The Logic and Lessons of Cohabitation

Cohabitation – sometimes termed “trial marriage” - is the new and undisputed norm. NPR writes:

• Today, more than 65 percent of first marriages start out that way. Fifty years ago, it was closer to 10 percent.

• Cohabitation before marriage, once frowned upon, is now almost a rite of passage, especially for the millennial generation. Young adults born after 1980 are more likely to cohabit than any previous generation was at the same stage of life, according to the Pew Research Center. With more than 8 million couples currently cohabiting, it is obviously a living arrangement with appeal — but it is also one with unique challenges.

The logic for cohabitation goes like this:

• Marriage is difficult. Most end in divorce. It therefore makes sense to first live together to test for compatibility.

On the surface, this makes sense, but the findings indicate otherwise:

• The research on whether cohabitation increases the risk of divorce is still being debated, but Rhoades and her colleagues have found that couples who move in together before getting engaged or committed to marry are a little more likely to have lower-quality marriages. 

In fact, the stats are frankly forbidding:

• [Trial marriage] provides some but not all of the same emotional benefits of marriage, yet only for a short time and at a high price. Breaking up with a live-in lover carries many of the same emotional costs as divorce but happens far more frequently. People who are cohabitating are less happy generally than the married and are less satisfied with their sex lives. In America, long-term cohabiting relationships are far rarer than successful marriages. (The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher, 74)

• One in ten survives five or more years…The divorce rate among those who cohabit prior to marriage is nearly double (39% vs. 21%) that of couples who marry without prior co-habitation.

• “Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to be unfaithful…Depression is three times more likely…The poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is five-fold greater…and 90% more likely to have a low GPA…Abuse of children is 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.”

• “Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children. It is a deadly toxin to marriage, family, and culture.” 

• Spanish statistics, which have been highlighted in recent years by Europe’s Family Policy Institute (FPI), and recently reported by the Spanish Newspaper ABC, indicate that while only 11% of Spanish couples cohabit without marriage, such unions account for 58% of the most violent crimes between couples. For every one protection order issued for a married couple, ten are issued for cohabiting couples. (LifeSiteNews.com)

How do we explain this? Why are “untried” marriages more successful than trial marriages? Perhaps it has to do with the way we regard marriage. Do we regard it pragmatically (whether or not it works for me) or principally (my commitment to my family is more important than pragmatic considerations). The pragmatic approach is me-centered, while the principled approach is other-centered.

Perhaps we need to understand that our lives are about more than ourselves and our pleasures. Perhaps instead, life paradoxically works better when we are other-centered, even God centered, and when we are not primarily focused on what I can get out of it.

This is the logic of Jesus:

• But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

It seems to be superior to the “logic” of cohabitation.

Polyamory: Curse or Cure

Diana Adams runs a Brooklyn-based legal firm oriented toward providing traditional marriage rights to non-traditional families. She is presently in a sexual relationship with “several men and women.” In an interview in The Atlantic, she tried to justify her lifestyle:

•  We put so much emphasis on a partner being everything—that this person completes you—and when that doesn’t happen it creates a lot of pressure. I don't think that open relationships are for everyone but it's something that you should no longer feel ashamed to talk about at a time when so many marriages are failing.

Evidently, Adams feels that she has what it takes to make polyamory work. Nevertheless, Adams is right! So many marriages are failing, but this failure seems to be a modern phenomenon. Perhaps it’s the result of having inflated expectations/desires similar to those of polyamorists. While Adams correctly reflects that one person can’t fulfill all of our needs and desires, she then assumes that many can:

•  Well, for example, with my female partners, I feel a different kind of power dynamic. I feel a protective impulse toward women I’m involved with. It's a different kind of love feeling. My partner Ed is a wonderful feminist man, though sometimes I’d really like to be out on a date with the kind of man who wants to open car doors for me and treat me like a princess. I don't want that all the time, but I might want that once a month.

“I feel…I feel…I want…I want!” I’m left wondering – How long with this infatuation last, even with many partners? When does it begin to feel old, superficial and even oppressive? Does polyamory represent progress or a descent into a juvenile, “I want this now” mentality? This raises the question, “What are mature relationships about – commitment or maximizing the ‘I want’?” It would seem that a commitment to a troupe of men and women would translate into a commitment to none.

Polyamorists seem to have a hidden assumption – that monogamous couples become sexually bored because of a problem inherent to monogamy. However, that problem might be inherent in us instead. After all, why would we pursue other partners? The body-parts are basically the same. What then produces the excitement in a new relationship and boredom with the old humdrum? Perhaps we have a pathological need to be adored. If this is so, perhaps we should learn how to find excitement in the one to whom we have committed ourselves!

Polyamory seems to provide a green light to jump ship and find a few new partners when things get a bit sticky and the “I want” is no longer being satisfied. Isn’t marriage supposed to be a workshop where we discover one another and work through the issues that are caused by this encounter?

And what about those hard-feeling-buttons that polyamory is certain to push? Adams explains:

• We talk a lot. We check in with each other, “Is this okay with you?” and the answer can be, “I don't know.” For instance maybe Ed and I are going to a party together and this guy that I've been dating is at the party too. “Will it feel okay with you if I go over and kiss him?” Polyamory will find your buttons and it will push them. If you don't want to have that kind of challenge, it's not the right lifestyle for you. But, if you're up for it, polyamory can be the catalyst for powerful personal growth.

“Powerful personal growth?” What would this growth look like? Coping with jealous, murderous lovers? Knowing when to say “goodbye” or just flee? If polyamory is really a viable lifestyle, why doesn’t Adams simply “date” all of her lovers at one time – one big happy family, or is it?

One therapy group leader had confessed that he used his group to line-up new sexual partners. However, he and his wife had to keep their conquests secret. He had once seen his wife escorting her latest into their home, and he flew into a mad rage that sent him to the psych ward for two weeks. For them, the ““powerful personal growth” was a matter of learning to practice total avoidance.

Of course, Adams expresses a high concern for the (un-aborted) children resulting from such unions. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, doesn’t it. While I think that there is truth in this adage, these polyamorous relationships seem to more closely approximate a roving series of predator babysitters than a village. If a series of men and women are fair game for our sexual appetites, why not also the children?

Ultimately, it is time that will tell, but time has already passed its verdict. If these forms of sexual groupings had been viable, we would find long-standing polyamorous communities throughout the world. However, we don’t. Evidently, they have either been decimated by STDs or consumed by jealous, angry impulses from within.