Dads Against the Divorce IndustryDA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS. DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes. |
Why ‘shacking-up' for marriage's sake fails
By Dr. Wade F. Horn Q: My girlfriend and I
are in our early twenties. We have been dating for about six months
and things are starting to get serious. We recently discussed moving
in together. I know you are a big fan of marriage, and so are we.
But we want to make sure that we are right for each other before we
take that walk down the aisle. So we're considering living together
for a while as a way of finding out. What do you think?
A: For the baby boom generation, the driving force behind
cohabitation was an avoidance of marriage. Baby Boomers didn't want
to get married, but did want to have sex. Cohabitation was a way for
them to have their cake and eat it too.
Since then, the purpose and meaning of cohabitation has changed.
Today, the driving force behind cohabitation is not so much a desire
to avoid marriage, but to avoid divorce.
At the same time, there seems to be a genuine yearning within Gen
X-ers for greater attachments to family and commitment to others.
Surveys show, for example, that Gen X-ers are more likely than Baby
Boomers to agree that a married person's having sex with someone
other than their spouse is always wrong. Gen X-ers are also less
career-oriented than Baby Boomers, with female Gen X-ers being more
likely than Baby Boomer women to express a preference to stay home
and raise a family.
Herein lies their dilemma. How does one achieve greater
attachments in family relationships while at the same time avoiding
divorce? The answer many Gen X-ers have come up with is this:
cohabitation as a form of trial marriage.
On the surface the idea makes eminent sense. You don't buy a car
unless you test drive it first. So why buy into marriage without
test driving it first?
The problem is that cohabitation before marriage actually makes
subsequent marriages less stable. Statistics show that divorce rates
are at least fifty percent higher for couples who cohabit before
marriage compared to those who did not. Why should this be?
The answer lies in the fact that the goal of marriage and the
goal of cohabitation is quite different. In marriage, the goal is
(or ought to be, anyway) taking care of the other person, in
sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. The point of marriage
is not constantly checking to see whether you feel good, but
constantly checking to make sure you are doing all you can to
support, encourage and take care of your marital partner.
Contrast this with cohabitation. In cohabitation the goal is not
so much to determine whether I am up to the task of taking care of
your needs, but whether you are up to the task of taking care of
mine. The "trial" in a trial-marriage is not a test of oneself, but
a test of the other. When cohabitors assert that they are testing
their compatibility with each other, what they really mean is that
they are testing how well the other person fulfills their needs.
Thus, cohabitation as a trial marriage teaches exactly the wrong
message about marriage. It suggests that marriage is about whether
or not I feel good, and if I stop feeling good, however temporarily,
there must be something wrong.
But marriage is not about "me," but "we." Couples in lasting
marriages understand this. They use the commitment they have for
each other to overcome temporary roadblocks. In fact, research shows
that commitment to the marriage as a life-long partnership is the
strongest predictor of marital stability, stronger even the quality
of one's sex life or communication skills.
So my advice: avoid cohabitation. Instead have long discussions
about what marriage means to each of you, and what you expect from
marriage. Better yet, undergo meaningful marital preparation with a
qualified counselor or member of the clergy.
Most of all, search your own soul and ask yourself these
questions: Is this person someone I will want to take care of, not
only when things are going well, but when they are not? Is this a
person I am committed to, not because what she does for me, but for
what I can do for her? Is this someone who I want to be with for the
rest of my life, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health?
The answer to these questions is not to be found in playing
house. The answer is to be found in an honest assessment of your own
capacity for understanding what it takes to make a lasting
|