Why is it necessary to live with a spouse

I don't think it has to be necessary to live with a spouse (If children are not involved)

Personally I highly value my own space and a lot of the time I like being by myself. That is not to say that I'm anti social or don't want a girlfriend/wife because I really do want to meet the right woman for me. However I do believe that a little distance between SOME couples (not all) would in fact bring them closer together. Its 2011 and high time some people admit to themselves that a traditional marriage and living arrangement perhaps is not or would not be the best option for them.

The divorce in the USA and the UK is near enough 50% in both nations. A very complex and multi faceted issue but I'm no doubt that this particular one is one of the major reasons behind the high rate of divorces.

Some people on the other hand would be better and are better of living with their partners and that is fine. Our societies need to evolve and mature to the scenario where the majority accepts what the minority does and considers it equally normal.

To counter my own argument I may have this view because I'm still young. Plus I have witnessed an unhappy marriage growing up. I may feel very different as I get older or if I meet a woman who doesn't change my mind per se, but maybe I change my own mind because of her. What I will say this, in an ideal world married couples would live together fully committed to each other, but life is far from ideal or that simple.

 

Most men wouldn't be able to afford not having their wives under the same roof. When I say "afford", I don't mean in a monetary sense either. Get your head out of the clouds.

 

Why should it be reduced to that? Is there truly only one way to do things? Both parents being present in the kids life is necessary but I don't think that it necessarily means living under the same roof is everything. Some people operate better when not on top of each other or who have ample space to themselves. It doesn't mean they are not capable of love or companionship just not the way everyone is. Should those people be deprived of love and family?

 

Couldn't?

 

It is beneficial for a child to have both their parents in their home. All children with both parents living in happy home are much happier, have needs meet, etc... then children living in separate homes from their parents. It's not easy not having mom or dad there ALL the time. Sometimes it can not be helped but if you have the ability to give a child the best when you can be there I think it's very selfish not to.

 

Motherfucker's must be living in boxes for homes talking about I need space.

 

Lol.

 

Says who? At a point in our lives as kids we could give a fuck less. We're more wrapped up in friends and other interests.

 

Half of whats wrong adults today is they were raised with out both parents in their home. Men don't know how to treat women cause they didn't have a real man show them how they are suppose to treat a woman and how to be a good man. Women don't know what a good man is b/c she was raised with out one showing her how a woman should be treated and respected. Women don't know how to allow men to be a man b/c she was not shown how that works. Women don't know her own value b/c her father did not show her, her own worth.

Split homes are tearing down our society. It's selfish not to consider the children and how it will ultimately will affect them.

 

I've known of many families with both parents in the home and it doesn't equate to good child rearing. I think the parents just need to be present and to be a constant. Many men and women see how to be treated and how to treat others and simply ignore it. Its not a matter of ignorance but a matter of indifference. A matter of only being concerned with how one feels opposed to how we make others feel. Interesting pov though.

 

Not often do I agree with you, but I believe this makes twice that I agree.

 

Never said that both parents do that is why I specified a healthy happy home.

As a mother to children that have their father in their lives but not in my home (my x's husbands children b/c I also have my husbands children) I see first hand how hard it is even when both parents are present but not together. As hard as it is it was what was best. I just can't see putting children through that when are able to be in a healthy 2 parent household with their other parent.

 

I have 13 pages to get through.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/188491/just_what_modern_romance_needs_living.html?cat=41

Some other articles claim that it can be beneficial in preserving the 'relationship high' and minimizing the tension that can come with constantly being surrounded by someone. The Western ideal of romantic relationships is learned, not innate. In most traditional African cultures (just an example of how modern ideas about romantic relationships are cultural, not saying that every aspect of traditional African societies is appealing) men and women typically live apart, children live with the mother although sons in some cultures move in with the father when they reach a certain age but couples living together hasn't always been the case.

Personally, I view romantic love as a sexually charged form of attachment. If friends aren't expected to live together, I don't see why romantic partner should be, at least when you remove children from the equation. You can argue that the passion in romantic love is stronger than the bond in platonic friendships (not necessarily true) but the passion typically wanes after a year, according to research. It's unromantic to admit that but it's reality, not Hollywood.

 

Men historically have had more than one wife in African cultures too. I don't know why we're discussing what's considered normative behavior in Africa.

The discussion was about the Western concept of marriage and co-habitation.

 

"compare and contrast to make your conclusion"
It's not normative behavior but a traditional form for some cultures.

Western normative behavior is becoming divorce.

 

It was just one relevant example because the assumption is that people who don't want to move in with their partners are 'commitment phobic' as though psychologically 'normal' humans have some innate biological disposition to wanting to permanently cohabit with partners rather than being socialized to view this as necessary.

The idea that romantic relationships are supposed to be moving toward some higher goal (living together, marrying, ) is learned. Marriage is an institution that evolved so that men, by making women legal property, could penalize women for giving birth to offspring who weren't genetically related to them. Divorce is largely the consequence of our romanticized and erroneous view of what romantic love actually is.

 

You're playing semantics.
In traditional cultures, there's no difference between normative and traditional behavior.

The previous poster posited the idea that the Western concept of marriage and co-habitation isn't the universal standard definition of marriage, because for example it's done differently in Africa.

That's fine, if we were IN Africa. But what's 'normal' or traditional among African countries is irrelevant to this discussion.

The assumption is that we're talking about marriage and its customs as it relates to a Western cultural perspective.

If the previous poster went around the USA attempting to re-define marriage based on African tradition, 90% of Americans would look at him like he was missing half his brain.

Divorce may be commonplace in the U.S., but it's not an inevitability. Remember that half of all marriages in this country go the distance, until death do us part.:smt023

I dunno, but if you give me 50/50 odds in most situations that include variables beyond my control such as a spouse, I'd take my chances and hope for the best.

 

Co-sign.

 

I don't think anyone believes it's an innate biological disposition to want to live with one's spouse. I assume everyone agreed at the outset that marriage is a cultural tradition and not part of some evolutionary impulse.

But if you enter into the institution of marriage in the West, it is extremely irregular for a husband and wife NOT to live together. It's not right or wrong, just atypical.

The entire concept of romantic love is a Western concept. Historically around the globe marriage is seen foremost as an asset transfer and resource consolidation among clans. THe emotional 'feelings' of the two principles involved never comes into play. In fact it's considered a frivolous exercise and immature behavior for two adults considering marriage to be overly concerned about romantic love.

If you don't believe in marriage or romantic love, don't get married.
But attempting wholesale to redefine marriage because it doesn't agree with your personal preferences is the wrong approach.

 

You're assuming the 50 that stay together are actually happy and go the distance. There's a large number of people who either stick out for religious financial familial obligations(the kids are young) and let's not forget the small percentage who is really good at lying and cheating. So my conservative estimate would be more like 65/35 fam.