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.