‘JUST LIVING TOGETHER’- Relationships and marriage

‘JUST LIVING TOGETHER’
Cohabitation, or ‘Living together’, has become a popular and accepted practice in most countries and cities around the world. In one British study, 8% of the couples admitted to cohabiting before marriage. Such non-traditional family forms are most frequently practiced by the
young university-age students, among divorcees and other segments of the population which question or are disillusioned with traditional marriage.

TYPES OF COHABITING RELATIONSHIPS
Linus blanket.
 The primary goal of such a relationship is emotional security. This relationship is characterized by what appears to be an overwhelming need for one member of the pair to have a relationship with someone, with little regard for whom, or under what conditions. To have someone, no matter how badly they are treated, is seen as being better than having no one at all.
For example, the insecure partner in this situation comes across as a clinging vine. When interacting with others this individual typically stays physically close to the partner, depends on him or her to carry the conversation, and is submissive and easily taken advantage of. So long as the more secure partner does not feel trapped, the insecure partner’s emotional needs are likely to be met. The relationship is, however, fragile. Since it is through the constructive handling of disagreements that relationships grow, the insecure person must decide whether to accept unacceptable situation or leave the relationship. Growth is not an alternative.
When the Linus blanket relationship terminates, the insecure individual typically feels rejected, hurt, devalued, and suffers the loss of self-esteem, which neutralizes much of the gain found in the security and love in the friendship.

Emancipation.
 In this situation the person enters into a cohabiting arrangement primarily as a means of achieving symbolic independence from parents, and as a means of rebelling against authority and tradition. In studies of cohabiting couples it has been found that more than 75% of the repeating cohabiting males and females reported that their longest cohabiting experience lasted less than six months. Such couples often experience the pulls, pushes, and conflicts of their chosen life-style with the standards by which they have been raised. While they act out their right to individual moral freedom they are torn by their moral heritage. As a result, a double bind situation develops. Peer pressure and internal desire pulls in the direction of becoming involved in cohabiting.
On the other hand the subtle guilt of doing something wrong makes it difficult for the individual to settle down into the relationship. Consequently, these pulls and pushes result in anxiety and ultimately the breakdown of the relationship thus accounting for the transitory and short-lived natured of many of these relationships. This type of relationship does not produce much by way of personal growth.

Convenience.
 The convenience relationship is motivated by a desire to find a relationship which meets such practical needs as financial security, sex and companionship. Such types are frequently found among college students and those who claim that they cohabit because of financial advantages. Such a relationship allows individuals to have the luxuries of regular sexual contact and domestic living without the responsibilities of a committed relationship. Many of these couples founder over the matter of mutuality as often the woman becomes more responsible for domestic duties while the male receive the payoff. She may either choose to fit into the role expected of her or she may choose to do her duties in order to make the male dependent on her so he will not leave her. Either way, she demonstrates a higher level of investment in the relationship which inevitably becomes its undoing. In other words, the relationship turns out to be exploitive rather than reciprocal.

Testing:
 Another motive is that of testing to see if the couple is compatible. Anthropologist Margaret Mead once suggested a two-stage model for marriage. Several studies, however, have demonstrated no significant difference in the marital satisfaction between those who cohabited before marriage and those who dated, nor was there a significant difference in divorce rates. Apparently, practice does not make perfect.
One of the most difficult tasks of a cohabiting relationship is to form a good intimate relationship while at the same time maintaining freedom, individuality and autonomy. This is also a task of marriage, but within a cohabiting relationship this balancing act is made more difficult by the lack of role models, social structures, guidelines and the ever present possibility of termination without obligation.
This mutually-autonomy issue surfaces primarily when individuals have met there insecurity needs and are motivated to try out a semi-committed relationship.
Commitment is needed in any long-term intimate relationship. However, commitment in cohabiting relationships varies according to the motives, the persons involved, and the type of relationship built. Women tend to be more committed. There is something about the intimacy and long-term commitment of marriage that is difficult or impossible to duplicate in cohabitation.
The question to be asked then of such couples is: does cohabiting ‘test’ the potential for marriage? In order to answer this question effectively several important factors must be considered. Ridley suggests:

•    What are the partner’s motivations for cohabiting?  Bad signs: little thought given to one’s motives, motivated by convenience or to prove independence from parents and peers, curiosity.
•    What are the partner’s expectations for the cohabiting experience?  Bad signs: little thought has been given to them or both disagree.
•    What are the goals and needs of each individual?  Bad signs: not aware of or motivated to meet others’ needs; they do not view the relationship as a highly significant one. 
•   At what level are the partner’s interpersonal skills?  Bad signs: difficulty in expressing feelings and poor problem solving and communication skills.
•   Level of commitment?  Bad signs: emotional imbalance with one partner investing more than the other.

Some advantages with cohabiting have been suggested such as: compared with dating couples they are more likely to express overall satisfaction with the relationship; they tend to understand themselves and their partner better and therefore may be better to ascertain compatibility; and they experience a higher standard of living by pooling resources.
I the US there has been considerable research into this alternative family style, especially in college and university campuses. The problems of living together are both similar to and different from the problems experienced in the marriage. Problems such as communicating, resolving conflicts, agreeing on roles are common to both. On the other hand conflicts in cohabiting relationships tend to be less intense because the relationship can be more readily terminated.
In the next article we shall try to look at the problems associated with cohabiting.