In many cultures, living with someone before marriage is strictly taboo. Yet, in liberal democratic societies in Europe and the United States, a different set of cultural values are adopted. In the latter regions pre-marital relationships are quite common. Varied sexual orientations and alternative living arrangements are also taking shape. There is also a tendency and greater tolerance toward newer lifestyles, including homosexuality, bisexuality and open relationships. In many ways, the prevailing cultural Zeitgeist has moved into unexplored territory, the sustainability and moral merits of which is yet to be ascertained. As these developments are happening in modern societies, traditionalists have raised a few objections. Mainly, they oppose these alternative social arrangements on grounds of religious and moral judgements. In these times of uncertainty, it is safe to say that there is no general consensus among the intellectuals, academicians and politicians. But the fact that the institution of marriage has held its ground for much of human history implies that there is intrinsic wisdom behind it’s success. This essay is an attempt to present arguments from both sides. Relevant scholarly sources have been perused for providing supportive evidence.
One of the common terms used in popular discourse these days is “intimacy”. Many modern psychotherapists and family counsellors qualitatively measure intimacy between a couple, in order to assess the health of their relationship. If the ultimate standard of measurement of interpersonal relationships is intimacy, then research indicates that it is elusive for most couples. The fact emerges that it is not the legal status of being ‘married’ that determines the attainment of healthy intimacy, but rather the duration for which the couple stay together. While statistically speaking, married couple have a greater chance of attaining this superior state than unmarried ones, there have also been exemplary cases of success among live-in partners. It is important to note that casual short term relationships are not considered here, for relationships that are founded on factors of temporary convenience, are set to fail from the outset (Mccabe, 1999).
Furthermore, scientific research and analysis to have emerged in the last fifty years points to the high probability of enduring love and intimacy only among long-term partners. As the following passage suggests, temporary live-in relationships are not conducive for the proper development of feelings of love and intimacy:
“Marriage or relationship therapy considers coupled people as natural units, and seeks to prevent or fix problems faced by couples. The advice literature of intimacy depicts couples who communicate their feelings to one another, rely on one another as confidants, and self-consciously work to preserve their relationship. Intimacy discourse claims that couples will be equal within the relationship–always a difficult goal in a sexist society–and also that they maintain a delicate balance between autonomy and fusion.” (Mashek, 2004)
Another important aspect of successful relationships is ‘commitment’. A couple who are committed to love and support each other can sail through rough times that would otherwise topple a relationship. Misunderstandings and the scope for minor offences are an integral part of all social interactions. Marriage and live-in relationships are no exception to this rule. When a couple first commit themselves to each other then rough moments that occur later can be capably handled. For a couple who are not married, there is always the option of breaking up the relationship, which serves as an easy escape from life’s challenges. By opting to break up a relationship unmarried couple fail to develop virtues such as patience and tolerance, which are crucial to all aspects of life. Hence an individual who has had commitment-free relationships in the past will be ill-equipped to handle minor marital problems when he/she eventually gets married. This in turn predisposes such individuals to resort to divorce. In other words, while live-in relationships are not unhealthy per se, they lack the necessary incentive for the couple to work through their problems. (Dinovella, 2005)
Some Scientific studies have also shown that married individuals perform better than their unmarried counterparts in the workplace. There is an indirect correlation between success in the workplace and probability of divorce, since it is easy to see how a stressful work environment can take a toll in domestic life. By providing the necessary mental balance and peace during office hours, marriage reinforces its strength in the process. But it should be added that live-in relationships have increased in frequency only in recent years and the study results may have been skewed by the dis-proportionality in numbers. The studies are flawed to the extent of grouping all unmarried people under one category, without distinguishing between long-term partners and single men and women.
Some historians are of the view that marriage is the oldest human institution. With it came the allied institution of the family. It is not hard to see that couple who are not committed to each other cannot successfully raise a family. For the healthy development of any child, the support and guidance of both parents is important. As statistics on single parent households in Britain shows, children growing up in such environments are likely to face developmental problems including low self-esteem. An individual who has lived with someone before marriage might have had the luxury of lack of encumbrances. But in a marital relationship the equation completely changes with the siring of offspring. Especially for men who have had several pre-marital relationships, the birth of a child would prove to be a tough challenge. The man who had experienced a care-free and unfettered life so far would be at a loss to cope with the birth of a child. It is very likely that the marriage would eventually fail due to his inadequacies as a father, jeopardizing the future of the innocent child. In this way, by force of habit, individuals involved in pre-marital relationships have higher likelihood of resorting to divorce. To the contrary, it can also be argued that an individual who has had premarital relationships ‘learns’ to adjust to the personality of his partner more easily, thereby bringing a sense of peace and harmony to the relationship. Pre-marital relationships also serve as a test-drive for inexperienced couple, thereby helping them to assess their adequacy and capacity to raise a family later in life. Hence there is no conclusive argument for or against pre-marital relationships. While conventional marriage has stood the test of time, there is no reason to believe that it is the only successful mode of conjugal relationship. (Spurlock, 2005)
Considering all the different viewpoints, it is reasonably clear that there is no conclusive evidence to support one side of the argument against the other. By application of deductive logic one can conclude that people who have had pre marital relationships only have a slight disadvantage when they eventually get married. One should also remember that contemporary society does not yet recognize same-sex marriages, thereby denying gay and lesbian couple the necessary legal status and their claim to adopt children. This is an area in which conventional marriages have not provided answers and to that extent they will remain incomplete. But there is no denying the fact that the time-tested institution of marriage provides the basic template, through the extension of which all long-term interpersonal relationships could be given legal recognition in the future (Woodward, 2003).
Works Cited:
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1987). Marriage and verbal intimacy. In V. J. Derlega & J. Berg (Eds. ), Self-disclosure: Theory, Research, and Therapy (pp. 131–154). New York: Plenum.
Berry, Joyce Hamilton. “Expert Advice on Love & Relationships: Doctor Joyce Answers Your Questions about Marriage and Dating.” Ebony Aug. 2007: 55.
Dinovella, Elizabeth. “Last Comes Love.” The Progressive Sept. 2005: 47+.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294
Lance, Larry M. “College Student Sexual Morality Revisited: A Consideration of Pre
Marital Sex, Extra-Marital Sex and Childlessness between 1940 and 2000-2005.” College Student Journal 41.3 (2007): 727+.
Mashek, Debra J., and Arthur Aron, eds. Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
Mccabe, Marita P. “The Interrelationship between Intimacy, Relationship Functioning and Sexuality among Men and Women in Committed Relationships.” The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 8.1 (1999): 31.
Mehay, Stephen L., and William R. Bowman. “Marital Status and Productivity: Evidence from Personnel Data.” Southern Economic Journal 72.1 (2005): 63+.
Mosier, Will. “Intimacy: The Key to a Healthy Relationship.” Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association 9.1 (2006): 34+.
Spurlock, John C. “Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and the Marriage Crisis.” Journal of Social History 39.1 (2005): 287+.
Woodward, Kath. Social Sciences: The Big Issues. London: Routledge, 2003.