Parent Trap? No, Cohabitation Trap!

And here I thought people were wising up to the fact that living together in sin before marriage wasn't leading to human fulfillment and bliss, and then to come across Mr. Johnston'e piece:

The Co-Habitation Trap

GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON

There's no such thing as a trial marriage.

Recently, a college classmate told me that her 25-year-old son has a girlfriend about whom he can't make up his mind. The couple have been going together for two years. He is serious about the girl, thinks she'd make a good wife, but tells his mother that he's not sure about taking the plunge. Should he propose? Should he take more time to think about it? Maybe date other girls to gain perspective? The son is at a loss.

My friend is generally a sensible person, and she gave her son what she thinks is good advice: why not move in with her and see how it goes? In other words, do a trial marriage. If the sharing of bed and board goes smoothly, then tie the knot. If it doesn't, you can go your separate ways and will have been spared what nobody wants: a broken marriage.

My friend unfortunately was steering her son into what might be called the "co-habitation trap." It so happens — contrary to widespread belief — that the divorce rate among couples who live together before marriage is notably higher than the normal divorce rate — up to 40 percent higher, depending on which study you look at.

There are variations within this disquieting statistic. Couples who get engaged before moving in together do better than couples who don't. If it's the woman's first and only live-in situation, the divorce rate is lower. Brief cohabitators are more likely to stay married than longer-term ones. Whatever the nuances, however, all these categories produce higher divorce rates than that for couples who don't live together before marriage.

Why is this? It seems counter-intuitive. A young woman might say to her friends, "I wouldn't dream of marrying a man until first living with him for a couple of years." And her friends would nod sagely. It makes a certain kind of sense: take a test drive before committing to a model.

But this scenario doesn't always work in real life. Years ago, a friend of mine moved in with his girlfriend. They shared a loft in SoHo and seemed to have a marvelous time being a young Manhattan couple. After two years, they married. A year later, the marriage cracked up bitterly. I said to him one day, "What happened? The two of you seemed great together." "I don't know," he replied. "It's as though all of a sudden all the wrong buttons were pushed."

The point is that there's no such thing as a trial marriage. As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead puts it, "Living together is not to marriage as spring training is to the baseball season."

Here are some problems with cohabitation:

When a couple move in together, they seldom ask the sort of questions one ought to ask about a partner with whom one is going to spend the rest of one's life. Do I really share this person's values? Do I want my children to have this person's values? The worst scenario is sliding into cohabitation and then sliding into marriage. Decide, don't slide, as the saying goes.
It has been well observed that in a good marriage, whenever a wife or husband uses the pronoun "I" he or she also means "we." But when a cohabiting person uses the pronoun "I", he or she often means "I." The couple have separate names, separate bank accounts; there's an implicit agreement that either can back out of the relationship. In brief, they are rehearsing a low-intensity commitment. But marriage involves a high-intensity commitment.

Besides, no happily married couple have ever looked at one another, slapped their foreheads, and exclaimed, "If only we had started having sex six months earlier!"

Sex can get in the way of the prudential judgments one should make about the person one is going to marry. Sex and lucid judgment don't always go together, to say the least. Sex releases hormones like oxytocin, which, among other things, act like a bonding agent, even when the couple in reality may not be suited to one another. It is much harder to break up a bad relationship when sex is going on. Abstaining couples, on the other hand, tend to look at one another with greater clarity. The emotional growth of their relationship is not short-circuited by an act that presumes more commitment than is the case.
Men and women go into cohabitation with very different assumptions and expectations. A woman will tend to regard living together as a dress rehearsal for marriage, while her partner has much looser ideas about the arrangement. She will typically take less time than he does deciding in favor of marriage. In fact, he's happy to postpone the decision for as long as possible. This can lead to scenes. She doesn't even have to utter the word "marriage" to make him defensive. All she has to say is something like, "I don't see where this relationship is going," to set him off. "You're putting pressure on me!" "Things are fine the way they are!" "I don't want to be pushed into anything!" And so forth.

"We suspect, rightly," James Q. Wilson writes in The Marriage Problem, "that marriage differs from cohabitation. Cohabitation means that two people agree to live together, sharing rooms, meals, and sex. Marriage means that two people promise to live together until they die, sharing rooms, meals, sex, and a permanent obligation to care for one's spouse. The promise is at the heart of the matter."

It's not easy to abstain from sex prior to marriage. Especially when a couple are already engaged. But to reserve sex for marriage is to affirm its meaning and ultimately strengthen the bond of marriage. Sex is the consummation of a solemn promise; it doesn't work so well without it.

Besides, no happily married couple have ever looked at one another, slapped their foreheads, and exclaimed, "If only we had started having sex six months earlier!" Instead, they can share a fond memory of waiting for the starting gun to go off.

Acknowledgement

George Sim Johnston. "The Co-Habitation Trap." The Catholic Thing (August 1, 2015).

Reprinted by permission of The Catholic Thing.

The Author

George Sim Johnston is a writer living in New York City. He graduated from Harvard with a B. A. in English literature and was an investment banker with Salomon Brothers in the seventies and early eighties. Since then he has been a free-lance writer, publishing with The Wall Street Journal, Harper's, Commentary, Harvard Business Review, National Catholic Register, World Catholic Report, and other publications. He is a three-time winner of the Journalism Award from the Catholic Press Association. He teaches marriage preparation and CCD for the Archdiocese of New York and is the author of Did Darwin Get it Right?: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution.

Comments

This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged | Gay Star News

DANCING WITH MR. D: This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged | Gay Star News : 'via Blog this'

My Intended Audience

I have written for those Catholics born and perhaps catechized before Vatican II or immediately thereafter who as yet are unaware of the true teaching of the Council. It should not surprise the reader that there are Catholics whose lifestyles do not differentiate them all that much from those who are not Catholic and/or Christian. Moreover, many Catholics of the “baby-boom” generation are alienated from the Church all together because their only exposure has been to a superficial, cultural Catholicism, impotent in the face of an American culture increasingly without faith. Conversely, many others have left the Church – hungrier, as they say, for a more “biblically-based church.” The book is also intended for young people of the “JP II” generation of Catholics, born long after the council but perhaps not fully aware of the turmoil spawned by dissent in the Church which, though on the wane, is still with us today. These young people, especially those in authentically Catholic college...

Bergoglio and Montini

In an earlier post I noted a similarity between the current Pope and Pope Paul VI. Soon the Holy Father, Pope Francis will decide whether or not to approve communion for the divorced and remarried. The Pope’s decision will come at the end of 2015 or at the beginning of 2016, under pressure of a public opinion that at that point is likely to be almost exclusively expecting a yes. As I discussed in my book, this is much the same as the pressure for change in the licentious decade of the 1960's, when Paul VI had to decide on the legitimacy of contraceptives, with many theologians, bishops, and cardinals in favor. As is now legendary, in 1968 Paul VI decided against in his encyclical, Humanae vitae , an encyclical that suffered bitter contestation on the part of whole episcopates, and disobedience from countless among the faithful. Always the Pope to do the unforeseen, he will take Paul VI’s encyclical as his frame of reference, as stated in a March 5 interview with...

Do Not Be Ashamed

T he demeaning and of Pope Benedict is quickening in combination with the growing exaltation of Pope Francis in the secular world and among the "progressive" dissidents within the Church. Thus I believe a little review of his Pontificate is in order, as the signs of the times required him to shoulder a heavy cross and suffer a quiet type of crucifixion due to his exceptional faith and courageous writings and actions. Pope Benedict took strong, long overdue and very necessary actions against moral corruption within the clergy, the religious orders and within Catholic aid agencies. He appointed many bishops faithful to the true Vatican II, and removed many who were a cause of scandal to the Church. He took actions on the liturgy and other issues that were not popular, but which he saw as essential to preserving Catholicism and Christian culture much as laid down in his The Spirit of the Liturgy. The full story of his papacy remains to be told. “And blessed is he who ...

Satan makes his way to us through the libido!

Let us take a great civilization historically devoid of pornography, and examine what happens once the door is opened a crack, for smoke to enter:

"The Spirit of Vatican II"

My advice to one confronted with doubt sown by those who make reference to “correct interpretations of Vatican II” is to reflect closely upon the words of John Paul II: With the Council, the Church first had an experience of faith, as she abandoned herself to God without reserve, as one who trusts and is certain of being loved. It is precisely this act of abandonment to God which stands out from an objective examination of the Acts. Anyone who wished to approach the Council without considering this interpretive key would be unable to penetrate its depths. Only from a faith perspective can we see the Council event as a gift whose still hidden wealth we must know how to mine . In short, it is this abandonment, this interpretive faith perspective that is woefully lacking in many who would offer to explain what the Council taught in “the spirit of Vatican II.” Watch here to see what abandonment looks like!

The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God

In my first Chapter I discuss at length a phenomenon which the Holy Father in a recent audience recalled like it was yesterday: the true and false Second Vatican Councils: "I would now like to add another point: there was the Council of the fathers - the true Council - but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council unto itself, and the world perceived the Council through these, through the media. "Therefore the Council that immediately and efficiently arrived to the people was that of the media, not that of the fathers. And while the Council of the fathers was realized within the faith, and was a Council of the faith that seeks 'intellectus,' that seeks to understand itself and seeks to understand the signs of God at that moment, that seeks to respond to the challenge of God at that moment and to find in the word of God the word for today and tomorrow, while the whole Council - as I have said - was moving within the faith, as ''...

THE YOUNG MESSIAH - Trailer

Reviewed here .But, I recommend the erudite D. Armstrong: “Young Messiah” Contains Christological Heresy March 12, 2016 by Dave Armstrong 6 Comments Christ in the House of His Parents (1850), by John Everett Millais (1829-1896) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons ] * * * The Young Messiah is the latest “Bible movie” to appear. The problem is that it’s not (technically speaking) all that “biblical.” We know very little about Jesus’ childhood, and so the film draws from extrabiblical sources of mostly dubious historical value. For background’s sake, it’s drawn from Anne Rice ‘s 2005 novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt . Rice has since left the Catholic Church and “organized religion” (I have written about the inadequacy of her reasoning in that respect). As soon as I saw the first TV ad for this movie my immediate reaction was to be suspicious of it. I highly suspected that it would ...

Libido Redux: Tindering Unhinged

.... as serious sin, in Paul’s thinking became the occasion and the effect of interference by the “hidden enemy who sows errors,” who undermines our moral equilibrium — the Devil. In Paul’s teaching The Devil is the clever tempter who makes his way into man through the sensual, the libido, a “crack” through which the Evil One attempts to prevail .... -from The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God “ Some people still catch feelings in hook-up culture.” Of all the depressing lines spoken by young adults in the article “Tinder and the Dawn of the ‘Dating Apocalypse’ in the September issue of Vanity Fair, that one takes the cake. Meredith, a sophomore at Bellarmine University in Louisville, Ky., explains that “It’s not like just blind f—ing for pleasure and it’s done; some people actually like the other p...

Search This Blog