A researcher from the National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED) has studied these people who are “couple at a distance”. They are rather young, or put in couple after a first union with child.
People in a relationship change. Not everyone lives on the same roof. Who are the ones who choose to live at home while being together? Why do they make this choice Sydney Couples Program What means do they have? This was studied by the researcher at the National Institute for Demographic Studies, Arnaud Régnier-Loilier, as part of a collective work “The remote family, mobility, territories and family ties” (Ined Éditions) . Interview.
Couples who do not live together do not run the streets
It all depends on how we define them. In France, around 9% of 18- to 79-year-olds say they share a “stable relationship” without living with their partner. But only 2.7% say they are “in a couple” without cohabiting, a term that induces more a relationship in the long term Sydney Couples Program
Who are these “non-cohabiting couples” as you call them?
Rather inhabitants of big cities. And especially young people or adults who start the 2 e part of a love life after separation. What pushes them not to coexist is the presence of children from a first union that we do not want to “impose” on the new companion. A way to preserve the relationship that we are building. Or, conversely, it is a way of not imposing on the children of a first union a step-parent, the new spouse.
Choosing not to live together is also a way of playing caution after a first union that may have left painful memories.
I met some women who had built their lives around the family. At the moment of separation, they may find themselves very disoriented socially Sydney Couples Program economically (some not working) and sentimentally. They take time to rebuild and when they regain stability and a meeting occurs, they do not necessarily want to bring into play this new balance they have taken so long to build.
This non-cohabitation lasts a long time?
In general, no. Being in a couple without cohabiting is very transient. One study showed that of six people who had a non-cohabiting relationship in 2005, six years later, only one was still in this situation. This transitory nature is particularly important in young people. And logically, the situation leads either to a move or to a separation.
Which means that the desire to build a couple and a family is not conceived in our society without living together. Non-cohabitation hardly ever resists the formalization of the union (marriage or PACS) or the arrival of a child.
Yes, between these two groups, young people, and adults after separation, there are all kinds of intermediate situations, often linked to professional constraints. Take couples who have only one administrative residence, but whose spouse is a marine fisherman or road-driver. We are close to non-cohabitation. Apart from these profiles, the fact of deliberately choosing not to live together, to maintain one’s independence, to have no constraint, when one is a couple, is rare.
Homosexual couples choose non-cohabitation more often?
Yes. Even if the stigmatization of homosexuality is much less today, the non-cohabitation allows to keep a certain discretion on his intimate life. The child project is also often less present, which raises less the question of a common life. Moreover, these couples have a more independent way to consider the life of a couple.
Do not cohabit assumes a certain standard of living?
Couples who live at home are more often managers and intermediate professions, less often workers. This is especially true for women. It is linked to a socially differentiated conception of the couple. At the bottom of the social ladder, people consider that a couple goes hand in hand with cohabitation, whereas managers are more attached to the idea of independence.
In addition, people with lower incomes tend to expect from cohabitation an effect of “economy of scale”.
Another characteristic is that non-cohabitation is more common among unemployed men, or who have not worked. They are a little outside the marital market. This demonstrates a persistent standard of “Mr. Breadwell”. The primacy of the active man continues to dominate. To settle with an unemployed person, for a woman, is not very possible. This is less than, for a man, settling with an unemployed woman.