers refer to the study of Cancian (1994) who noted that love can be severely harmed in relationships where emphasis is given on ‘the individuality of each party’ (Kornblum & Smith 2007, p.399). Indeed, in such relationships the need of parties to secure their individuality can lead to ‘the weakening of the relationship’ (Kornblum & Smith 2007, p.399). The above fact should be taken into consideration when evaluating relationships developed in modern societies. Today, the protection of individuality is a priority for most individuals under the terms that such practice could secure the professional life of individuals, no matter if they cohabitate or if they are married. From this point of view, cohabitation is not more powerful from marriage to protect love since love is equally exposed to risks in the context of cohabitation as also in the context of marriage. Also, cohabitation allows individuals to betray their partner at higher level than marriage (Ben-Ze’ev 2004). Indeed, in a relevant survey it has been proved that ‘just 4% of married men have been unfaithful compared to 16% of men who cohabitated’ (Ben-Ze’ev 2004, p.233). The above finding further verifies the inability of cohabitation to secure love, as a critical human need. Reference should be also made to the other human need, also addressed through cohabitation, as also through marriage: human sexuality. As also love, sexuality has changed through the decades. In general, four types of ‘sexual relations among unmarried people exist: a) marital, b) double, c) sex-with-affection and d) sex-for-pleasure’ (Ward & Belanger 2011, p.68). The modes and the standards of sexuality developed in each time period are differentiated under the influence of social, political and economic environment (Ward & Belanger 2011). For example, the sex-for-pleasure mode of sexual relation has been highly popular mostly for men (Ward & Belanger 2011, p.69). Since 1971 the above mode of sexual relation ‘has become also popular for women’ (Ward & Belanger 2011, p.69). Particular reference should be made to pre-marital sexual relationships. Until today, these relationships are prohibited in certain countries, under the influence of the local laws and ethics (Ward & Belanger 2011). The efforts for the acceptance of this mode of sexual relationship have been more intensive up to 1980s (Ward & Belanger 2011). Another implication of sexuality is the following: sexuality is not perceived in the same way by men and women (Ward & Belanger 2011). More specifically, men may perceive certain aspects of ‘women’s behavior as related to sexuality’ (Ward & Belanger 2011, p.69) while women are more likely to interpret men’s behavior based on friendship (Ward & Belanger 2011). This trend results to important ‘problems of mis-communication between men and women in regard to sexuality’ (Ward & Belanger 2011, p.69). In the same way, men are often unable to understand the refusal of women to proceed to sexual relationship (Ward & Belanger 2011, p.70). On the other hand, the development of human sexuality can be often problematic. The expansion of diseases, especially of HIV, that are transmitted through sexual relationships, has set limits to these relationships (Ward & Belanger 2011). In other words, sexuality, as a human need, can be addressed but the terms of sexual relationships need to be carefully considered, having into consideration the risks and the implications involved. Today, the patterns of human sexuality have highly changed, compared to the past (Blau 2008). In the past, human sexuality was under the close control of social ethics that allowed or prohibited certain expressions of human sexuality (Blau 2008). Through the decades, the criteria of human sexuality have been transformed, under the influence of the radical changes on ethics and morals worldwide (Blau 2008). The transformation of human sexuality has been based on the following trends: a) the expression of human sexuality is easier today, compared to the past (Blau 2008); for example, in the past, the expression of sexuality publicly would not be tolerated while today sexual movements or dressing are not opposed to social ethics (Blau 2008), b) the sexual preferences of people in terms of gender/ age are currently justified, even if not aligned with the traditional patterns of such preferences (Blau 2008). In these terms cohabitation has been highly developed, especially in relationships that are out of the traditional mode of relationship, i.e. a relationship that can be developed within marriage (Blau 2008). From this point of view, cohabitation is preferred, compared to marriage, for the relationships that cannot lead to marriage, according to existing laws in most countries worldwide (Blau 2008). The above trend is irrelevant with the actual potentials of marriage to respond to human sexuality, as an important human need. As explained in the beginning of this section, sexuality can be also addressed in the context of marriage (Kornblum & Smith 2007). Another aspect of human sexuality, important for understanding its role in cohabitation and its marriage is the following: the increased potentials of an individual to exit cohabitation can be more attractive compared to the commitment related to marriage (Mohanty 2005). This means that the choice of cohabitation, instead of marriage, is often based on the view that a person cannot be committed to just one person as such practice would be opposed with his/ her perceptions on human sexuality (Mohanty 2005). Indeed, for certain individuals the value of human sexuality, as a human need, is extremely high (Mohanty 2005). For these individuals, entering a marriage could set limits to their potentials to express their sexuality. In other words, preferring cohabitation instead of marriage can be an issue related to the perceptions of individuals on human sexuality (Mohanty 2005). 2.2 Cohabitation as a practice for being prepared for marriage Cohabitation is often considered as a common practice for being prepared for marriage. However, the studies developed on this issue reveal another fact: cohabitation is not necessarily related to marriage (Thornton, Axinn & Xie 2008). In the survey developed by Thornton, Axinn & Xie (2008) it was revealed that only 3/5 of participants had decided to live together as a preparatory period for their future marriage. Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin (2010) claim that the use of cohabitation as a method for being prepared for a marriage should be avoided. It is noted that the empirical studies developed in this field reveal the increased risk of break up during cohabitation (Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin 2010). In addition, the rate of divorces seems to be lower in marriages where spouses have not lived together in the past, i.e. before the marriage (Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin 2010). At this point, the following argument is often used: the characteristics of individuals that prefer cohabitation before marriage are different from those of individuals who have married without a prior period of cohabitation (Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin 2010). Even if this argument is accepted, still there is no empirical evidence that marriages based on cohabitation are most likely to last if compared to marriages not based on cohabitation (Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin 2010). Reference should be also made to the following fact: women are more likely ‘to perceive cohabitation as a step before their marriage’ (Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin 2010, p.438); in opposition, for men cohabitation seems to be just a means for showing commitment (Greenberg, Bruess & Conklin 2010). According to Ben-Ze’ev (2004) people who are supporters of independency within a relationship are more likely to choose cohabitation while those who prefer inter-dependence tend to value marriage more than cohabitation (Ben-Ze’ev 2004). On the other hand, it has been proved that individuals who prefer cohabitation, instead of marriage, are expected to be less committed to marriage, if they decide to get married (Strong 2013). This fact leads to the assumption that cohabitation, as a practice, has limited chances to lead to marriage, or, at least, to a successful marriage since the people who are supporters of cohabitation do not particularly value marriage (Strong 2013). Indeed, the empirical studies reviewed by Strong (2013) reveal that ‘couples that cohabitate before marriage, have more chances to take a divorce if compared to couples who avoided cohabitation before marriage’ (Strong 2013, p.238). De Singly (1996) also supports that people who prefer cohabitation have different characteristics from those who prefer marriage. The former are more likely to keep their independency even after their marriage and are more expected to be unfaithful, considering such practice as a reflection of their independency (De Singly 1996). This means that cohabitation is a relationship that it is not necessarily related to marriage and which cannot guarantee the success of marriage (De Singly 1996). In opposition, according to its characteristics and its implications, cohabitation can severely threatens marriage, if used as a means for being prepared for marriage. In addition, it should be mentioned that marriage, as a relationship, is continuously updated, being aligned to the current social and economic conditions (Ward & Belanger 2011). This means that marriage could survive itself without the support of alternatives, such as cohabitation, which do not have the same vision with marriage (Ward & Belanger 2011). In the past, the claim that marriage is out-dated has been extensively used for promoting cohabitation; today, that the implications of cohabitation have been made clear the above claim cannot be justified (Ward & Belanger 2011). 3. Conclusion When evaluating human needs, there are certain issues that need to be taken into consideration. Primarily, human needs are differentiated, as of their power in influencing human life. Also, human needs can be perceived differently by individuals, according to their social environment and their own beliefs. Finally, human needs cannot be always covered; human needs that are vital for survival are expected to come first. Then those needs that are related to feelings can be addressed. Cohabitation has been proved to be an effective means for covering human needs related to love and sexuality. In this paper though, a specific role of cohabitation is particularly explored: the potentials of cohabitation to be used effectively in order for a couple to be prepared for marriage. Different views have been identified in the literature in regard to the above use of cohabitation. According to most theorists and researchers, cohabitation is of critical importance in terms of love and human sexuality but its use before marriage should be avoided; the high rate of conflicts developed during cohabitation and the following destroy of the planned marriage are considered as the key reasons for the specific view. References Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Love Online: Emotions on the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blau, J. (2008). The Blackwell Companion to Sociology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. De Singly, F. (1996). Modern Marriage and Its Cost to Women: A Sociological Look at Marriage in France. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. Greenberg, J., Bruess, C. & Conklin, S. (2010). Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. 4th ed. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Kendall, D. (2010). Sociology in Our Times. 8th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Kornblum, W. & Smith, C. (2007). Sociology in a Changing World. 8th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Midgley, J. & Midgley, S. (1992). A Decision to Love: A Marriage Preparation Program. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications. Mohanty, G. (2005). Modern Sociology: Cultural sociology. Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. Strong, B. (2013). The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society. 12th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. & Xie, Y. (2008). Marriage and Cohabitation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ward, M. & Belanger, M. (2011). The Family Dynamic: A Canadian Perspective. 5th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Read More