"The price of permanent love is unconditional commitment."

You cannot 'buy' permanent love at any price. People change, and the world changes around them. To assume that two people who made each other happy at age 25 are going to make each other happy at age 65 is such a wild and unjustified claim that only a theist could make it. Let those who are happy remain together: let those who are not separate. Putting a false and delusive value on permanence and official recognition of a relationship merely distorts reality -- and that is when people get hurt.

Given that attitudes towards shacking-up have changed, we need to consider whether government policy needs to catch up. At the moment, if a centrelink recipient is living with their partner, it is assumed that the partner is prepared to financially support them and benefits are reduced. ISTM that living together isn't necessarily equivalent to a marriage type agreement and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

It's likely that the majority of couples who enter into marriage do so hoping for and believing in "permanent love" and "unconditional commitment."

Very many don't realise either of those dreams, and either settle for what they can have, or go their separate ways.

That is pragmatism.

Setting such ridiculously unrealisable goals for marriage as "permanent love and unconditional commitment" makes marriage a very scary thing to contemplate. Seeing how many marriages fail doesn't help.

Maybe if we took some of the pressure off marriage and added a bit of realism that acknowledges the difference between hope and intention, and what actually happens in life, people might be more inclined to make marriage vows.

Children do need parents who have a commitment to maintaining their families. But "successful" families take many forms, and marriage is not necessarily always one of them.

These demands for permanence and unconditional commitment are in the end just childish. It's what we wanted as children - that something we loved would never, ever change. Adults know change is inevitable and necessary. All we can do is the best we can.

The HILDA survey did not cover much ground regards de facto relationships.

Evidence from other countries indicate de-facto relationships are not only short-lived, but contain higher rates of DV, drug and alcohol use, STD's, infidelity, and because so many are short-lived, higher rates of single parents, government dependency and poverty.

If anything, they should be declared a health hazard for any children involved.

'Cohabitation isn't grounded in promises regarding the permanence of a relationship in the same way as marriage is, even if it looks similar in practice.'

How do you know what promises the cohabitants make to each other. A promise not publicly declared is still a promise.

'In reality, a woman who is hoping that cohabitation is the stepping stone to marriage that it once was will likely hold back on complaining that the toilet seat is up - until she has a ring on her finger.'

I think that's a pretty offensive view of women.

'In the midst of the cohabiting majority, young people put marriage in the "too good to be true" box.'

Have you spoken to many young people? If they want marriage there is nothing stopping them, so what makes you think they want it when they choose not to?

The Author seems to think marriage is a guarantee of happily ever after. One in two marriages doesn't last, so even if it is statistically better than de-facto it's still not exactly an impressive success rate.

Broad brush comparisons between marriage and de facto relationships are ill-founded as they are based on assumptions about intent that are very likely wrong. Marriage is a participant instigated legally declared life-long commitment so there can be a reasonable assumption that many people entering into marriage start with some kind of intent to commit for life (or thereabouts). De-facto relationships are legally declared (by the government) after one year of cohabitation regardless of the intent of the participants. No doubt many participants do not wish to be declared “de facto”. They simply cannot avoid it (without doing something illegal). There may be a huge proportion (possibly way more than 50%) of “de facto” relationships in which there is no intent to commitment or formal relationship status at all, simply a legal assessment for government administrative purposes (taxation, welfare and so on). For this reason, you can’t compare the two on an equal footing. What needs to be compared is: those married people who willingly became married and have an intent to a life-long commitment against those “de facto” couples who willingly remain unmarried and have an intent to a life-long commitment against those people who have been declared “de facto” due to their living arrangements regardless of their intent (I’m thinking on the run here – no doubt this could be refined). Come on researchers – no guts no glory. Sure, its far, far, far more work to do this research but you’d get much closer to the truth.

Exactly Michelle.

Incidentally when the government marries off these de-facto people for all intents and purposes it has the effect of making a 20 year old and an 18 year old who shacked up for a couple of years responsible for each other when no commitment was made by either. It has very real legal implications for claims on a de-facto-spouses inheritance or future income when the relationship ends. The government should not be marrying off people who have made no such commitment.

It is interesting to see 'de facto vs marriage' lifestyles coming under a critical and sociological radar at last.

I say 'at last', because as a Gen X woman, it seemed my generation of women had little option in my own social circumstances, admittedly) than to go into de facto arrangement in the hope that marriage would soon be in the offing.

Needless to say, the power constructs and conflicts in expectations - which seem to be ignored in social conversation about de facto living - seem to dramatically disadvantage women particularly, depending on how everything eventually turns out.

The cynicism and self-serving nature of modern society means that women are expected to 'live in the moment' and 'do what feels right'.

This rather passive approach means that both parties are actively invited to postpone or deny the importance of planning for the future, either financially, or in other aspects of adult life.

Alas, these airy values, while reflecting a sense of a Buddhist-like world view, do nothing to assist a woman who is genuinely hoping to achieve a proper relationship in which children would be appropriate or even welcomed!

In relation to my own circumstances, I eventually did marry, and my relationship is pretty much perfect.

However, the trauma that came with the realisation that I was essentially being used sexually in a previous de facto relationship, without any provision or recourse to a greater purpose of our being together, is something that will be very difficult to ever over come.

Baby boomer women who encouraged a cynical and self-serving social attitude towards marriage have not served their girl children well, in my opinion. I hope to protect my own children from a similar, eye-opening experience.

That's interesting floating lili.

We all come from different social circles, but what made it impossible for you to propose to your partner, or break off the relationship when your partner was not giving you your desired proposal?

'Needless to say, the power constructs and conflicts in expectations - which seem to be ignored in social conversation about de facto living - seem to dramatically disadvantage women particularly'

How So? Please talk about these conflicts in expectations, do they differ between men and women?

'However, the trauma that came with the realisation that I was essentially being used sexually in a previous de facto relationship, without any provision or recourse to a greater purpose of our being together, is something that will be very difficult to ever over come.'

Without getting too personal, is it possible you weren't used but your prospective partner just took an inordinate amount of time from your perspective to come to the conclusion he didn't want a life-long commitment? Or did he lie? If so, you say you were sexually used, so did you get no enjoyment from the sex you both partook in, and if so why did you put up with that?

Well of course I did broke it off. My tale is not interesting, it is exceedingly common. My post is only useful in a general sense, and you are not a researcher, so I will tell you to mind your manners!

The well being of our young people involves far more than easy access to 'low-cost' sex.
My argument, essentially, is that there IS often a cost attached to this lifestyle, that is borne by anxious women within the de facto unit, and perhaps the unhappily childless and single women later in life.

Why is it not fashionable or even possible to discuss these aspects of de facto living?
This is why I welcome more indepth research in this area

@Houellebecq: I see where you're coming from with the idea of promises being promises whether public or not, but when you choose to cohabit- you're choosing NOT to marry - which would suggest to me that it is a choice not to make that promise. As well there is something to be said for community accountability.

As for whether or not young people put marriage in the "too good to be true" box - I think that is what you just did in your first post, when you said "The Author seems to think marriage is a guarantee of happily ever after. One in two marriages doesn't last, so even if it is statistically better than de-facto it's still not exactly an impressive success rate."?
And true there is nothing stopping young people from getting married - but for the fact that no one is doing it... practically no one marries without living together... and we're suckers for peer pressure. In any case - I didn't think that the author was saying that marriage is a fairyland of happiness, I think they're just saying that it is a better choice than cohabiting. Of course there are going to be sacrifices (as there are in de facto relationships) but, at least you know where you stand in marriage (and that they have been made for you too).

Lastly, you asked Floatinglili why she didn't propose. I'm not sure if you're a guy or a girl... but whatever glass ceilings we broke through - we still want to be proposed to...

In any case - I agree, it is good that there is research being done in this field. But too right, it is very politically incorrect to suggest that cohabiting might not be the best option.

lili,

>Why is it not fashionable or even possible to discuss these aspects of de facto living?

I don't know about such a fashion. I am curious at what seems to me to be your assumption that women want/need to be married and men don't, or that men aren't fulfilling this want/need, or that women have no power to find men who wish to.

'easy access to 'low-cost' sex.'
For who? What should sex cost? Should it or does it cost less for men or women in your opinion?

'there IS often a cost attached to this lifestyle, that is borne by anxious women within the de facto unit'

Oh, so in your experience, most women just want to get married, and men are stringing them along for 'low cost sex', which is costly to the woman?

I feel that this is a very old fashioned view of the world. It certainly makes the assumption that women either don't like sex, or only partake in sex for the goal of pursuing a relationship which would lead to marriage. Then it assumes that women lose more than men from not being married.

I don't see that. The only difference in the stakes between the genders in this regard is to do with fertility, and even then not every 40-50 year old man can score a 30 year old woman.

You seem to believe in that old saying that women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex. I believe that's selling men and women short.

I would think that research into de facto relationships is so rare because social science reseachers are normally so biased they don't want the results to be known to the public.

Interesting that research into divorce has found that the majority of people are no happier after the divorce than before the divorce.

However the grass looks greener, so the divorce.

The grass may also look greener with a de facto relationship, but with an average life expectancy of about 3 years, the reality is quite different.

Floatinglili

Why did you assume that he wanted a permanent relationship? This is a serious question, not an insult. My socialisation as a bloke would lead me to assume that the relationship would be temporary.

Vanna

Which research about divorce?

Well said Houelle, I was going to ask Lill something similar.

I got married as a romantic fighter pilot, & divorced as an invalid, a couple of years later. It really wasn't like that, but it will do.

Since then I have had a few of these De facto relationships, a couple of which lasted long enough for the lady to make the same claims that a legal wife could have.

Lill, I did not ever move in with a lady, or ask for them to move in with me. It was simply a matter of fact, that they no longer went "home". This was never a big deal. As I was living on my yacht in Sydney there was no moving in of furniture, just somehow the wardrobe was full.

I never thought I was making cheep sexual use of them, or them of me, [well may be that] I did not even think I was cheep rent, just 2 people found pleasure in each other's company, & wished to maximize the time they spent together.

When I decided I was not the next World Formula 1 Champion, & gave up motor sport, we discovered the lady who could sit beside me, conversing normally, at 100 miles/hour, as I slid through a pine forrest gravel corner, was terrified once she got just a few miles off shore in the yacht. We parted painfully over a few months, but with less hassles than we would if married. Her life was motor sport, & mine no longer was.

Funnily enough, when I found a lady who could sit beside me, conversing normally, while surfing down a huge ocean swell, in a gale, in a cloud of spray, she turned out to be terrified at above 60MPH in a car.

This time I gave up driving fast, but now [35 years later] that she is busy playing grand mother, I have gone back to sliding around corners at 80MPH, if not 100.

Tell me Lill, do you think think we should get married? If so, when?

Benk,
"A person's happiness level drops as she or he approaches divorce and gradually rebounds over time. But the level of satisfaction does not return to baseline (the level of satisfaction felt prior to the divorce.) Although some rebounding does occur in the years immediately following, there are lasting changes. "Instead people's satisfaction ended up .22 to .34 points lower than baseline levels," author Richard Lucas states. "

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/34970.php

I'm sure family law solicitors and feminists don't mind, as long as there is divorce and the breaking of the family unit.

If this - quite rivetting - thread demonstrates anything, it is that the old notions of marriage have pretty much disappeared.

Or probably more accurately, there is no longer a single view of marriage, that is held equally by men and women.

From a historical perspective, I wonder whether this perception-shift began at some recognizable point? That would be useful input, I suspect, to help the analysis of what has changed, who has changed, and why it has changed.

I'd put money on the late Victorian era - the 1890s - when Europe had finally come to terms with the industrial revolution, and women were becoming more socially assertive. The Great War sped this transformation along, and WWII cemented the details - women were to be treated "equally" etc etc.

The change is still incomplete. In fact one wonders how much further it has to go. But in the meantime there are those women who - clearly - feel that they are owed some form of "commitment" by a man, in order for them to function.

Hence the confusion of love, sex, cohabitation, marriage etc.

It certainly is my experience that the partnerships most likely to fail are those where there exists an imbalance of expectations. If a woman is looking for a "commitment", surely she should look for someone who is prepared to make one, rather than just shack up and hope? Whereas a woman who is comfortable in her independence has not the same problem.

Or am I being too simplistic?

And where does free will come into the equation?

Fascinating.

This is OLO at its best. An intelligent stimulus article and a series of contributors who voice opinions based on their experience and thoughtfulness about the issues. Keep it going.

But Vanna, where is your control group? What are the happiness levels of people who went through the same relationship breakdown but didn't divorce? There aren't so of those many around these days but when I was growing up there were plenty of examples among my family and my friends' parents. They didn't seem all that happy either -- and their misery was infectious.

Interesting article - however on the matter of young people just falling into de facto relationships as some extended sleepover - I think in Sydney its a more considered thing happening. Due to high rents and rental shortages in Sydney, the girl or boy friend in their early 20s is often moving into the family household of the other party to the relationship, complete with baby boomer parents and in some cases younger siblings - and in one case I know of, the girlfriend brought her dog and her chooks into the boyfriend's family household with her ....A move like this involves a good deal of family discussion, and is not something that "just happens" - the boyfriend and his family household in this case were checked out for suitability by both of the divorced parents of the girlfirend. Modern helicopter parenting perhaps??

My parents divorced when I was a teenager.
Dad happily moved straight in with his girlfriend, and they eventually married 10 years later.They are still happy together.

Mum never got over Dad leaving, was much unhappier after the divorce and never went out with another man since.

I didn't like the thought of marriage or defacto relationships- now having both a mother and a stepmother.

Until I met my husband, I never wanted to live with a man until I was ready to 'settle down' and save for a house together and have children.
I had my share of proposals- without having lived with anyone!

When I became engaged at 27, my fiancée moved in with me so we could save for the wedding and our future life together.

I don't regret living together first. But I already had a commitment before I even considered it.

We remain happily married 22 years later.
Everyone is different.

Houellebecq: <'...a woman who is hoping that cohabitation is the stepping stone to marriage... will likely hold back on complaining that the toilet seat is up - until she has a ring on her finger.'

I think that's a pretty offensive view of women.">

I agree.

<"The Author seems to think marriage is a guarantee of happily ever after.... ">

'Happy ever after' and 'til death do us part' have acquired different meaning with increased longevity (80, say). People used to be lucky to live to 35 yr old so it didn't take as many years for death to part us.

Statistically - a bit of a dispute. It's really approx 50% of SOME marriages of various length that end in divorce. For example, say there is a base amount of 1,000,000 marriages in existence, and 100,000 new marriages annually. If there are 50,000 divorces per annum, there's a prevailing conclusion that 50% of all marriages fail. In fact, some of that 50,000 could be marriages that are 20 yr old; some that are 2 yr old, some 10 and so on. Therefore, to obtain a more accurate idea of the rate of marriage failure, we would have to look at the whole number (1,100,000) and use the whole base number to calculate the rate of divorce.

"According to a 1995 study, ten per cent of marriages failed within six years, 20 per cent within 10 years, 30 per cent by 20 years, and 40 per cent by 30 years. Of the couples who divorced in 1996, 27 per cent separated within the first five years of marriage, and a further 22 per cent within the next five years. The average length of marriage was 7.6 years."

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/Famserv/chap2.pdf

EVENTUALLY (so the article says) - 43% of marriages end in divorce. Even if true, a lot of those unions have a very good innings, especially if considered alongside increased longevity.

I wonder why the break up of a longstanding cohabiting relationship doesn't seem to be considered as just as painful and disruptive as a divorce.

Btw: Married when I was a teenager, against all advice and coercion to each of us and my inclination against marriage. Have been married for over 30 years and he is still genuinely the nicest person I know. A deeply decent man; my best mate; a terrific father adored by our kids - and a feminist I might add.

One of our best and most romantic nights: In a strange motel. I had to be at Uni at the crack of dawn and we'd traveled a long, long way. I KNEW I/we should sleep, but we were resting back and started reminiscing about funny things the kids used to say and do when they were little. The two of us went on for hours raising one memory after another. In the end we were laughing until the tears were running down our cheeks and the dawn light peeping, when we were up and at the day. Snoozy but so happy. We'd spent the night sharing irreplaceable memories - it was like looking through an album together, or better.

We think we're the luckiest pair in the world. There is something incomparable about sharing a history together.

pynch

Jon J,

Similar findings have been found in US studies.

"Conducted by a team of leading family scholars headed by University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, the study found no evidence that unhappily married adults who divorced were typically any happier than unhappily married people who stayed married."

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-unhappy_ii.html

Early on (about the Hawke era when the Family court was being formed), feminists said that marriage was oppressive to women and was causeing them mental illness.

This allowed no-fault divorce and the payment of child support (which has to be paid by the evil male of a father.)

Years latter we find that the rate of mental illness is actually much higher in unmarried women, while child neglect amd child poverty is increasing due to the increasing number of single parents.

The system of replacing marriage with de facto relationships is just one more thing feminists got wrong.

Interesting discussion.

I read somewhere that the rate of breakdown of de facto relationships is 6 or 7 times higher than marriage relationships. Since the only difference between the two is that marriage involves a formal undertaking, obviously it is nonsense of government policy to assert that the form makes no difference to the substance. In fact the explicit commitment is the essence of the substance.

De facto relationships laws are abusive and should be repealed. There is no reason why people who have not made a voluntary commitment should have one imposed on them. A de facto spouse has no moral claim to such a law, since if they want the incidents of marriage, they can always marry. Why should people who deliberately choose not to make a commitment, have one forced on them against their will, just to provide the benefits of marriage to those who are too slack to formalise their own status?

Exactly Peter.

The reason many de-facto relationships may 'fail' is precisely because both parties never intended for them to be a long term thing.

The mistake in this whole argument is the assumption that people in de-facto relationships have made any commitment or had any desire to stay together for the long haul in the first place.

The religious and the old fashioned project their goal onto people who may have no such goal, and then say they failed at this goal.

ante_bellum,

'but when you choose to cohabit- you're choosing NOT to marry - which would suggest to me that it is a choice not to make that promise. As well there is something to be said for community accountability.'

This illustrates the mindset beautifully. 'Choosing not to marry' as if the goal and default position is being married, and anyone who is not has somehow chosen something.

People choose to marry, they don't choose not to marry. It's like the religious saying atheism is a religion.

If two people start having a sexual relationship but live in separate dwellings are they making a considered choice not to move in together? If they break up 2 weeks later have they failed to move in together? Maybe they've failed to get married too.

I suppose some people cant get around the idea that two people can live together with no thought of marriage.

"I wonder why the break up of a longstanding cohabiting relationship doesn't seem to be considered as just as painful and disruptive as a divorce."

Quite right, Pynchme. Not being married doesn't means it hurts any less when you break up. And it's just as messy legally.

The problems start when cohabiting partners aren't clear about each other's intentions. If one sees it as a "trial marriage" while the other isn't interested in marriage at all, then everybody's going to get hurt.

I don't see why anyone should assume there's going to be a transition from de facto to marriage - and if you haven't talked about your aspirations after you've been together for a while, then somebody should be starting that conversation.

I don't understand why some posters seem to feel women are being used in de facto situations. Women can start conversations about where the relationship is going. They usually do, in fact. They can make decisions if their partner doesn't want marriage. They can do that anytime.

I do object to the article's premise that marriage is more worthy a goal than de facto. Why? Because it shows a capacity for commitment? Well, given the divorce rates, I doubt that's the case anymore. People might think marriage is forever, but the reality is, it isn't, in spite of the vows. So why see de facto as some kind of second rate arrangement?

And a de facto relationship isn't a sleep over. It's sharing your daily life with a partner. It has the same challenges as marriage.

Dunno about shacking up, but the following yarn on three brothels up for council consideration in Perth this Tuesday night illustrates the Liberal-National state government's folly at failing to introduce a Prostitution Amendment Bill to give guidance on where they can be located ...

http://www.oneperth.com.au/2010/08/21/sex-in-the-city-too/