“Not cohabitation, but consensus constitutes marriage.”
-Cicero
The first time we heard about Cohabitation or live-in relationships was in English Sitcom shows or through our friends who migrated from their homes to cities/towns in the pretext of better education or employment opportunities.
‘Live-in relationships’ which might be the contemporary word of ‘Cohabitation’ is a thought encountered by many couples. For proper comprehension, let’s know the legal definition of it as legal definitions are euphemistic and modified versions of moral explanations.
“An arrangement of living under which the couples which are unmarried live together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage.”
The growing prevalence of live-in relationships and many other couples adopting this thought before jumping to into marriage business has managed to make conservative part of society to question it and call it immoral. The moral police are of the opinion that it degrades the institution of marriage and shackles the Society’s moral and social structure which is essential for its survival.
Marriage has been recognized mostly as a contract between man and woman (Not that I don’t support LGBTQ+ rights). The emergence and espousing of ‘Prenuptial Agreement’ substantiated the definition. However the religious groups continue and will continue to defy it. Any movement or so called immoral subjects which threaten the social structure have been strongly condemned and curbed by traditional and political groups respectively.
Same sex marriage/LGBTQ+ rights, Prostitution, Acceptance of victims of sexual exploitation and in a few cases, denying rights or stereotyping particular genders. All these have continued to question the moral sections of the society to reconsider its stance on them. Though, few are legally accepted, but the orthodox sections continue to deny their existence.
“We thought the legal rights were the only hurdle for us. But the moral acceptance is much harder and important for us as we co-exist in the society and we want to be a part of it.”
“Even our parents deny our actual preferences.”
“Prostitution is the oldest profession after farming. But the pseudo-heads of the society continue to deny its existence.”
These were the words spoken by the victims during our conversations with them to help us know the grave concerns on the matter. Recently, a Kerala-court has stated that a college suspending a student couple (18+ years) for cohabiting is justifiable and can be done to impose discipline in the campus.
But the youth or so called progressive part of the society has a different take on it. Many want to embrace it, but fear moral implications. Few go ahead and piss on the moral aspects as one would say “Too glam to give a damn!”
Many say “Live-in relationship is like an internship. At the end you know whether to sign the contract or not.”
As the morons feel or confuse marriage and sex to be synonymous. To appease/satisfy their moral obligations they try to be celibate till the age of mid 20’s causing their sexual frustration to hit the zenith. Few even lack the bare talent of speaking or wooing their potential mates. Marriage for them is a means to escape from the process of being confident and wooing their partners. That’s the need we feel the need to have a sexually desirable spouse or at least fancy it because sexual needs differ from emotional needs. So live-in relationship is looked down upon because people consider it as a sexual relationship rather an emotional relationship.
This basic thought process is the root cause for the people to reject this thought of cohabitation. One has to be matured to realize the difference between the two types of need and the relationship which can gratify it.
The choices, needs and emotions of the majority depend upon our religious obligations. We still remember reading in our biological book that “Sex is deemed as a purpose of procreation not recreation.”
The above statement says all about the moral aspect of sex. But I guess no couple has sex just for the cause of procreation. They might conceive as a part of the process. Few people might be an exception to it, but I guess exceptions are there in every field and being rational about them is equivalent to being irrational. We should and must accept that sex is a biological urge. It may not be a primary one like hunger, but it is an innate urge. So it’s logical to have sex without any obligations to our partner. But the experience might be an enhanced one if we perform with the one, whom we are emotionally connected.
If we accept sex as a biological urge we will be mature enough to choose the person to cater each other’s emotional needs overlooking the sexuality of the partner. This makes sure that our companionship with our partner lasts through thick and thin.
The ability to make a lively conversation with our partner is considered to be the most basic and promising aspect of our relationship which binds the couple together. The relationship can survive when one of the couple might lose his/her charm, fame, money, etc. But if a person loses his/her capability to make a conversation with his/her partner, then we can be quite sure that the relationship is going to hit the dead-end or become obsolete.
Now that conversing is the integral part of the relationship, compatibility of the couple comes into play. Couple’s compatibility depends on their perspectives and outlook towards the subject. So the difference of opinion among the couples can badly sabotage their relationship. Now the problem of finding the compatible persons will arise.
“It takes a lifetime to get to truly know someone & even then there is still something that you don’t know about that person.”
We humans have a feeling of insecurity or an obligation to be nice or appeasing others. So we tend to be secretive of our preferences with a fear of being judged. So it’s hard for couples to know each other initially. The initial honeymoon period of the relationship will just be a facade exhibited by the couple. So deciding their compatibility will be a Herculean task for them if they are planning for a long-term commitment.
So it’s not plausible for the couple to know each other in the initial stages. Conservatives or right-wing idealists might brag about the institution of marriage sustaining through the ages. So did many diseases, myths and irrational/malevolent cultural practises. In the modern era, people have been very vocal and active in fighting for ‘Individual freedom’. They hate anyone who tries to impose any thoughts or obligations upon them. Youth, in a way are running away from the responsibilities and marriage alone imposes many moral, cultural and parental responsibilities. So, the youth needs a chance to experience or needs to get the taste of the responsibilities before accepting them with full cognizance. The solution for these problems can be solved to the maximum extent by developing a beta test which is live-in relationship.
So the couple planning to take their relationship to the next level need to check out their compatibility. They need to set their preferences and priorities straight. They need to get the required support from their partners on these matters. So ‘live-in relationship’ becomes inevitable. From sexual/romantic preferences to food, they get to know everything that matters. As they say “Great sex is not the only thing in physical compatibility.”
In case people don’t get along, they can terminate their relationship with no legal baggage unlike marriage.
“Cohabitation has all the headaches of marriage, but no benefits.”
But the problem arises, when they demand the same rights as in marriage which is hard for the Courts to consider. For starters, it’s hard to differentiate from having a fling. When the cohabiting couple decides to part after they bring children to their relationship, it becomes much more chaotic. But thanks to the changing laws in India, cohabitation couples are treated same as married couples provided if they prove their relationship with amicable evidence. Their rights are also give protection under the ‘Domestic violence act’.
Though few cases might be biased against cohabitation, the actual institution is assured of proper recognition from legal aspects in the near future. So if couple wants to get a real taste of marriage, Live in relationships is the way to get it.
As long as the concept of cohabitation is respected and not misused it is a safe way of exploring the degree of relationships. Marriage as an institution is very weak without its moral obligations. Live-in relationship can actually stabilize the institution of marriage and gives the actual taste by giving us proper reasons to know it. We exactly know what to expect from the marriage instead of emphasising on trivial reasons. Majority of the couples state ‘Irreconcilable Reasons’ as a reason for their divorce and the other two being ‘Sexual incompatibility’ and ‘Harassment from in-laws’. The first two reasons can be avoided by cohabitation in majority cases. The third can be avoided by the maturity, proper comprehension and trust developed between the couples after a period of cohabitation. So, give it a try for safe and sound relationship.
However, my paradigm doesn’t indicate or consider moral police’s theory of marriage and other sexual suppression as a means to curb promiscuity. I feel, the future generations don’t feel the need to revere the moral obligations. So the live-in relationships or the ‘Misogamist theories’ will be given precedence. The concept of ‘weekend relationship’ will be an emerging solution for people who fail to devote much time on their partners. Then, even physical and compatibility cannot save the relationship as the persons will be self-absorbed and hate to part with their time without being subjected to the same or being at receiving end.
Thanks for reading. I feel the most superior way of appreciating or evaluating an artistic work is constructive criticism. Please feel free to do so and your insight will be valued.
nikaks 