|
Reprinted from the Journal
of Couples Therapy, Volume 10,
Nos. 3/4, 2001.
All companionship
can consist only in the strengthening
of two neighboring solitudes, whereas
everything that one is wont to call giving
oneself is by nature harmful to companionship:
for when a person abandons himself, he
is no longer anything, and when two people
both give themselves up in order to come
close to each other, there is no longer
any ground beneath them and their being
together is a continual falling. (Rilke,
(nd), (trans. 1975,p. 28)
As therapists we are confronted every day
with people who are dealing with relationship
problems. It seems that many people are
trying to fit themselves into a very narrow
model for long-term relationship that does
not work well for their personalities. Believing
that there is only one healthy way to have
long-term relationships, and repeatedly
failing at it, leads to a lot of pain and
to repeated feelings of failure for one
or both of the partners.
Divorce rates in the United States have
been rising since the beginning of the 20th
century and have risen from about 25% to
50% since 1960. Since the 1980s the rate
has been hovering just around 50% (Divorce
Rate 1890-1990). We believe that this increase
in divorce rates indicates a problem with
the way we are choosing to relate as couples
in committed relationships. Perhaps if there
were more options available for long-term
relationships, and these options were considered
healthy and desirable, some people could
be spared the trauma of divorce or breakup
of their relationships.
We question society's prejudice that people
who love each other and want to be life
partners should live together, be married
and have families. In this article, we will
not tackle the topics of people who choose
to remain single, or couples who consciously
opt to not have children, but we want to
acknowledge those choices as healthy and
valid, with nothing inherently pathological
about them.
What we are proposing is an alternative
form of relationship, one in which each
member of the couple chooses to retain their
own separate domicile while still being
in a committed, monogamous and loving relationship.
Hereafter, we will refer to couples who
have this life style as Dual Dwelling Duos,
or DDDs.
In the psychological community, and in
our society in general, the commonly held
belief is that if two people are a "couple,"
whether it be heterosexual or homosexual,
they eventually will want to live together.
That if they do not, it indicates some type
of problem, often labeled as "fear of intimacy".
Many therapists consider DDDs a condition
to be cured, rather than a legitimate life
style option. This is coupled with the implication
that living together, in a family situation,
reflects a more advanced developmental stage.
Hence, all around us there is pressure from
mainstream society for us to be "coupled,"
and to do this in a narrowly defined way.
Because of the authors' own personal experiences,
as well as those of many friends, colleagues
and clients, we are motivated to challenge
this myth . In this article, we would like
to briefly review how this way of being
coupled developed and to examine what purposes
it may have served in the past. In questioning
this traditional model of relationship,
we want to state clearly that we strongly
believe that no one model for relationship
fits all. Rather we are hoping to define
an option that couples will consider as
an acceptable alternative to the status
quo.
In the history of romantic love there has
long been a tension in the family's functions
between the security which is needed for
child-rearing purposes and the passion that
one has with one's lover. It has only been
in relatively recently that an attempt has
been made to bring these two together. Now
there is pressure on the couple both to
provide the stability of a home in which
to bring up children and to maintain the
passion within the relationship. Thus, in
addition to paying the bills, doing the
laundry and the dishes, and dealing with
problems of in-laws, couples are supposed
to be enticing sexual partners as well as
the best of friends. All of this seems like
a lot to ask from any one relationship,
and divorce rates indicate how difficult
a task this really is. It seems like when
a man moves from his mistress' bed into
his wife's bed, along with the diapers,
the hair curlers and the bills, that something
gets lost in the transition. It is difficult
to maintain a high level of aliveness and
excitement when the majority of a couple's
time together is spent in dealing with all
the mundane household tasks.
Greg and Suzanne were in a relationship
for 8 years before they moved in together.
They both saw themselves as very independent
people and they looked forward to the time
they spent together on the weekends. Due
to a combination of factors including societal
pressure, a move of job location, and a
desire to "try it out," they decided to
move in together. Soon after they moved
in, power struggles arose over how they
would deal with all of the practical details
of living together. Weekends together, that
they had previously cherished, lost their
mystery, and the passion in their relationship
began to wane. After a few months Suzanne
started to feel engulfed, miss her time
alone, and experience dread when she came
home and saw Greg's car parked outside the
house, indicating that he was already home.
As Greg noticed Suzanne's moodiness, he
felt hurt, uncared for and began to withdraw
emotionally from the relationship. Confronted
with this radical change in their feelings
toward one another, they sought the help
of a couple's therapist. But this was to
no avail. The balance they had maintained
so well while living separately, which had
kept the relationship harmonious and desirable
for so many years, was disrupted by their
moving in together. They were never able
to revive the warm and affectionate feelings
or the aliveness and excitement that they
had previously experienced together. Eventually
they decided to separate and end their relationship.
During most of the 20th century, society
has fostered the "togetherness" model. In
the '50s TV programs such as "Father knows
Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" exemplified
how the media reflected contemporary family
values. Then came the '60s, the sexual revolution
and a questioning of the traditional model
of marriage. With the increasing popularity
of the birth control pill, women had the
potential for more sexual freedom than ever
before. For many women there was no longer
as much pressure to wait until marriage
to have sex and the risk of unwanted pregnancy
was dramatically decreased. Women's participation
in the work force rendered them less economically
dependent on men so the motivation to marry
for financial reasons also decreased. People
were experimenting with many other life
styles during the 1960's, an era when communes
and collectives became part of the popular
culture.
During the '60s and '70s many people began
to seriously question whether monogamy itself
was the best model for long-term relationships.
During these decades options for alternative
ways of having close relationships greatly
increased. Then during the '80s the pendulum
began to swing back. The spectre of HIV
infection loomed large and many people came
to believe that monogamy and marriage were
among the few safe ways to avoid infection.
The failure of many of the communal lifestyle
arrangements, and the dashed dreams of the
hippie generation, made people less optimistic
about choosing alternative life styles
During the '80s and '90s, the rising price
of real estate and increases in the cost
of living made having two incomes a necessity
for living comfortably. Many couples became
concerned that they would miss out on something
important if they passed up their opportunity
to have children. So traditional marriage
was reinstated as the most practical option
available . Lost in this shift back to traditional
marriage and family values, were the options
for long-term relationships that had become
more acceptable during the 60s , such as
being in a committed, monogamous, but non
live-in relationship, i.e. Dual Dwelling
Duos.
Jennifer and Ted have been together for
5 years. They are married and they have
chosen to not live together. They are both
in their 50s. This is Jennifer's second
marriage and Ted's first. When they met
they both were very happy with their own
living arrangements. Ted is an artist and
lives in a rural setting; the quiet and
peaceful environment is important to him.
Jennifer is a college professor and spends
her days in contact with students and faculty.
She loves to be alone when she comes home
at night. They decided that they wanted
a long-term committed, monogamous relationship
and the formality of marriage to celebrate
it. At the same time, they decided not to
change their satisfying living arrangements.
Jennifer spends most weekends with Ted in
the country and he usually comes to the
city one evening during the week. As a newly
married couple, their relationship is very
stable and harmonious. They like their living
arrangement and have no desire to change
it.
We realize that no one model of relationship
is without advantages and disadvantages.
Due to physical distance, having separate
living quarters creates a situation where
sex and companionship are less available
than if the partners are living together.
The people who choose this sort of life
style may be those who particularly cherish
their time alone, their own space and their
ability to make decisions on their own.
By living separately, the partners might
miss some of the shared creativity of building
a home together. They may get less recognition
from society for the value or seriousness
of their relationship, and they will have
less of an opportunity to create or try
to replicate their original family closeness.
What the couples who live separately do
get is the ability to retain the excitement
and aliveness that comes with the continued
feelings of longing for their beloved. Freed
from having to share all the mundane details
of everyday life, these couples continue
to look forward to spending quality time
together when their own individual, practical,
life tasks are done. They are spared from
the everyday annoyances that come from personality
differences which often become accentuated
when there is little time to breathe one's
own air and control one's own environment.
DDD's do not have to constantly deal with
the differences in their standards of neatness,
tastes in music, desired amount of social
contact, among many others. The partners
who do not live together can come together
out of choice and desire, rather than because
they share the same space and have no other
options.
Basic to the Dual Dwelling Duo style of
living is the notion of the dance between
intimacy and solitude. As Sam Keen in an
interview by Stephen Bodian (1987), has
stated,
"You can only merge with someone if
you can also separate. The more you can
enter into deep solitude, the more fully
you can merge with another person. If
you've lost your solitude, you've lost
that place of silence and of waiting,
of thinking and of weighing and measuring
your own experience and of determining
whether you are on or off path."
(p. 45, Yoga Journal)
Clearly each couple must decide for themselves
what kind of living conditions are best
suited for their own particular dance of
intimacy and solitude. While some couples
may never want to spend a night apart, the
Dual Dwelling Duos favor a rhythm which
is more likely to ensure both their solitude
and their passionate connection. The poet
Rilke has written that one of the great
gifts that two people can give to one another
is to stand guard over one another's solitude.
(Rilke,(nd) (trans. 1975,). DDD couples
tend to offer this gift mutually and with
generosity.
Ed and Sarah have been successful in maintaining
their long-term marriage while keeping their
separate apartments. They met while they
were living in the same building, became
friends and eventually started dating. Although
they loved each other and were considering
marriage, they each thought that their temperaments
were not suited for a live-in relationship.
Ed is a philosophy teacher and a night owl,
often staying up until 3 or 4AM writing,
while Sarah is a nurse who works the day
shift. Since they both need a good deal
of time alone, they eventually decided to
marry but maintain their separate apartments.
They have been in a committed, monogamous
relationship for about 18 years, and have
a teenage child. Living close together to
raise their child, yet keeping their separate
living spaces has worked for them. They
consider themselves happily married and
appear to still be very much in love.
Couples who have chosen to live separately
often believe that this choice is at least
partially responsible for the harmony within
their relationships. They have been able
to maintain their friendships, their passion
and their even-tempered good will toward
each other to a greater extent than many
couples who live together. Of course it
is impossible to say what part of, or how
much of this, is due to living separately.
There may be some inherent characteristics
in the people who choose this form of relationship
that go along with an easy-going independence
and a more accepting attitude toward one's
partner. Our hope in writing this article
is to broaden the acceptable choices that
are considered healthy for long-term relationships.
Certainly we all can benefit from more options
and perhaps some of these choices such as
the Dual Dwelling Duos will result in a
decrease in the divorce rate and will make
being in a long-term committed relationship
more pleasurable and easier to maintain.
REFERENCES
Bodian, S. (1987). The passionate life.
Yoga Journal, 74, 43-45
Martin, D.E., (2000). Divorce rate 1890-1990,
p. 476. Retrieved July 23, 2000 from World
Wide Web: http://www.mwmissouri.edu/nwcourses/martin/general/FAMILYsld012.htm
Rilke, R.M. In J.J.L. Mood, (Trans.), (1975).
Rilke on love and other difficulties.
Translations and considerations of Rainer
Maria Rilke, New York: W.W. Norton &
Co.
Integral
Counseling Psychology Program
|
