A Note on Cohabitation

I wrote this response to a column published by a friend of mine in the Chicago Weekly News, a paper here at the University, around May 2001. It looks and has the length of a newspaper column, because I was assuming it would be part of a big newspaper spread. The editors must have wimped out, however, because only one or two responses were printed, those not so great at that. A shame, really, but that's the way things go. Anyway, here's the column.

Dear Adam Kissel: You asked for an opinion on living together with Valerie, without sex, until your marriage. In some ways, I'm jealous. I wish I had someone dear enough to me to consider wanting to see them every day. Living in the same place, even without sex, provides great intimacy and togetherness, tremendous potential for joy. I was honored to meet Valerie at our friend's wedding a few days ago. She's a sweet person, a swell dancer, and seriously in love with you.

You are correct that your abstinent cohabition choice isn't covered well by traditional studies, which mostly include sex. But coming from a department that at least occasionally considers data, I don't want to discard the available figures. Like Aquinas or C. S. Lewis, the sociologists provide us guidance which we can examine and adapt along the way. And although there are intimacy and financial benefits, the sociologists in general aren't too pleased about it.

My response concurs with the studies. For three reasons, concupiscence, witness, and distance, I strongly recommend that you and Valerie pursue separate apartments next year.

Concupiscence is a lovely word, rolling off the tongue. "Temptation to sin, especially sexual," says Webster's. As evangelical Christians, you and Valerie have both pledged celibacy until marriage, an honorable goal. Yet concupiscence describes the times when the desire for total physical intimacy is strong: after a lousy class, a bad exam, walking home on a cold, windy night across the lightless quad. A great part of avoiding sin is steering clear of the near occasions, when the spirit is still strong but the flesh might be weak. A ten-foot walk walk down the hall provides a great deal less time for conscience to return than a journey out the door and down the street.

Having known you, Adam, for a while, I think you can maintain your fidelity. But of some importance is what others see and think. You and I are both private people, with few actions on display, but our lives as proclaimed committed Christians do stand for something. People know you as a visible columnist; as you say, to some people you might be the only "out" Christian they know. Maintaining good witness (Catholics call it avoiding scandal) matters, in words and actions. Too easily, "cohabiting without sex" becomes "cohabiting without sex, wink wink." The abstinence story is much easier to believe with separate addresses. Introducing doubt would more harm than good, among your neighbors, friends, and the community.

Let's say, though, that you and Valerie avoid temptation and set a marvelous example, as I think you would. I would still argue against cohabitation, because it over-accelerates the courtship process. Committing to the rest of your life together with one other is a serious task. Serious decisions take time; they require reflection and consideration and thought, things best found with psychological distance. We Americans often want things immediately, like instant oatmeal and heat and serve hamburgers; we shouldn't treat marriage like dinner. Living together removes the necessary depth. It replaces the patience of calls and letters and salsa dancing dates with shared kitchens and toothpaste and utility bills. Determining if you're ready to make that leap to lifelong commitment is a private choice. Until you know for sure, and are ready to commit your privacy and whole self to one another, the physical detachment will be a great help.

Yes, it appears that I'm arguing for tradition. But that tradition also provides us with a great summary of love: "Love is patient, love is kind ... it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." If Valerie and you are ment to wed, you will. Despite the benefits of quick togetherness, living together places unnecessary hazards in the road. Why tempt the wrong decision with artificial roadblocks? In any event, I am glad for your happiness and wish you all the best.

Oh yes, Adam and Valerie got married on May 5, 2002. They didn't cohabitate before marriage. You might visit Adam's site, over here, or Valerie's site, over there. Though perhaps the fact that I've now listed two separate sites says something. Eh?

Written May 2001. Marriage update September 2002. Website update November 2006.