This era of instant gratification and tenant relationship has undergone a radical change in the outlook of time honored institutions like marriage. Over the past few decades, marriage rates have been falling as cohabitation rates have been rising. Today, only about 50% of couples live together when compared to a generation ago, about 50% live together before marriage. Although the numbers are higher in the West, India and other Asian countries are fast catching up.
Living-in seems a more attractive proposition that marriage bond. It is a ‘fun thing’ and the partners take it every day. There is no need to formalize the relationship. The standard answer given is that “neither of us is religious, and a slip of paper does not make any difference to our relationship.”
Stephanie Contez, co-chair of the Council of Contemporary Families, says, “Cultural acceptance and science have broken the age-old equation of marriage and childbearing. All types of families are claiming legitimacy and achieving it . “
Many blame the feminist movement for devaluing marriage. Jermaine Greer gave rise to the “middle-class myth of love and marriage” that, if they were trapped in such a trap, they should have no virtue of breaking free.
Radha Thomas, an Indian feminist, said, “Marriage is nothing but society. There are few rules imposed on you by the society. Live-in relationship is nothing ordinary.”
In their book “Open Marriage – A New Lifestyle,” George and Nina O’Neill called marriage “archaic, harsh, abusive, oppressive, stagnant and decaying” and think monotony must be eliminated. But long before that, Sigmund Freud was convinced that sexual liberation against sexual restraint was the panacea for all human emotional illnesses.
Bertrand Russell was also a champion of more liberal sex. “Adults have the right to have sex until they have children,” he said.
Today’s young generation is an ambitious, work-oriented class in its own right, hell-bent on reaching the top level of career. Foreheaded over power and wealth, they have neither the time for moral commitments, nor the monotony of a lifetime. They cannot lose their hopes and dreams for the sake of a legal document. He does not have time to play for a loving husband or doting dad’s barat. Being financially stable they feel that they are “masters of their destiny and captains of their souls.”
Many educated women have chosen the “career-only” role, and are happy with it. A career offers the opportunity to remain single. Staying single is not a disability. Marriage is considered a threat to their career goals. He has economic freedom, personal freedom and a glamorous social life. Husbands and children will only interrupt a pattern to which they have become accustomed. Sexual liberation provides pleasure without commitment. And since everyone is doing it, why don’t they? However, the feminist cage of unrealistic expectations is likely to operate in its own way and have a distorted understanding of love, which can distort their value systems.
Secular humanism is another ideology, which has caused a lot of confusion in the field of sexuality, because it depends entirely on the intelligence and ability of man. The rights of a person must take precedence over everything else, no matter how much destruction it leaves in its wake.
The live-in relationship goes by different names. There is neither emotional nor legal protection in live in relationship (LTR). The Gestalt prayer sings their ideology.
“I speak and I speak,
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live for me.
You are you and i am me
And if we find each other by chance it is beautiful,
If not, it cannot be helped. “
In common law marriages, the man and woman call themselves husband and wife, although there is no legal license to seal their relationship. There are many such couples in all walks of life, and the public recognizes them as such.
However, a contract cohabitation involves two people in a master-servant relationship. Guru can be male or female. A written contract specifies duties, salaries, allowances, leave, medical benefits and contract length. There are probably clauses that deal with premature termination of the contract.
The advantage of a live-in relationship is that it is not oppressive. In fact, it is considered an experience of liberation. It gives individuals their own space for development, and there is a lot of scope for creativity. Partners usually have the same level of intelligence, and consider themselves equal. They are not the “Klinging-bell” type, which requires constant attention and reassurance. Neither does the woman who drunk the man know very well that it could endanger her erotic role. Both companions value their independence, and still remain good companions and friends. Each looks for its fulfillment, and is blind to the selfishness inherent in their individual characters. Children do not get into their equation, because the responsibility is away from their minds.
Some live-in relationships end in marriage, especially if the woman becomes pregnant, or the couple decides to start a family. This happens when there is stability, and a deep commitment to each other.
But the majority are looking for only a short-term ‘high’. After the sacred is common, they move on to new allies. Sex is the only biological activity that can be performed anywhere. There is no relationship that binds, and gets bored because of very little personal investment.
Some believe that marriage destroys sex. In Esther Perrett’s book, “Mating in Captivity”, she states that domesticity reduces one’s sexual interest. Whereas live gives a sense of temporality and is therefore more exciting.
Some split due to fights over finance and spending sharing. Going Dutch may not be acceptable to one partner who is paid less than the other, and who may have less requirements. The division of household chores can also become a part of the dispute.
There may be a physical anomaly, trying to boss each other over. Fights can occur frequently, or prolonged silence, or even violence. The character, already considered cute in their relationship, may start to get angry. As they say that familiarity can lead to contempt.
Some psychologists argue that when there is mental compatibility with physical proximity, the relationship lasts. And with all the knowledge Mahesh Bhatt understood, believing about sex is more about “mental intercourse” than physical action.
Marriage does not happen by living together. It is the arrangement between two consenting adults who believe that they can get out of a relationship whenever they choose. Many believe that sexual experience before marriage will help in choosing the right partner when the time finally comes to settle down. But how much such a short distance live-in relationship should be experienced before the right choice is made?
Living-in has been made easier through permissible legislation. Judicial liberalism has given a go-ahead to adulterous relationships. The basic right is the right to choose a person. Not a violation of law, and completely legal, but elections must be done responsibly. According to one legal interpretation, “living together is a good thing because it leads to less broken weddings. It is the older generation that needs total re-orientation.”
Professor of Women’s Studies Drs. Rakesh Chandra states that it is a sound accent, “It takes cognizance of what is happening. It protects a woman’s rights and gives her the freedom to break out of an unsatisfactory relationship.”
Counselor Amrita Das feels that “a live-in couple should be motivated by responsibility and commitment, and not to view the relationship as a prelude to marriage.” She says, “We must distinguish between living as a license and living with moral intent.”
Technology has certainly come to help such relationships. Different methods of contraception take care of the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Infections such as STDs and HIV can be prevented by protected intercourse and antibiotics where necessary.
Voices defending morality are lost in the war-like crises of a liberal society. Even religious institutions, which once advocated purity, are silent for fear of alienating young people. The media glamorizes this kind of lifestyle.
Living-in is accompanied by poor gain, and a plethora of psychological problems such as disillusionment, insecurity, guilt, depression, loss of self-esteem, and self-confidence. After all, it is the woman who suffers both physically and psychologically. When there is a break at the end, it takes a lot of time before it can find another partner. Living together has also become unstable. The frequency with which the couple divides indicates the fragility of such a relationship. Many find themselves single in middle age, and women may also lose the chance to have children.
Some studies suggest that couples who marry after a live-in relationship often divorce, as they find marriage responsibilities stressful. Of course, unmarried couples are getting the same rights as married couples in some countries. Scandinavia gives children of such children alimony and inheritance rights.
While live-in relationships are not legally wrong, morality is questionable. An ancient prophet said, “Mourn those who call evil good, and good good evil; who keep darkness for light, and darkness in light; who pours bitter for sweet and bitter for sweet . “
What is legal is not always ethical; What is possible is not always prudent. “I-me-my” syndrome has become contagious in today’s society. The world would be a better place if life were to be lived in ways that enhance our dignity and self worth.