Common Reasons Why People Choose to Cohabitate

Cohabitation has become a normative stage in young adults’ lives over the past decades. According to Stanley et al., cohabitation has become common, with an estimated 50% to over 60% of couples living together before marriage in the United States. Transition to cohabitation is often rapid and that couples frequently “slide” quickly into shared living without serious commitment to a shared future. Some of the reasons why these people form cohabiting unions could be: housing needs, convenience, financial necessity, sign of commitment, stepping-stone to marriage, and most importantly to test a relationship.

Religion

Religious beliefs also play an important role in how people approach cohabitation. Young adults who regularly attend churches that emphasize the sanctity of marriage and whose beliefs are held to be very important are the most likely to make a transition to marriage, and the least likely to make a transition to cohabitation. Some individuals will choose not to cohabit, because they believe, often on the basis of their religious traditions, that living together unmarried is wrong. Unlike individuals that are not very religious. The do not see cohabitation and pre-marital intercourse as a sin. For example, Roman Catholic Church always declaring marriage to be a sacrament and prescribing that sexual relations should only occur within a marriage and that artificial means of contraception are forbidden.

Class

Class is another determinant of how people approach cohabitation. Economically disadvantaged women are more likely to cohabit because they need support and see their boyfriend as a way they can get support by sharing the bills. Working class people are more likely to enter cohabiting unions than middle class due to their financial status. The decline of jobs that pay adequate wages for those without a college diploma, difficulties saving money to cover rent or security deposits, and the lack of parental financial support contribute to the relationship processes of our working-class respondents.

Middle-class respondents, who on average had good job opportunities and access to resources or were working on graduate degrees to improve their employment prospects, were better able to move gradually into shared living. Thepy were also more likely to articulate a desired relationship template, where couples date for a delimited period—a year to a year and a half, in the views of several middle-class respondents, before seriously considering marriage—that differs from the working class. We found, however, that working-class couples are far more likely to enter into cohabitation because financial circumstances warranted living together, even if doing so was less than ideal. 

College-educated respondents, who were generally better able to afford independent living, whether on their own or with roommates, seemed to maintain separate apartments longer, even if they spent as many nights with partners as their working-class counterparts did. This suggests that for those who could afford to do so, there was some value in keeping their own residence—whether to have more time to “test” the relationship, because their work lives required more attention that subsequently slowed down their relationship progressions, or because of concerns that family members would not approve of cohabitation. Because middle-class respondents had more resources, they appeared to have the luxury of waiting until they wanted to change residences (such as when a lease ended), rather than needed to move into shared living. That resources feature so prominently in cohabitors’ discussions of why they move in together is not unexpected. The old adage that formerly encouraged marriage—that two can live as cheaply as one—is also applicable to cohabitation. But working-class cohabitors were more than twice as likely as their middle-class counterparts to report financial necessity as one of the reasons they entered into shared living. Although this difference is based on small numbers, several respondents revealed they would not be cohabiting were it not for their financial situations. Susan, for example, viewed moving in with Eugene as necessary but wrong, explaining, “We understand that this was not our first option, to move in with each other, but we knew it was financially what we needed to do.” Asked what they would have done if each had more money, Susan replied, “We wouldn’t have moved in with each other,” specifying that they would have waited until they got married. Tyrone also felt that cohabitation was not optimal given their religious. . convictions, explaining, “I mean, we ain’t livin’ right.” Half of the working-class respondents who mentioned financial necessity as a reason for cohabiting had moved in with their partners within 6 months of starting their romantic relationships; these respondents tended to be younger and none reported receiving monetary assistance from parents. Middle-class respondents also expressed reservations about moving in because of fiscal necessity, though none mentioned religious reservations about cohabiting.

Sexual Orientation

In terms of sexual orientation. Same sex couple might chose to cohabit more than heterosexual couple because they keep questioning if marriage if for them as it is not really societally acceptable.

Common Beliefs

Another approach is general belief. According to Keflasm “the very poor tend to believe it is better to have financial security before getting married, so they tend to cohabit longer before possibly entering marriage”. Also many people belief that cohabitation is a good way to lower their odds of divorce and avoid grater financial obligations if things did not work out since they get to know what living with their partner would look like and can decide if they are meant for each other.

Transitions to cohabitation are more rapid among the working class. Most of them often cohabited for practical reasons—out of financial necessity, because it was convenient, or to meet a housing need. Regardless of social class status, few couples move in together as a “trial marriage.” Nonetheless, middle-class cohabitors were more likely to have become engaged than their working-class counterparts.

Stigma

Another way people approach cohabitation is family issues—such as the desire to move out of a parent’s (or sibling’s) home or as a result of pregnancy. There are concerned about the stigma associated with living with parents in contemporary society and also desire a greater freedom. They want to have that separation from their parent that gives them the sense that they are moving on with their life and doing what they want to do. The challenge of establishing sexually intimate relationships while living with parents or older siblings is seen as an impetus to cohabitation.

Kefalas, Furstenberg, Carr & Napolitano, suggest that, although marriage remains an important goal, adulthood comes before the lifelong commitment that marriage engenders. Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman also argue that premarital cohabitation is associated with an increased risk of divorce and marital distress.

Sexual Orientation

Another approach can be seen in how sexual orientation affect how people approach cohabitation. I think that cohabitation for heterosexual couples does not carry the same amount of stigma that it used to Most research on marriage and cohabitation has focused on heterosexual couples while paying very little attention to same-sex couples. In addition, with the increased number of individuals within the LGBT community, marriage now covers same-sex couples.

Interestingly, same-sex couples may experience a lower level of relationship stability due to minority stress, weaker social support, and incomplete institutionalization causing same-sex marriages to be more unstable. These factors weaken relationships between same-sex couples, causing instability within their relationships . The situation for the same sex is different because, in their case, same-sex couples may experience conflicts and stress as they undertake roles and relationships that do not follow the shared norms and expectations. Additionally, minority stress may cause these couples to experience hindrances due to discrimination and difficulties in creating and maintain high quality relationships in particular communities. Moreover, cohabiting with a member of the same sex creates numerous stresses because it represents a public presentation of a gay or lesbian individual with their partner.

Conclusion

To summarize, in many countries’ cohabitation is now even the expected way of starting a family. Because sexual intimacy is also normative in romantic relationships, justifications for not cohabiting are growing ever weaker, despite the research suggesting that the effect of living together on subsequent unions, particularly marriage, may be adverse. There are some reasons why couples are rapidly going to live together and sometimes decisions are taken unconsciously, nevertheless every act has a result.