It is doubtless that intersexual relationships are undergoing serious reframing in the modern society. One of the most apparent trends is a prevalence of cohabitation over marriage. This may seem to mark the spread of so-called individualistic views, simply stated, mean that people now need each other less than before. Meanwhile, an actual shift of such a kind would presumably involve living independently rather than sharing a dwelling with a partner. This does not happen, however: couples choose to live together sans marriage. In some cases, such a scenario happens despite being not sufficiently optimal, which fact may sound discordant, but actually, it is quite logical. The point is that people cohabitate because they find it more suitable than living on their own for a variety of reasons.
An essential motive for starting a common household is a desire to spend more time together along with being not ready for an official marriage. In such couples, both partners normally are educated or studying, active, and career-oriented; in addition, not necessarily young (Sassler & Miller, 2017). Individuals who belong to these categories apparently target at self-sufficiency but still decide to search for a match at certain points of their lives. This illustrates that professional ambitions do not eliminate the need for emotional attachments that encourages people to seek soulmates. However, a rationalistic approach, which is typical in progressive personalities, presupposes a thorough evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of such a large-scope and responsible bid as a marriage.
By contrast, other couples opt for cohabiting, which they do not actually want, as the most appropriate, if not the only, variant in financial terms. In other words, such people cannot afford living separately due to their low income and little to no support, hence consider a lack of private space a less serious burden. Sometimes, they are also bound to neglect their religious views that do not accept pre-marital co-living. The share of youngsters in this category of cohabitants is more substantial than in the previous one, and the level of their education is frequently lower. Sassler & Miller (2017) give a black girl Sherry as an example of those for whom shared living is “less than optimal” but the only way to make ends meet (p. 39). This shows that people continue to need somebody else, especially, in a situation where it is critical to survive.
Another reason why the members of modern society choose shared living is apparently convenience, in particular, that derivable from sharing housework. The egalitarian trends of nowadays involve a gradual but irreversible reconsideration of gender roles, notably, abandoning the traditional roles, in accordance with which, house labor is a woman’s responsibility. Therefore, more and more females count that their partners will participate appropriately in making the home. It is, however, not always easy to develop a well-balanced model that would satisfy both of the partners. According to Sassler & Miller (2017), differences in the views of gender roles are the most frequent source of tensions in couples. Nevertheless, the need for adapting to the changes does not prevent people from cohabiting, which allows assuming that the benefits of it outweigh the drawbacks.
To summarize, it is not quite relevant to speak of a crisis in interpersonal relationships, notwithstanding the appearance of the new interpretations of those. The fact that people share living with their partners shows that it continues to be more suitable to cohabit than opt for an individualistic lifestyle. There are several main reasons for such behavior, particularly, financial challenges, seeking for convenience in terms of daily routine, and the need for a soulmate. In some cases, an individual does not accept cohabitation completely, for instance, because of his or her religious beliefs, but it is still a more appropriate variant than any other in terms of life quality.
Reference
Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2017). Cohabitation nation: Gender, class, and the remaking of relationships(1st Ed.). University of California Press.