Live in Relationships: The man gets a temporary disposable wife?

Here are some commonly heard arguments against Live-in Relationships. (I picked these from the comments on ‘Live-in relationships in general are inherently advantageous to men and disadvantageous to women?‘)

The basic premise seems to be that Marriage gives women and ‘their’ children ‘Respect and Acceptance’ in society while Live in Relationships don’t.

My questions.

1. How have women and their children (and even the society) benefited from this dependence of women (and their children) on ‘Respect’ and ‘Acceptance by Society’?

2. Could this Respect be a trap that restricts and rules women’s lives, choices, sexuality, happiness and freedom?

3. Is it possible that women might live better lives if they did not have to depend upon the ‘Acceptance by the Society;? (Like most other people?)

Here’s the comment.

“If a woman is not careful in her selection, she may end up becoming a bed partner of the man , without the associated commitments and responsibilities.

The man gets a temporary disposable wife. A use and throw kind of wife.”

If that is true, then doesn’t the woman also get a temporary disposable partner? If both are uncommitted, and if neither is being forced or exploited, then why is it seen as wrong? How and who does this harm?

But it is believed that women do not want ‘temporary disposable partners’ while men don’t miss a chance to find one.

Gender Stereotypes. Men are insensitive, commitment-phobes, women are desperately looking for marriage (and if they dare to admit they aren’t, they must be sluts – this doesn’t apply as strongly to men because ‘men are like that only’).

“Women I like to believe will not chase a man for the sole purpose of sharing his bed. Their needs are emotional and much more sophisticated.”

Women are people too. They may want to do all the things that everybody else does. Not all women are emotional, and men can be emotional too.

And of course a woman can chase a man just for sharing his bed, with no desire to marry him.

This is one of the reasons why Patriarchy disallowed premarital sex (mainly for women). Maybe because in the past, it put a man at risk of raising a child who did not carry his genes.  To ensure ‘purity of lineage’ strict rules were laid down,  unwed mothers were not allowed to raise their children on her own. Widows could, but that was acceptable, because they were married when they got pregnant. It was made mandatory for every child to be known by their father’s name.

Did it harm some children?

The child’s well being was not a big concern. Lineage was.

“At the risk of putting it crudely, a live in relationship in some cases may end up as a multiple night stand instead of a one night stand for the man. Mature men and women may be an exception to this rule.

I don’t expect this statement to go down well with live in enthusiasts. But this is my secret inner fear.”

Assuming this is the case, if there is no force, exploitation or abuse – how does it matter to anybody else what two consenting adults do in their personal lives? What makes it wrong?

“It is always the woman who bears the brunt of pregnancy.”

That should, can and is being changed. If a woman wants, she can ensure that the man provides child support. This would be only as inconvenient as dealing with an irresponsible but married father.

“It is the woman more likely to be emotionally and psychologically scarred if the relationship terminates.

Men are crude thick skinned creatures.”

Any relationship exposes those involved to pain. Men are not thick skinned creatures, although they are expected to hide their feelings. Devdas was a man too. Drinking, smoking, violence, acid throwing, stalking, aggression, murder, and suicide are seen as manly ways to deal with pain or rejection. 

“They will simply look for fresh prey.”

Relationships are not about trophies, hunting and preys. Men and women both might see relationships as conquests.

“After getting pregnant, if they choose to have the baby, they are denying their children a legal and socially acceptable father.”

Sushmita Sen has two adopted daughters, no husband. Neena Gupta has one biological daughter – no husband. Thousands of widows in India have no source of income, they suffer abuse and raise children alone. Which children of these single mothers do you think have better lives?

In the past Indian society never cared about children (and not just girl children) – children were seen only as ‘budhape ka sahara’, brought up on Shravan Kumar stories. Children were told the parents did them a favor by ‘bringing them to this world’ and by caring for them.

Thankfully parents are becoming more matured and responsible now, one hears about mutual respect, love, care and support. And less about a child ‘repaying’ the parents’ karz’ (debt).

“Right or wrong, men will find it easier to get married later if they walk out of a live in relationship.

Right or wrong, women will find their live in relationship another handicap if they change their mind.”

That is if she wants to marry. And if she wants to marry a man who wants to marry a woman who has never been in a relationship.

Which brings me back to this post – what if women saw marriage as just another option in life and not their life purpose? Don’t you think that might open up a universe of previously unseen options for them?

“A loving caring environment is not enough. A child needs a father. Ask any orphan. It needs a mother, a grandfather, grandmother, cousins and uncles and aunts too.”

If the society realises that children need all this then why do we deprive children born out of marriage from all this?

Our social rules are not child-friendly.

Live in Relationships might actually bring more acceptance to children of both gender.

1. Independent women who see more to life than Geting Married and Staying Married will make being a woman easier in our society, they would then be seen as an asset to the society, and so more girls would be allowed to be born/live.

2. All children, no matter whether their parents were married or not would be able to live with their mothers/families. I know of a mother who did not sign the documents for her child to be made available for adoption, for three years after the child’s birth, because she was hoping the child’s father would marry her. Now the solution is not that she should not have had the child (because that solution has not worked for centuries) – the solution is she shouldn’t have had to bother whether she was married or not. Today this is possible, and high time.

The society/law makers are becoming aware of every child’s right to live with dignity.

Live-in Relationships might just help make this easier…

“Will a child from a live in relationship enjoy the facility of sitting on the lap of its grandparent and be told a bedtime story? Couples in live in relationships will live by themselves. They may not even welcome the parents of their partner to visit them and neither will these parents like to embarrass their son/daughter by visiting them.”

This would depend on the families and the couple. Married couples could prefer to stay away from their families, and Live in couples might enjoy mingling with their families.

“When a child born out of live in relationship, meets and mingles with normal children of married parents, how can you gauge what feelings it experiences?”

If the families(/extended families/social circle) care for their grand children(/their children’s friends) they will not misguide their children to treat other children differently for any reasons.

If they don’t understand, then the parents might choose to avoid those who treat their children differently. Remember the need to mingle is mutual and given a choice, matured parents would rather have their children playing with well brought up children, irrespective of whether or not their parents have a marriage certificate.

“What next? Will live in enthusiasts accept the next stage in this progression?

What if some of you feel ” Why have a live in relationship with just one person? Why not have more these and experiment with A, B, C etc.? Let the other partner also experiment with P, Q, R at the same time. Live with different partners for a month each and see which partner is best””

This can happen in a marriage also. And much worse, when consenting partners are not found, they might stoop to force, Strauss Kahn and Shiney Ahuja are just two examples.

Advertisements

110 thoughts on “Live in Relationships: The man gets a temporary disposable wife?

  1. ““When a child born out of live in relationship, meets and mingles with normal children of married parents, how can you gauge what feelings it experiences?”

    Let’s ask the child borne out of a marriage, where the woman keeps taking abuse because she’ll lose face in society if she walks out on the marriage, and the man keeps threatening to throw her out on the streets if she doesn’t cater to his every whim. Let’s ask that child if the label given to the parents’ relationship makes an ounce of difference.

    Me – Read about one such child, in her own words here

    An email from a daughter whose mother endured everything because she did not want t ruin her daughters’ lives.

    Like

    • Ask the Child also, while you are at it, born to the parents who are totally not compatible with each other and are just sharing the room because it is socially not good to separate. Ask the child also who is born at the expense of his mother losing her career who is bickering forever and cursing the child for the misfortune she endured.

      Good post IHM. I strongly believe live in relationships are the best solution for people who do not wish to carry any baggage (male and female) and I say people are looking for it now.

      Like

  2. Wow!
    Enjoyed reading that.
    You have taken my arguments to pieces!
    What have I got myself into?
    Anyway let me see a few more reactions.
    Am pre-occupied now.
    Hope to respond tomorrow.
    Is Ram Jethmalani available?
    I may need him to defend myself.
    See you tomorrow.
    Regards

    GV

    Like

  3. I have heard a lot of pros and cons of live in relationships. They are being practiced by many young people today. Some of them have finally been ratified by marriage too. What I feel is that with economic security, women have slowly started stepping into such relationships, without feeling insecure. Though almost all of them start clamoring for marriage the moment they get pregnant. At present society and women themselves are not comfortable with this set up for a long term way of living.

    But as you rightly pointed out, neither is marriage.

    Like

    • the advantage of a live in relationship is neither of them takes each other for granted.
      the relationship takes work to stay or it will go.
      it is a partnership – the woman is the woman and not the “wife” and nothing is expected of it.
      i have lived in one and so can tell.

      Like

  4. IHM, as usual, your posts intrigue me, in a good way! Like I have mentioned earlier, my parents have been open and supportive about whatever me and my brother have wanted to do. Living in with someone today has more value, and some amount of respect in society compared from about 8 years ago. why 8 years ago? Thats when I told my dad, that before I get married, I want to live in with the guy, who-ever it is.

    Dad: OK, I’ll think about it, but what if you decide not to get married to him?
    Me: There’ll be a reason why I don’t want to right? so, shouldn’t you think – good riddance, instead of, how will I face society?

    Dad: you have a point, but how long is enough to decide that you’ll end up getting married? And what if things get sour after marriage?
    Me: I don’t know about the time duration, but isn’t separation before marriage, better than a divorce?

    Dad: According to me, it is. I don’t think society will think the same.
    Me: its unfair.

    Dad: ok, whatever, if you want to live in, don’t do it in India. Consider another country.
    By this time I was appalled. What did he mean by that? But before I could say anything Mom spoke for the first time-
    Mom: you are my daughter and u’ll not do anything like that! is it clear?

    —————–

    I don’t know if any of this was relevant, but I was generally putting across, the thought process of people.

    —————–

    If two people are living in, its a mutual decision, and I agree, the man and the woman have advantages. And I think, a women has more advantages, than the man. She needn’t stay in the relationship, for the society. There isn’t family she is obliged to be nice to. She can be perfectly ok, in meeting them and behaving with them, how they behave with her!! its sort of a win-win, right?

    Me – Loved how you could speak to your parents with such clarity – and hats off to them, that you could think of discussing this with them – I know very few parents who would be open to such communication. And I agree, it does look like a win-win situation for women to me.

    Like

  5. Why is the child born to a married couple a NORMAL child? So children born to (or adopted by) single mothers are abnormal? Children born out of an ‘affair’, live-in-relationship, rape, incest or abuse, or to a widow, or to a second wife are ABNORMAL?

    What’s abnormal is all this classifying and labeling of children. A child is a child. It needs loving and raising. Why doesn’t society focus on that, instead of putting all these conditions about which kind of child and which kind of parent is acceptable?

    Guess what? There are many, many kinds of differently built families…nobody has any business classifying them or the children they birth and/or raise as abnormal.

    Like

    • The irony of course, is that we all know many, many people who were raised by “normal” parents in “normal” families who haven’t the most basic understanding of how relationships work or what they need. We all know many, many people raised in dysfunctional, apparently “normal” families where the MIL humiliated the DIL while the child silently watched. We all know about “normal” families where the child watched her father hitting her mother at the slightest provocation. Why do we assume that if a child’s parents happen to be married to each other, they will, by default, raise happy, emotionally healthy and well-adjusted children? We Indians are so good at hiding our skeletons that troubled family histories never surface during marriage discussions. No potential groom reveals how his father emotionally abused his mother or how he deeply distrusts women because of an emotionally manipulative mother.

      Like

  6. Wow – that’s quite a reply you have to respond to! It’s moments like this which make me bang my head against the wall…

    This one quote was enough for me:

    “It is the woman more likely to be emotionally and psychologically scarred if the relationship terminates.

    Men are crude thick skinned creatures.”

    Wow. Just wow.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to remind Vishwanath that he doesn’t speak for all men and that no one made him the spokesperson for my gender 🙂

    Like

    • @Bhagwad Jal Park,

      Where in any of my writings is a claim to be a spokesperson for the male gender?
      I write as G Vishwanath, a reader of IHM’s blogs.
      I have not assumed that those who write in support of live in relationships represent the female gender.
      My opinions are my own, right or wrong.
      Their opinions are their own, right or wrong.
      You may agree, or disagree.
      Have no worries, Bhagwad Jal Park, I will not speak on your behalf or on bahalf of the male gender on any forum.
      Your reminder to me was not necessary at all.
      I wish this reply had not been necessary.
      Regards
      GV

      Like

      • Bhagwad just didn’t like the generalization you made. That’s all. He’s not saying you claim to be a spokesman for the male gender.

        “It is the woman more likely to be emotionally and psychologically scarred if the relationship terminates.
        Men are crude thick skinned creatures.”

        When you say women are like this/ men are like that you’re kind of lumping all men and women into one specific category.

        Like

      • The problem arises when you say “men” are like this and “men” are like that. Since I’m a man, you’re arrogating the right to speak for me too.

        If you were truly speaking just for yourself, you should have said “I am a crude thick skinned creature!”…not all men.

        Like

      • Live in relationship is just a mutual understanding between two person of different or same sex to live together, share a common household luxuries & even indulge in sex with each others consent. Legally they have no liabilities against each other, nor do they get any legal rights that they can enforce against each other which only a married couple have. The right to residence, right to inheritence,alimony, right to claim insurance as a legal spouse etc is the various legal rights only married couples have & not live in relationship people. These rights are provided in the matrimonial laws which govern the parties.
        even the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, clearly provides in section 2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live-in or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage,

        Like

        • True legal recognition and some legal rights are there. I also think biological children born outside of marriage do have some rights on father’s inheritance?? @PT do you know?

          Like

      • IHM,

        Not completely sure.

        Indian courts haven’t, as far as I know, distinguished between the inheritance rights of kids born in live-in relationships and those born to people who are not in any kind of committed relationship. They are all classified under the term “illegitimate”.

        Such kids have full rights on any property or assets acquired by the father himself, but they have cannot claim a share in coparcenary property (if any).
        So if you’ve got vast amounts of ancestral land or something, you might want to think again before having kids out of wedlock.

        me – Thank You PT 🙂

        Like

    • Women would like a live-in relationship since it has no in-law issues,dowry problems,bride burning or intervening society.patriarchal problems.
      Why would a man go for a live-in (and not get a dowry and a free maid-cum-housekeeper if he wishes to marry)?
      Ladies,what benefits a man would possibly get?
      Except sex without strings attached?

      Like

  7. About the last question on multiple live ins.. I am not too sure whether that happens. I thinik within the constraints of live in relationships, there does exist a level of commitment which may not allow multiple partners in a live in.

    But being in a live in relationship does not safeguard the woman … I think. Men may or not face immense issues, but issues that women face in our society wont be solved by a marriage!

    Like

  8. There seems to be an assumption that with live in relationships it’s just based entirely on sex and nothing more. This couldn’t be further from the truth, people in live in relationships can be just as committed like people in marriages. As someone who’s been in a live in relationship I take offense to this.

    “Women I like to believe will not chase a man for the sole purpose of sharing his bed. Their needs are emotional and much more sophisticated.”

    Ummmm….some of us may have just purely physical needs. 🙂 IHM pretty much hit the nail on the head with this. We as women aren’t viewed as having sexual needs and if we are, we’re easily labeled sluts.

    “It is the woman more likely to be emotionally and psychologically scarred if the relationship terminates.

    Men are crude thick skinned creatures.”

    Well…this is just…no..just no.

    Like

    • @Ren Kiss,

      I am surprised to note that you are offended!
      May be I am wrong. May be I haven’t fully understood female sexuality.
      But there was absolutely no intention of causing any offense.

      I simply adore, respect and pamper a female, depending on her age.
      I am simply incapable of saying or doing anything to offend them.
      So please don’t be offended.

      This is an interim reply and I am taking advantage of a brief respite from my pre-occupations.
      I hope to find the time for a detailed defense tomorrow.
      I look forward to more views from other readers.
      Regards
      GV

      Like

      • It’s quite alright, so far I’ve liked your responses. I guess I just got a little defensive. 🙂 I just felt you were making live in relationships seem like an opportunity for promiscuity. A commenter here just pointed out, if someone wanted to be promiscuous, they won’t even need to be in a live in relationship to do it.

        I am surprised to note that you are offended!
        May be I am wrong. May be I haven’t fully understood female sexuality.

        Well just understand men and women are a little bit more complex than what we all like to believe. 🙂 We all don’t necessarily fit into the standard of what men and women are supposed to be. 🙂 Men and women both have emotional and sexual needs.

        Like

      • GVJi, i like your sporting spirit and the readiness to accept that people can have differing viewpoints. All this despite your age.

        Like

  9. Now this has been one stimulating discussion. But first even though I disagree with quite a few things he mentions, I would like to appreciate GV for being open to discussion – it is not that often that you see a man his age ready to talk.

    Why is live-in relationship seen as an alternative to marriage. Again taking example from german society, here it is seen as a step towards marriage. It is an indication that you are serious about this relationship and hope to take it a step further. A partnership where two adults live under a roof without getting married is a legal term and they enjoy legal rights. For e.g. my company provides company car to the employees and the spouse and partners are allowed to drive for personal use (but girlfriends/boyfriends are not)
    I see all around me live-in relationships – friends, colleagues, neighbors. I have seen live-in partners enjoy togetherness with both set of families and I have seen married Indian women not wanting to go to India for vacation for fear of being judged (how many days they spent with their family and how many with in-laws etc).
    A child needs a father and a mother – true – but how does it matter if his father and mother are also husband and wife ? How does it matter if your grandchild’s mother is legally your DIL ? I have seen grandparents pitching in to help when the live-in couples fall out and there are children involved.

    Legally all children born in marriage or out of marriage have a right to property and the parents have legal responsibilties for bringing a child to this world. I hope we keep innocent children out of these social and moral rules.

    All said and done marriage is still an institution bigger than a live-in relationship. It has greater meaning – both socially and legally.

    I think it is unfair on men to have this opinion that they have no brains and no heart and that they think between their legs. A man does not need a partner only to warm his bed. A man, like a woman, also needs a relationship. And when a relationship falls out (any kind of relationship) – both are affected in various degrees. I do not believe that a man would love his children if he is married to their mother else they mean nothing to him.

    What I do not also understand is why is courtship allowed/accepted but live-in relationship is seen as a taboo ?
    Live-in is more serious than a courtship and a step towards marriage.

    There can be no bigger joke than that marriage in India offers security to women. After 2 years fighting tooth and nail all I managed to get was a divorce decree. My ex’s family wanted no divorce – there has been no divoce in their family – we can live separetly – they care a damn!!! During the trail the suggestion I got was – You have a good job – buy your freedom and move away and in the end I did that.

    I feel we are making a big deal of this live-in issue. Two adults must be trusted with taking their own decissions and living with the consequences. I have no issues over 2 adults having sex with or without marriage. I would rather worry about issues like domestic violence and child abuse.

    Like

    • i did a live in with a guy whom i finally , because it was eazy on rent too.
      the guys with whom i shared apartment were boys too. both in india and elsewhere.
      And i was surprised my dad had NO objection to him. because my father had stayed with me in the apt too – In fact when i was in India, my dad said – why i moved away. , that guy is so nice and the apt is so nice – i said i have more fights in my apt with him and i can always find a nice apt. there are dads who support too and my mother who was easily scandalised. people come in ALL SHAPES, SIZES AND OPINIONS.

      Like

    • To concede a point to Vishwanathji, I do think that traditionally raised Indian men are highly sexually repressed. In traditional families, men are conditioned to think that if a woman consents to sex outside a marriage, then she is, in effect, a slut and should be treated as such. I think Vishwanathji was talking about this breed of men in particular. For traditionally-minded men, sex outside marriage (and even within it :)) is always about power. By consenting to it outside marriage, a woman loses her “virtue” and respectability, while a man merely adds another feather to his cap. I think Vishwanathji was approaching live-in relationships from the point-of-view of men with such conditioning. Lets be honest, we all know men who think that women should only have sex within marriage, and if they cross this “Laksman-Rekha” well, then they don’t deserve respect. I agree with Vishwanathji, such a man would view a live-in relationship as a license for sex, nothing else. 🙂

      Like

      • @Bad Indian Girl:

        I understood that part, but how many of us want to live with such a man, never mind whether it is a marriage or a live-in? These are the same men who view marriage as a licence to sex and breeding a vansh, and nothing more. How are women any better-off with these men under marriage?

        Like

      • Very true.

        But you know something? That sort of a guy isn’t exactly going to be a big hit at parties. How many women would want to actually live in a long-term relationship with a guy who makes it clear, either overtly or through his actions, that he doesn’t respect them or their choices at all?

        There’s no point denying that there are a BUNCH of guys who truly think any woman having sex outside of a marriage is a slut. But if I was one of them, I would definitely not fancy my chances of

        a) landing a girlfriend
        b) getting her to move in
        and,
        c) getting her to agree to physical intimacy without marriage

        It could happen in freak cases but there’s no way that someone with that kind of attitude would consistently be able to accomplish all the above. The first one would probably be hard enough.

        Like

  10. Ouch!

    Why are women’s needs more sophisticated? If you said their needs/expectations from a relationship are a bit different, I might agree with you. But who’s to say they are more sophisticated?
    I’m a guy, I have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. It’s part of being human.

    As well, I’d like to stick my head up out here and venture the opinion that I am NOT a crude, thick skinned creature. At least I like to think I’m not. What kind of guy isn’t scarred when a long term relationship ends? Breaking up a long-term relationship feels terrible. It’s happened to me and you know, I didn’t even feel like eating for days. It took me months to actually move on and get some semblance of normality back in my life. Okay, maybe I didn’t cry like she did, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t upset.

    I assure you that emotional scarring happens both ways, and I’m not about to start a contest here to find out who is MORE hurt. That kind of comparison is both absurd and meaningless.

    Like

  11. Great counterpoints, IHM!
    My take-
    The entire premise of the viewpoint rests on a few assumptions:
    – Men are brutes who look for conquests and not emotional connection
    – Women just want to find someone to whom to hand over responsibility for their lives – from father to husband to son
    – Men take the “responsibility” for women and children as for property – why buy second hand goods at the same price?
    – Couples not agreeing with the above are freaks (why would they want to meet the parents?)
    – Society (including grandparents) hates people who don’t agree with the above and make children suffer for this. (This is actually often true, but is it a good thing?)
    – A relationship without marriage makes you a freak, relationships with multiple people makes you some kind of non-human evil slime.

    What if we don’t agree with any of this?
    What if we consider all people to be humans who like having meaningful connections with others based on interests, kindness, love and cooperation?
    What if we consider that what two people do (remain friends, have a relationship, have multiple relationships) is between them so long as both are consenting adults?

    Like

  12. All this stems from a basic notion that sexual activities are solely created for the purpose of men’s pleasure. As if, women don’t want sex with no strings attached. That itself is patriarchal thinking.

    Live-in relationships are kept for various reasons. The resons depend on the two parties involved. Some people don’t believe in marriage, so they live-in. Or afraid of marriage. And not just men, there are women who are commitment phobes too. They don’t know what they want. They aren’t sure if they can live with one person their entire life. Plus, marriages are inconvenient if you’re unsure. Live-in is convenient, no divorce, no legal proceedings.

    Who says men are thick-skinned and they just want sex? Patriarchy labels a woman as a natural prostitute. Like she’s designed for the pleasure of men.

    I know for a fact that men are emotionally vulnerable too. Sometimes, more than women. It’s wrong to generalize or create a statistical data. Emotional vulnerability hardly depends on someone’s gender. In fact, only few aspects of our personalities depend on gender. But people strive to conform to gender stereotypes which makes most people generic.

    Like

  13. Bhagwad says, “It’s moments like this which make me bang my head against the wall…” And there are plenty of such ‘moments’ in the post here and in the previous one and also some comments to make one bang ones head in despair.

    Just a single example:
    “Will a child from a live in relationship enjoy the facility of sitting on the lap of its grandparent and be told a bedtime story?”

    Well unless the child is some prickly porcupine who you cannot put on your lap or tell a story to, there is no reason why this cannot happen! 😉

    Lol, My nephew has a live-in girl friend. She is like family to us. We don’t know if/when they will get married. We have not asked. For the record, even if my sons do not want to marry but want to just ‘live-in’ it is okay by us. They don’t stop being my sons or their children (if and when they have them) stop being my grandchildren because some ‘time-honored’ custom was not performed. I gave my children birth and brought them up and when they have children (even if it is minus marriage), those are MY grandchildren. Simple, isn’t it?
    And unless my children put out a prohibitory orders against my husband and me (which is unlikely) their children will certainly sit on our laps (they not being little porcupines) and listen to stories. Pray WHY?? Because it is up to us the grandparents whether to tell the stories or not and on the kids to listen or not. The marital status of the child’s parents have got NOTHING to do with it. Period.

    Like

    • LOL at prickly porcupine! Shail, your grandkids are going to hear some awesome bedtime stories, if your blog is anything to go by!

      I’d like to add…Even a biological connection has nothing to do with grandparently affection. In this age of fostering, adoption, remarriage, step-parenting, we might acquire grandkids through several alternative ways. Some grandparents are even their grandkids’ legal guardians. What matters is how much love the kids get, not how they got to the grandparent’s lap!

      Like

      • Thanks @Starry. And you are right. We may acquire grandkids through alternative ways as well 🙂 And of course, little does it matter how they get to that grand-parental lap! 🙂

        Like

      • live-in also affects the cohabitors’ children. In general, children’s emotional development is poorer if a parent is cohabiting than if a parent is married. This poor development is partly due to the high risk that the couple will break up.

        If the couple does separate, the children pay an economic price, since they have no right to child support from a partner who is not their biological/legal parent.

        They also pay an emotional price when they lose a caring adult who may have taken a parental role but will do so no longer.

        Like

        • In dysfunctional families where parents keep fighting violently, despite being married, children face all kinds of trauma. It is the loving relationship shared by the parents and how they relate to their child that makes a child feel secure, not a marriage certificate.

          Like

    • “Will a child from a live in relationship enjoy the facility of sitting on the lap of its grandparent and be told a bedtime story?”

      what if the women in this live-in dislikes these people as disrupting and wants them not? the guy thinks his parents are awesome people and expects his partner to adjust.will this live-in be called off?

      Like

      • @Amit:

        Every person holds their parents dear. Even if they are awful people. Your question: “what if the women in this live-in dislikes these people as disrupting and wants them not?”, my answer would be: It does not matter if the woman does not build a relationship with the man’s parents. It would, of course, be wonderful if she does. But just because she does not like his parents, is no reason that the guy also has to stop considering his parents awesome. This simply takes some maturity from all parties.

        “the guy thinks his parents are awesome people and expects his partner to adjust.will this live-in be called off?”
        So the female partner thinks the guy’s parents are not awesome. What’s the big deal? This does not mean she expects him to thrust them in some burning pit and strew their ashes to the winds. It simply means everyone tries to adjust to one another and try to meet on common ground. Note that I said everyone, not just the female partner is called to “please adjust”.

        Like

      • try to see my point.
        in a live-in,people can have different level of commitments,interests and ideas,
        and so can a marriage.One person may be more committed to his parents,other might loath this.

        Many people imagine that living together before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. The “trial period” gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible.The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.

        Like

      • @Amit:

        I can only draw 3 conclusions from your reply. Please excuse me if I have erred in my assumptions.

        1) Parents are extremely important in the marriage process and are a part of the marriage.

        My view: I think parents are very important for the person, but not for their marriage. A relationship is about two individuals. If my husband / live-in partner does not like my parents, I would expect two things from him. Treat my parents civilly, and maintain as much distance as he can and keep his nose out of my relationship with them. It works. Really!

        2) A live-in relationship is always about a trial for compatibility.

        My view: It could be this, but it is not always a test drive. There are many reasons why a happy live-in couple may choose not to get married. I know someone who does not want to go for it simply because its a “big bother”.

        3) A marriage / relationship should have a boss (i.e., a driver) and a subordinate (i.e., a car).

        My view: That is simply tosh. A marriage is an equal partnership and if someone thinks they want to be a driver or a car, I would advise them to burn their driving licence.

        Like

  14. Given that marriage is made to be such a huge deal and all crimes are around it (abuse, honor killing, dowry), it would be good if we just put an end to it. Why do we have to solemnize a relationship for society’s sake? If a man and a woman are happy to be with each other, jsut let them be. Children in such a relationship will be happy too.

    Let us be freeeee. 🙂

    Like

  15. Just read some more comments.
    Oops! Looks like I am in a jam.
    I feel like Abhimanyu trapped inside the Chakravyuha.
    Not even one comment in support or sympathy!
    How am I going to wriggle out of this one.
    Looks like I have antagonised the males too.
    Bhagwad Jal Park and later PT .
    Relax male readers, Sorry about that remark that men are crude.
    I take that back with apologies.

    See you all tomorrow.
    Got work to do.

    Bye for today.
    Regards
    GV

    Like

    • GV, I’m giving you mad props for being open to this discussion at all. Thank you for opening up this important conversation, and thank you for being such a good sport. It’s rare to find a man your age who is willing, like you are, to listen to others’ viewpoints and consider them seriously, rather than dismissing us as “mere women” or “mere younger people who are inexperienced”. In the past three days reading your post as well as your comments I have found myself wishing my father was more like you! 🙂

      Like

  16. The main issue with people not being comfortable with live-ins, has to do with acknowledging a woman’s sexuality. A man is sexual – that is accepted, tolerated, but a woman- how dare she? And all this talk about protecting a woman by marriage is just a way of buying her sexual loyalty – if I may put it that way.

    Moreover by the blanket statement that most men are crude, and insensitive, it is truly demeaning to so many wonderful men, who put in as much into their relationships as their partners.

    As for children being ostracised, can’t we choose not to do that? If we as a society accept a couple, legally married or otherwise, the whole ‘illegitimate child’ issue will end – then and there.

    I definitely think that for a woman, there would be more freedom in a live-in than in a marriage mainly because of the non-involvement (or less involvement) of the society in their day to day lives.

    Like

  17. Dear Mr V,

    You said :If a woman is not careful in her selection, she may end up becoming a bed partner of the man , without the associated commitments and responsibilities.

    The man gets a temporary disposable wife. A use and throw kind of wife

    This is a case of what-if. If a woman is not careful, she may end up marrying a guy who beats her every Saturday night. If she’s not careful, she may get run-over by a truck. If she’s not careful, she may slip on a staircase and break her neck. The solution in these cases is not to stay unmarried or to never cross the street or to never go down a staircase again. The solution is to BE careful.

    You said:Women I like to believe will not chase a man for the sole purpose of sharing his bed. Their needs are emotional and much more sophisticated.

    Actually, a lot of immature women do date guys simply because they are good looking. So yeah.

    You said:At the risk of putting it crudely, a live in relationship in some cases may end up as a multiple night stand instead of a one night stand for the man. Mature men and women may be an exception to this rule.

    If I wanted to chase a woman purely for sex, a live-in relationship would be the last thing I’d pursue. Any thinking woman would sooner or later notice such the lack of interest in the non-sexual part of the relationship and end it quicker than you can say “live-in”. It’s not like you can just go up to a woman and say “oh gee, I just thought it’d be nice if you moved in to my place. Do you want to?”. It takes time to build your relationship to a point where you can actually consider moving in with your partner or ask him/her to come live with you. Even if you cross that bridge, physical intimacy is not a given (at least not in India). If I was just looking for sex, I wouldn’t want to wait anywhere near that long.

    You said:It is always the woman who bears the brunt of pregnancy.

    There doesn’t have to be a pregnancy if she doesn’t want one. If she does want children out of such a relationship, then I would presume that she would’ve done the risk analysis at some point and concluded that it wouldn’t be a problem.

    You said:It is the woman more likely to be emotionally and psychologically scarred if the relationship terminates.

    Men are crude thick skinned creatures. They will simply look for fresh prey.

    With all due respect, sir, I believe that’s a sexist thing to say. You are a lot older than me and have seen a lot more of the world, but I am one hundred percent sure that none of these are true. Such stereotypes have no foundation in fact and probably owe their origins to older, patriarchal notions of masculinity.

    You said:After getting pregnant, if they choose to have the baby, they are denying their children a legal and socially acceptable father. A loving caring environment is not enough. A child needs a father. Ask any orphan. It needs a mother, a grandfather, grandmother, cousins and uncles and aunts too. Will a child from a live in relationship enjoy the facility of sitting on the lap of its grandparent and be told a bedtime story?

    I knew kids of immigrants in the US who had never met any relatives at all (apart from their parents). I’d never met my dad’s family until a few years ago (my mom’s from the Bay Area, so I did see a lot of HER family, I guess). I don’t think a child can’t do without all those aunts and uncles and such. Also, if and when I become a grandfather, I would hope that I’d be understanding enough to tell my grandchild a story without my opinions on relationships coming in the way.

    You said: Couples in live in relationships will live by themselves. They may not even welcome the parents of their partner to visit them and neither will these parents like to embarrass their son/daughter by visiting them.

    Why not? What’s embarrassing about it? My girlfriend’s parents were in India recently, and they stayed with us for a week. It screwed up our work schedule and everything, but it was quite fun, actually. Didn’t mind it at all.

    You said:When a child born out of live in relationship, meets and mingles with normal children of married parents, how can you gauge what feelings it experiences?

    How can YOU gauge it? Why do we need to gauge it? Maybe they don’t give a damn. Who knows? Years ago, similar questions were asked of inter-racial couples. And today, here I am, the son of a brown man and a white woman, completely comfortable with my background.

    You said:What next? Will live in enthusiasts accept the next stage in this progression?

    What if some of you feel ” Why have a live in relationship with just one person? Why not have more these and experiment with A, B, C etc.? Let the other partner also experiment with P, Q, R at the same time. Live with different partners for a month each and see which partner is best

    If two adults consent to have a particular sexual interaction, it’s not anyone’s place to pronounce judgement on them, live-in enthusiast or not.


    QL

    Like

  18. You know what the real problem is? Its not marriage or live in. Its about commitment and let me clarify, commitment doesn’t mean marriage. People can be married and totally uncommitted to their partner, now by uncommitted I don’t mean they cheat, I just mean that they don’t consider the other person really a part of their life or as an important enough part. Its like they are ok even if the said person isn’t a part of their life tomorrow. Commitment is about respect for one another’s feelings, its about being mutually accepting and fulfilling. Marriage and commitment are two different things. Let us all realise that.

    Unfortunately our society clubs the two together and actually gives the label of marriage more importance than the label of being committed individuals. What I would advocate is neither a marriage, nor a live-in, I think that would be the decision of the couple. But what is an absolute must is commitment.

    A lot of the problems that GV mentions come out of a lack of respect towards the other person. It is a lack of respect and an avoidance of responsibility that makes some men players (and yes women too). I agree IHM that a woman’s sole goal should not be marriage, but does patriarchy allow for that?

    Me – Cheesychic self reliance would mean they don’t NEED TO care what patriarchy allows.

    And since we live in a patriarchy, the woman bears the brunt of a live-in, even if she chose it and was respected by her partner while it lasted. The moment she is out of it, the society comes out to blame her ‘sluttiness’, it is somewhat like the proverbial ‘she asked for it’.

    Me – Cheesychic the same fear prevents women from moving out of unhappy marriages – should they stay in such relationships for such fears? And yet we know of women who have had successful divorces.

    And this happens even to previously married women. A friend of mine who is going through a divorce told me how overnight her friends’ husbands started hitting on her when they got to know of her impending divorce. It is because of this that the woman might find it tougher to let go of the hurt and lets face it however good it was, the end of a relationship always hurts and it hurts both the parties if it was one of mutual respect. What makes it difficult for the woman later on is the questions she has to field from so called judges of her character, which really is because of the patriarchal system. And so I would advocate live-ins only after cleaning up this mind set of the society, lets first start doing that. Once women are treated as equals otherwise, there will automatically be respect for choices of consenting adults. What we are talking about is the ideal situation, but the practicality of now is different and patriarchy is to be blamed for it.

    Like

    • I agree IHM, what I mean to say is that for acceptance of live-in relationships, we need to have a total change in the mentality of people. We are in a society where men do have some sort of an advantage, even if the woman is not an ‘abla naari’. I do not object to a live-in, nor do I support marriage. What I believe is that any relationship requires maturity from both partners and mutual respect. More importantly, the society needs to mature, even to be able to talk about respectful marriages, let alone live-ins. I believe that majority of the Indian society still does not have that maturity. So let’s not talk about what is the ideal situation, lets talk about what can be done here and now, so that such things can be more easier and less ambiguous in the future.

      Me – Do you know many, many couples are Living in even today? The women I know are self reliant, middle class women The two I know closely are 27 and 26 and they have chosen well I feel (and I am sure if they hadn’t they would have taken steps to handle that – i.e. walked out) they are smart and confident and earning (not a lot, but good enough to support themselves comfortably).
      If everybody waits for the society to change, it will never change. These women are simply living their lives – but simply doing that, they are also making a statement. Because in a patriarchal society, living life on your own terms becomes a statement.

      I for one, look forward to a day, when relationships are just about two people choosing to be together in a respectful manner, with no expectations whatsoever from a third party, be it society or anyone else.

      me – But Cheesychic do you think waiting is going to change anything?

      Why do we make relationships so complicated by inviting the whole world to ratify it or set rules about it? Shouldn’t it be more about how two people feel and about not hurting any other people (and by other people I don’t mean drama queen parents who cry hurt every time a child asserts his/her independence) in the process? Relationships are about the individuals, not about the society, the day we can come to terms with that, we can accept any and all relationships.

      Like

    • I replied, it got lost??? Anyways, replying again. Unfortunately self reliance doesn’t really guarantee emotional protection in the Indian context. You are right in saying it means they don’t NEED to care, but its difficult not to care when people make it seem like a crime that you are even breathing. All I am saying is that it does hurt, even though a self reliant woman knows that she is much better off that those wagging tongues and is better able to process the hurt. All I am saying is that our society is still not mature enough to give a woman the right to have a relationship of her choice, let’s face that. While it would be ideal that the society does so, the truth is it doesn’t, is all I am saying.

      I support neither marriages nor live-ins. I, for one, am waiting for the day when relationship are not such a huge ‘societal’ deal. The day we accept that relationships are about what two mature individuals do with each other (assuming we are talking of mature and rational equal partners) and not about pleasing the whole extended family and their pets, we will be able to accept any and all relationships. And people should get into relationships with their eyes opened and should communicate what they want precisely to each other. If someone says they are ok with a live-in, but are secretly hoping they would change the other person’s mind after considerable time has passed, they are kidding themselves. All I am saying is its about mutual consent and respect.

      Like

      • I forgot to add, to the part about people assuming about changing the other person’s mind, this applies to both men and women. If both people are clear about what they want, none of have any right to say anything. At the end of the day both parties in a mutually respectful relationship should take equal responsibility for the success or debacle of a relationship. I think I just am not coming across correctly today 🙂

        me – No, I think you are making very relevant points Cheesychic… but I am not sure what the solution could be…?

        Like

  19. Stereotypes, stereotypes, more stereotypes! IHM please make another tag already! 😀

    1. Women are not ‘abla naari’. We are capable of taking care of ourselves and our needs. 

    2. Women’s needs are sophisticated than men? What is the yardstick being used here?

    3. Living together = sharing rent bills sharing chores sharing space sharing a ‘home’.
    What makes anybody think it is easy to set up things to change every month? 

    4. Living in is not just bedroom business. It is also involves cooking, cleaning, maintaining, entertaining guests- both family and friends ideally shared between the two people involved. A house of a couple living in is like the house of any other couple. Why does it have to look evil, black and white and grainy?

    5. When men and women want just sex without strings attached, they go for one night stands. When they want exclusiveness, it becomes an affair or relationship. Why would anybody want to share a house/space with somebody else and put up with their good and bad habits 24/7 just for sex? Doesn’t it require something more serious like commitment? 

    6. I am glad that the remark about men has been taken back as it was offensive. I love the men in my life and I think they are sensitive, beautiful human beings. They are even more feminist than me! 

    Me – I agree, read about more such men here.

    Like

  20. IHM believe it or no… i totally support your views. And yes, i am going to give this blog a big shout out. Too good.

    Amazing argument and trust me, ive been saying the same thing since many days, everyone says cos I am a guy… but for once a woman has spoken for truth, I am sharing this link with all those who were shouting @ me.

    Like

  21. There is one assumption I would like to clear. Many here are saying that people who do not want to commit or just want sex, would go for a one night stand instead of a live-in. Not true, if the person you are involved with is an emotional abuser, he/she would find it more convenient to be in a live-in with you. Emotional abusers, or any abusers for that matter, are all about control and power. They want someone to be their fallback girl or boy, to whom they can always return once they are bored with the others or to put it crudely there is no fresh entertainment available. I say this out of experience. The whole kick for such an abuser is having a person always hanging around, so lets not assume that people who just want sex would go for just a one night stand. But then, this type of disrespect happens in some marriages also.

    The only requirement for a relationship, I again insist, is mutual respect. Once you have that, the rest is sorted. Its not the label that counts, its what your relationship is really about that counts. If you are with a person who treats you as an equal partner, that is all that is required.

    Like

    • I agree with you about the abusers bit and the mutual respect bit. Emotional/physical abusers don’t even need to live under the same roof. I have seen a few boy/girlfriends do it. The only thing that works in case of being in an abusive relationship is not to endure it. Maybe it is easier in live-in to walk to out, maybe not. Maybe it is easier in marriages to address and fix it or maybe not. Or vice versa. It’s upto the victim and how they deal with it.

      Like

      • I agree, abuse is very sneaky in nature and the victim, be it a man or a woman, does not even know of how it takes a grip on them. Its not easy to wriggle out of it be it a marriage or a live-in, because the abusive cycle prevents that. I just said that we cannot assume that people who want sex would go for just a one night stand, that is a generalisation, as much as saying all girls want marriage. For some being partnered be it a marriage or a live in is also a guarantee of safe and regular sex. The thing is the whole discussion about relationships in patriarchy hinges on sex and the female body. The moment we can take the sex out of the equation and look at a relationship as a choice of two individuals to be together or not, I think we would defeat the shackles of patriarchy. The patriarchal society, despite its overt disapproval of sex, actually judges everything by it and that too negatively. Ok that is one comment too many from my side today, IHM would get weary of moderating my comments today.

        Me – No she won’t 🙂

        Like

      • @cheesychic30-
        ‘I just said that we cannot assume that people who want sex would go for just a one night stand, that is a generalisation, as much as saying all girls want marriage.’
        Spot on! One night stands are only when a person seeking sex wants no strings attached. Which is why it is wrong to compare live in with ‘multiple night stands’ is all i am saying.

        Like

    • I hope you don’t think I’m being pedantic here, but an emotional abuser cannot, by definition, be in a relationship purely for the sort of casual sex suggested by the phrase “multi night stand”.

      I’m not saying that no one would be in a live-in relationship chiefly for sex. What I find troublesome is the implied assertion (made by Mr. Vishwanathan above), that women in live-in relationships are somehow more susceptible to being stuck with a man whose motivations are purely sexual in nature and that such a man would find this kind of a relationship particularly to his benefit.

      This position would be a rather difficult one to defend, considering that non-marital relationships can take far more time to reach the point of physical intimacy than marriages in this country and a live-in is pretty much the most committed non-marital relationship there is.

      Like

  22. I tend to agree with cheesychic. Emotional abuse can happen either in a marriage or out of it – I have known a case where a man convinced a woman to live in with him (as opposed to marriage because “when we trust each other so much what is the need for social approval?”) She later found him cheating on her with another woman, who also believed that they were ‘living together’. The woman in question broke it off of course, but she had a hard time coming out of the experience. If she had been married, there would have been difficulties with her divorce, but she would have been given the social status of the ‘wronged woman’. In this case, she was able to come out of the affair relatively easily, but she was given the social status of a ‘easy woman’. The trouble in both cases in not the nature of the relationship, but the judging eyes of so called society. It is also the fault of the patriarchal indoctrination that makes a woman tie her happiness to a man’s fidelity and exclusivity, which is sold as a sort of ‘reward’ for her good behavior.

    You cannot get rid of patriarchy by necessarily changing the nature of how we define relationships – but by devaluing the ‘currency’ that a woman’s body is.

    Like

  23. Where I live, live-in relationships lasts for years too and the reasons for it to not graduate to a ‘marriage’ could be many. Sometimes it could be something as boring as ‘can’t be bothered when we are practically living as a family’ or as realistic as ‘can’t afford the ring etc right now cos saving for child/ren’s education is the priority at the moment’. It certainly doesn’t seem like getting a ‘disposable partner’. THe level of commitment seems same as a marriage not only between the couple but amazingly between their extended families as well. Have seen grandparents, uncles, aunts lining up to help in case of sickness/subsequent pregnancies/babysitting etc. That should answer about grandparents not being able to tell bedtime stories to the children of live-in couple. Just FYI, I am not against marriage at all, infact love weddings!

    Like

  24. Let the key word for this post be ‘Choice’. women planning to remain single,not marrying,or adopting is just fine and readily acceptable-as their children are.
    But I have no doubt in mind that it should be one way-either marriage or singlehood.

    live-in is a precarious path for a women,it could be totally sex based privilege in a live in,since no outside intrusion or legal hassle is involved.live in comes with no guarantee from either side.How long will the other stick to the relation,what if the partner dumps him/her. temporary disposable partner for either sex-it reeks of disrespect for the other.no formal rules,so the other person can act irresponsibly and can’t be brought to book.

    men being crude might be a gender stereotype,but emotional gamble with either involved is traumatic. It is a lack of respect and an avoidance of responsibility that makes some men players (and yes women too),they would surely like to take undue advantage of such a set-up,marriage to some extent acts as a deterrent since families are involved.

    Marriage with all its legal bindings/societal intervention also acts as a watchdog,it contains promiscuity,men do not abandon their wife when her youth fades because by that time emotional empathy and maturity has established deep roots in both .If a man/woman leaves marriage he/she earns the wrath of society,on the other hand live-in is simply licensing promiscuity.Societal intrusion which is seen as a part of marriage can become non-existent if the man is mature and in-laws don’t encroach upon the private space and keep away.servitude and subjugation is a matter of ‘chioce’-not necessary women have to take things lying down.

    Like

    • @s

      good points.
      Reminds me,karunanidhi is married to only one legally as per the hindu marriage law,and living in with his other two wives.
      can a woman,unmindful of society,have three men as husbands willingly?

      Like

      • hehe,women would never do that,they get stability through a single relationship which fulfills them,rather than some men who might take interest in a female colleague even with a wife sitting at home.

        yes,these are not mere stereotypes,there is some truth behind it.

        Like

    • “live-in is a precarious path for a women,it could be totally sex based privilege in a live in,since no outside intrusion or legal hassle is involved”

      Only if the woman allows it. You can’t make it sex-based unless she agrees to it.

      “live in comes with no guarantee from either side”

      As doesn’t marriage. Or anything else in the world.

      “.How long will the other stick to the relation,what if the partner dumps him/her.”

      Why would someone just dump their partner out of the blue for no reason at all? And what if they do? Would you rather that they be forced to live together?

      “temporary disposable partner for either sex-it reeks of disrespect for the other”

      What makes you think it’s all about having a “temporary disposable partner”? Can’t people be in love if they aren’t married? Marriage is hardly a pre-condition to respecting your partner.

      “no formal rules,so the other person can act irresponsibly and can’t be brought to book.”

      There are formal rules. Even in India, there are now quite a few court precedents. And the DVA applies.
      Me – Very true.

      “they would surely like to take undue advantage of such a set-up”

      How do you take undue advantage? I haven’t seem to have figured out a way yet.

      “marriage to some extent acts as a deterrent since families are involved”

      Really? How many cases have you heard of women being abused by the man’s whole family and her own parents telling her to “adjust”? It’s got to be around the million mark by now.

      “If a man/woman leaves marriage he/she earns the wrath of society,on the other hand live-in is simply licensing promiscuity”

      Sure, society would rather have a woman continue to stay with a man who drinks like a fish and then beats the crud out of his wife every day of the week, because marriage is “sacred”, after all and because “This isn’t America”. Things would be a hell of a lot better if society kept it’s fake, hypocritical morality to itself and it’s wrath directed towards things that actually deserve it.

      Infidelity is wrong because it hurts someone else. “Promiscuity” is a personal choice that society has no business judging anyone for.

      “.Societal intrusion which is seen as a part of marriage can become non-existent if the man is mature and in-laws don’t encroach upon the private space and keep away”

      That’s a huge, HUGE if. Why compare the ideal to the real? How many marriages in this country are actually like that?

      “servitude and subjugation is a matter of ‘chioce’”

      Okay, so I guess some married women just CHOOSE to be glorified maids, yeah? Is that it?

      Like

      • @quintessentiaslly liberal

        you replied something very notable in the very second line:

        #”Only if the woman allows it. You can’t make it sex-based unless she agrees to it.”

        unless a woman agrees to it,she cannot be “USED” in any way-legally,sexually or economically,and marriage is not a case of women becoming “glorified maids”

        #Really? How many cases have you heard of women being abused by the man’s whole family and her own parents telling her to “adjust”? It’s got to be around the million mark by now———–

        marriages are seen as a raw deal only if a woman is ignorant.
        live-ins are no solution of marriage,equality is.
        to fight this inequality,stay WITHIN the system and fight it.
        do not fall to promiscuity or seek idyllic live-in where none exist.

        #”That’s a huge, HUGE if. Why compare the ideal to the real?”
        to get ‘ideal’,get a “real “human being.

        Like

      • @s

        “unless a woman agrees to it,she cannot be “USED” in any way-legally,sexually or economically,and marriage is not a case of women becoming “glorified maids””

        I’m sorry, it doesn’t work like that. There’s a whole lot of difference between forcing someone to have sex (which is rape) and forcing your spouse to do all the domestic drudgery for you (which is…what?). Doing the first one is almost guaranteed to land you in jail for a very long time, while doing the second only makes you a “traditional-minded” husband.

        “marriages are seen as a raw deal only if a woman is ignorant.”

        Oh no, it isn’t. You don’t have to be ignorant to be emotionally blackmailed into accepting a raw deal. This can happen in any kind of relationship, not just a marriage.

        “live-ins are no solution of marriage,equality is.”

        I never said it’s a solution. It’s an alternative.
        Live-in relationships can be unequal too, by the way.

        “to fight this inequality,stay WITHIN the system and fight it.”

        Why? Do you have to be black to demand an end to racism? Do you have to be in prison to demand better treatment for prisoners? Do you have to stay within the system imposed by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to oppose it?

        “do not fall to promiscuity or seek idyllic live-in where none exist.”

        Look, sexual choices are VERY personal things. But I realize personal morality is important to a lot of Indians. For the record, I have been in MONOGAMOUS live-in relationship for more than two years now with a woman who I love and care about a lot, and who I fully intend to marry very soon. We work our butts off during the day, come back home, do some of the chores and watch TV. I then fix dinner, following which we eat, following which we unwind a bit. There’s nothing very idyllic, promiscuous, bizarre or perverted about it. Really.

        Like

      • “We work our butts off during the day, come back home, do some of the chores and watch TV. I then fix dinner, following which we eat, following which we unwind a bit. There’s nothing very idyllic, promiscuous, bizarre or perverted about it. ”

        How absolutely dull, QL! And to think we were expecting orgies and all kinds of stuff from you. You have let us down rather badly 😉

        Like

    • Most of what you said is BS so I’m not going to take the time out to dissect it all of it, but I will address a couple of points.

      But I have no doubt in mind that it should be one way-either marriage or singlehood.

      You don’t get to decide that.

      Marriage with all its legal bindings/societal intervention also acts as a watchdog,it contains promiscuity,men do not abandon their wife when her youth fades because by that time emotional empathy and maturity has established deep roots in both

      You seem to be unaware of the term infidelity. You know, where someone steps outside of marriage to get their sexual and emotional needs fulfilled when they should be getting that in marriage.

      You also seem to have a problem with promiscuity.

      Like

  25. live in is a set up which isolates people and speaks of high skepticism of marriage which is seen a women-unfriendly set up .
    live-in also speaks of low tolerance that is hallmark of most marriages because once the glitter of marriage sweeps off,love becomes nothing but adjustment.
    live-in gives an option to keep the romance of life and love alive-but with differebt partners ofcourse.

    love-in is a love that flits from one flower to other when going gets tough.
    it’s living in and out of love,never within the heart.

    Like

  26. @Shail–good points. You make so much sense. Period. I always learn from you.

    @IHM– congratulationns on your thoughtful blog. Like Shail, you also make lots of sense. Thank you.

    🙂 🙂 🙂

    Like

  27. I am amused at the fact that people are so quick to use Children as an excuse/justification for actions that defy logic. People will use “it has always been so” as a justification for continuing something that is clearly wrong/irrelevant/is not working in the present circumstances. Why? (yes, I am thwaping my forehead).

    These are some of the commonly heard dialogues and my thoughts.

    “Mother is the most important person in a childs life”
    – Excuse me! the way I have seen it, anyone who is involved wholly in the childs well-being becomes important to the Child.

    “Father’s arent nurturing”
    – Absolutely wrong! I have seen fathers who are more nurturing than a white and black seeing mother. And I have seen Mothers and Fathers who, I would have had neuterized, had I known earlier how they will be with their children( please do excuse my child-fanatical-militant-attitude).

    “Where will she go now that she has a child. If she wants the divorce we will keep the child”
    – This is the In-laws speaking in the context of a woman initiating divorces or leaving the spouse, when they want to force the woman into staying. I say good for you.. now she can leave lighter and in peace, cause you wont harm the Heir to the lineage of your family, would you now?

    From my observation and experience, children are more affected by discord in the family, alchoholism/drug-abuse/addictions to video games and online casinos and other addictions, domestic abuse, bad-language, lack of firm guidance, un-ethical behaviour on the part of the parents and elders in their lives, interfering in-laws, poverty, illiteracy etc. than the Marital status or Sexual orientation of the parents. We do have skewed priorities dont we?

    What irks me is that, we claim India to be a land of vision, education, wisdom, philosophy etc.. and we go about making everyday errors in the said fields.

    Like

  28. As always, a very thought provoking post, IHM.
    Over the past 5 years I have transitioned from a person who used to be against (or rather, did not believe in) live-in arrangement to a person who talked to my mom about having to live in with my (now) husband, instead of getting married. The way I think of it now is, Just labeling any relationship as ‘marriage’ or ‘live-in’ or anything else, does not change the relationship. Children born out of any relationship (whether married or live-in) are in the true/crude sense going to be “just children born out of that relationship”. I dont see how children in either situation are different. It is the society and people around us that try to categorize them as different. And try to label everything …from a relationship, to children to how good a wife or husband one is. And being a child of separated parents, believe me, among friends we have much important issues and things to talk about than our parents. Not once have my friends questioned me the lack of a father-figure in our house (though it was very evident as they used to come to our house regularly). So when it comes to children, it is upto the parent(s) to explain to them about the type of family they are in, the questions that are bound to arise because of that, and the answers they ought to give if nosey people come poking around them.

    Few years back, I had a conversation with my mom on how would she feel if I lived in with my boy friend instead of getting married to him. At first she had (i think) a mini-heart attack. But after significant conversation she could see my point. That as long as both the partners are sincere, then any relationship is bound to succeed. But then she also said that though my points were all very logical and true, they were mostly Utopian.. ideal. But people are not ideal and she was afraid I might end up hurt in the process. In the end we did end up getting married after staying together on and off for a few years before getting married. (because staying together was our goal..whether married or living in, we didnt really care so much).

    Also, I feel its important to get into a relationship without any aim of getting something out of it apart from the company of the person. I know many people get married for the security (financial, emotional etc), for a more ‘settled life’, so to say, or to get ready-made meals and free house-keeping. Because the relationship is bound to get cracks if any of these reasons dont get fulfilled. I remember a line from the song ‘Taare zameen par’ .. “jaise bina matlab ka pyara rishta ho koi” .. Ever since I came across this line, it has been my benchmark for judging any relationship (more importantly my relationship). (not sure if this last point is relevant to the post, but I am getting carried away, and thought i will mention it nevertheless :))

    Me – That’s a beautiful line MyPunchingbag!!!

    Like

  29. Even a Live-in relationship has financial echo’s.. My friend lives in one, for 2 yrs she used to live in the flat opp her partner. they travelled together and slept together and lived in each others pockets and totally commited ot each other but kept all financial,material,possessions etc., separatae and like she said when she wanted the “space” she simply stayed back in her flat 🙂

    last month she told me they move din together — why pay 2 rents was her logic !!

    so basically live-in relationship is partially just like marriage for financial gain .

    In my mind no diff whatsoever.

    Like

  30. It is such an interesting by product of patriarchy that a woman cannot be thought of as human. Goddess or whore, always looking for some sort of support by her man, society and the world. Why can’t a woman want a casual sexual relationship? Can she not enjoy her promiscuity or see sex as a physical activity minus any kind of emotional attachment? Likewise a man can be as monogamous, as committed as emotional as a woman is supposed to be.
    Also a relationship does not have to involve the bedroom. a lot of very deep and emotional attachments can be formed between people of the same or opposite sex without anything physical happening between them. In that case the entire thesis of involvement would need to be rethought.
    I think these attitudes come from a lack of understanding of the opposite or even one’s own sex. Human sexuality is a complex thing which varies by the individual and should therefore not be forced into boxes defined by tradition.

    Like

  31. Had a lovely day yesterday with friends – one of whom is moving into a live in relationship and another who is the mom of a daughter in a live-in relationship. While it was not my choice (this is not about ‘trying out’ a partner with a return policy! And I was not about to uproot my life to move towns to live in and check the person out!He was welcome to come over to my town and do it!), I love the idea for committed couples.

    When people start bringing children in to bolster their argument, you know they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. My kids haven’t seen my wedding certificate – for all they know, we could well be living in! It makes no difference to them so long as they have involved parents or parent.

    Like

    • Good one! For that matter, who has seen anyone’s wedding certificate?

      But, in India, it’s not abt certificates…it’s abt the marriage symbols. Frankly, many married couples in my family/in-laws haven’t bothered to register their marriage, or get a certificate. Tongues start wagging only with the absence of the all-important mangalsutra. We had a live-in couple in our building, who got married after 2.5 years. Tongues stopped wagging after the black beads made their appearance. What a country!

      Like

  32. A comment from Facebook.
    >You have counteracted each and every arguement with bravado and Validity…The only condition is that Indian Society or for that matter even the Western World, is not yet ready to give respect to children born out of the wedding lock…Take a look at the current example of Arnold. S. marriage….his relationship with wife has ended and he is a laughing stock while every one is also accusing the lady with whom he had a relationship…the identity of secret child is being protected so he doesn’t have to face the Brunt…Implying Brunt is there…in a society 20 yrs more advanced than India…
    Response: Many people have children out of wedlock and they are accepted and respected. For example, Brad and Angelina. Arnold’s case is of marital infidelity.

    > Comment: Whatever you may say, However you may say, the truth of life is that women age faster in comparison to their male counterparts…additionally there is the biological clock to think about…u may say science can fix that with tt babies etc. This forum is too public and PG for me to discuss the intricacies of how difficult it may be for an average woman to find a partner after a certain age…Men on the other hand have girls quite easily available to them…and the men don’t even have to be handsome for that matter…just money suffices for them…For women, Both will be required…I’m not saying, what you are propagating is wrong, all I am saying is Society is not ready for that…Girls are the one’s who end up being called Sluts…please refer to Deepika/ragini case in India

    Like

    • I am troubled by the idea that “society” has to be “ready” for something before one can do it. What is society? Society is us! I am as much a member of society as the prim and proper auntyji who lives next door.

      Society is a dynamic, living, breathing entity. How does society and culture change? It changes when people change, when people decide to do something different, when people decide to break tradition for some reason. If everyone keeps waiting for society to be ready, the wait will last forever. The time to live life is NOW. Let there not be a minute wasted in waiting for some Utopian time in the future when society will be ready and everything will be hunky-dory. Such a wait is pointless, from both a personal and social perspective.

      On a different note, I am also troubled by the idea that looks and money are the primary ways to attract mates. I have a rather jaded view of romance, but I’m also realistic enough to understand that while money an buy you sex, it cannot buy you lasting relationships. I don’t want to be with a woman who likes my money a lot more than me. When you get older, relationships are more about what you have to offer as a person, rather than what you look like.

      Like

  33. (I know this is going to get me a large number of thumbs down 😉 !!)
    But why are we stressing so much on the nature of arrangement rather than the empowerment of parties involved? Women can be exploited and harassed in both marriage and live-ins. Same might be true for men. Shouldn’t we be rather focusing on how to make sure that the two are equally contributing (in emotional, financial, and every other aspect) and not to let external factors (whether in-laws or any other person) come in and destroy the sanctity of the relationship.

    Marriage might be an over-rated institution, but are we really wishing it away completely from our society?
    Me – In fact what everybody is saying is that both can exist.

    If worked upon and respected for what it can be – a fruitful and fulfilling bond, I believe it can be the best arrangement possible.

    For those who believe live-ins are better, so be it. But just by not marrying doesn’t make the challenges of working upon a relationship disappear. Married or not married, the commitment, care and dedication required cannot be shooed away.

    Like

    • I agree with you Puja. I think most of us are only putting forth the opinion that live-in couples should not be discriminated against and they are not an anathema to society. What you said about abuse within live-in relationships is only too true. But under the current Indian scenario, with the dowry and forcing in-laws, the moving into husband’s house and “please”adjust” attitude, live-in relationships do come out a little bit liberating, because the family typically dumps you, and while this is tough, the insidious abuse and force by the entire guy’s family in the name of tradition is done away with. This may not be true for everyone, but it is true for the majority.

      Like

    • @pujathakur

      you’re right

      “why are we stressing so much on the nature of arrangement rather than the empowerment of parties involved…just by not marrying doesn’t make the challenges of working upon a relationship disappear. ”

      why live-in is being seen as a possible solution,when exploitation(trust me when i say this)can exist more in a live-in.First demand rights for women,empower them,get the rules to change, demand reforms and subsequent equality and then women can live happily in a marriage.
      it’s the definition of marriage that should be changed,not introduce an alternate system of live-in.Agree with prajakta when she says that men have no benefits coming from live-in,they would rather prefer marriage.
      now why men would prefer a live in when marriage gives them a maid with dowry?

      Like

      • You’re still missing the point it seems and I’m sorry to have to re-hash this, but no one is saying live in relationships are the solution.

        Also you say the definition of marriage should be changed, let me ask you, Would you be fine with changing the definition of marriage so that homosexuals/lesbians would be allowed to marry?

        Like

  34. There is problem in live-in relation ship that is when child come in to the world. then this relationship become emotional bond.
    Me – Emotional bonds between parents caused by birth of a child is a myth. A child does not ‘create’ emotional bonds, though the child might thrive on bonds that are already there.

    then don’t want separate. it is more than emotional. this again creates problem which we already facing when we are in the marriage. to counter this problem we have to put away the child from relationships.

    Me – Why not use contraception…?

    have to create some government sponsored facilitates like “National Child Care facility’. so it will take care of the child growth.

    Me – Such places are there in India and I have blogged about my maid, she and her two siblings, were sent there by her (married) mother so that they could be educated. Their father (Married) had an alcohol problem.This was in Odissa, but such Homes are there in Maharashtra also, and many married couples send their kids there.

    so no emotional bond of child.. so that men and women can easily live-in relationships with out any hassles. its already there in Australia.. when child comes from this relationships
    Me – Like I said, how about more awareness about using contraception instead?

    they will put the child in some orphanage kind of centers. if all the people follow the same.. then child wont feel alienated. so people what you say

    Me – Indians are ahead of Australia in this Sri (explained about homes above above).
    Also in India children -specially if they are daughters the problem is more, but even if they are sons they have to be sent to work in road side restaurants/fire cracker factories/rag picking etc which are not as good as Australia’s government sponsored facilitates like “National Child Care facility’, but many kids do survive there. These kids generally don’t suffer from stigma of being born in live-in relationships, but I am sure many of them would exchange places with many kids growing up in Live in Relationships in India or Australia.

    Like

  35. @ quintessentially liberal

    If your live-in idea is going just fine,why you wish to marry this person”very soon”?

    “Why? Do you have to be black to demand an end to racism?or be in a prison to…”

    to but you don’t deride either being a black or a white.you rather go against conventional prejudice without losing your identity.As long as an individual lives in a society,economic,legal,and other social forces will come into play. “traditional-minded” husbands have come a long way to see women out of the purdah and the zenana,who’s asking you to marry such a fellow?marry a person who’s progressive in his thinking.For that matter traditionally women also keep karva chauth,today which most men dont believe in .I am against traditional husbands myself.

    one may endorse smoking like one may promote promiscuity,nobody can deny they are vices and not virtues,even if they’re an individual’s rights.
    Me – How is promiscuity a ‘vice’? Infidelity is wrong because that’s cheating a partner one is committed to – who does promiscuity hurt?
    >Moral Police who is offended by both Burka and jeans doesn’t count.
    >Hurt sentiments/sensibilities of neighbor’s third cousins’s sister in law’s nephew don’t count.

    Each culture may have its own ethics,but universal truths and constants do not change! smoking will remain injurious and so will promiscuity be unethical.

    Me – But what if the culture/belief/personal code of ethics/principles/etc of a promiscuous person permit them promiscuity?
    Universal Truth is that anything that does not hurt somebody is not wrong/sinful.
    Another Universal Truth is ‘Live and Let Live’. (Live-in? 😉 )

    the argument that “sexual choices are VERY personal things” may be fine,but its certainly not an argument for promiscuity.
    Me – Why? Why should what two (or more) people do in their personal lives bother someone who is in no way concerned?
    You do recognize that animals (with sexual needs) do not date,form relationships,or suffer heart breaks for that matter.Theirs is also a type of live-in,their sexuality is also personal,but why ethics do not apply to them and only to humans?

    Me -I didn’t get it, do you want to apply ethics to animals???? Humans would do well to leave animals alone.

    Like

  36. arnold.s would not have been a “laughing stock” today had he been in a live-in.
    but his wife may laugh her way to the bank with his wallet and assets.

    Like

  37. My point creating the “National Child Care facility” is to change the archaic world(whether it is patriarchy/matriarchy) to equilibrium world. so every child who comes to the being will be treated equal. No problem of caste/religion/color discrimination and no gender bias. This is actually just thinking. already people changed from joint family to nuclear family. and nuclear family to single parent family. and the next step will be the what i talked above which is already reality in west. of course, it takes lot of time in India. because its sick society.

    Me – I think Plato did suggest it and Indians do have the concept being followed in some form, where children are sent to live in charitable Homes to study and live in, they come home during vacations – no payment is made, these are charitable, religious institutions, and although they aren’t like regular Boarding schools, I have heard them being described as ‘Boarding’ too – but these are used only by those who can’t afford to care for their children generally because of financial difficulties. I am not sure if this system would help change the social system in anyway, but it definitely helps the children grow up educated and confident (saying this only from the examples I saw).

    Like

  38. @ GV,IHM, s and quientessentiallyliberal

    Infidelity hurts the person’s partner,promiscuity hurts the soul of the person who indulges in it (it’s a blending when the aura of one person merges and superimposes with another’s through the act of sex,a person who sleeps around does not know how much he’s hurting his soul).This may now demand a post of its own,promiscuity is not a spiritual value just as vegetarianism is better spiritually,still many are meat eaters.

    Gods such as Krishna were polygamous.Their auric electromagnetic vibrations were desired by many women(yes,and this was NOT a patriarchal manipulation in those times though kings were polygamous and had many wives who were solely provided material security since women were not independent then)
    whereas in kalyug ,promiscuity has become a demand the name of individual rights.Society may have nothing to do with the individual,for the person’s spiritual health promiscuity is to be condemned.

    Me – Condemned by who?

    Like

    • @ihm

      Condemned by himself,herself and oneself.
      don’t bring the society into picture,yet promiscuity degenerates the soul,self or the atman

      Me – I feel anything that hurts no other person and is not forced upon someone is not a sin. I would strongly condemn marital rape, child marriage (child abuse), infidelity, sexual harassment, rape or deception but anything that just gives joy, even for the shortest period, to two consenting, uncommitted adults cannot be wrong.
      Atma would degenerate if there is guilt and there need be no guilt when they are hurting nobody.
      I would say condemning two innocent, harmless, pleasure seeking people is wrong and those who condemn them need to ask themselves why they see something that somebody else is doing in their personal life (without hurting anybody) as sinful. Could there be some subconscious envy? Some other complexes? Even too much free time at hand can make people judge other people’s personal lives. Or it might be a confused idea of morality, where anything that gives pleasure is seen as somehow sinful (just like colorful, attractive clothes; food that tastes good; music that might make you want to jump for joy, dancing etc)

      Like

    • @ Prajakta:

      I do not believe in souls. I am not promiscuous either. But I will never condemn another person for having multiple sex partners. Some people are quite comfortable with it. Others are not. Those who are comfortable should go ahead with multiple partners and the others should stick to a single one. Simple, isn’t it? The only way consensual sex can hurt you is if you do not take adequate precautions (read: condoms against STDs). Talk of souls and spirituality in relation to sex are bull crap in my opinion and are simply yet another way for exercising control.

      Like

  39. It looks like during some rash moment, I opened my big mouth and said all that you read on live in relationships.

    I have been overwhelmed by the deluge of comments reacting to my orthodox views.

    I seem to have stirred a hornet’s nest and also needlessly antagonized some persons

    First things first.

    Some of my comments, particularly against Men were not intended to be sweeping and general. I should have been more careful in the choice of my words
    I have already withdrawn them and apologized. I hope we can put that behind us.

    However my core belief is still the same.

    I am simply not comfortable with Live in Relationships and it is now too late in life to change my thinking. PERIOD.

    The generation gap is too much to be bridged.
    So let the live in enthusiasts have their way.
    I will not oppose them or hold their life style against them.

    If I had my life all over again, I would still get married (love or arranged) but would never, never, consider a live in.
    However, if any one else, including my own son, chooses to do so, I will calmly accept it.
    I only hope this decision to go for a live in relationship is taken after due consideration of the following concerns/thoughts/opinions which I hold dear and cannot change.

    1)Are you religious? I mean do you identify with a religion? If not , simply ignore this argument. If you profess Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, take note that you are violating the code of conduct prescribed by your religion. A live in relationship is an adulterous relationship and a sin per the precepts of all religions that I am aware of. So if you choose to go in for a live in relationship, be prepared to face religious strictures against you. But, marriage has the support of all religions.

    2)Likewise Marriage has legal backing in all countries. If you are happy and successful in a live in relationship, fine, but in case the relationship sours, if you are married, you are safer than if you are in a live in relationship as regards splitting of assets accrued. Children of live in parents will not have any share of the assets which the parents inherited.

    3)Society is still not ready to accept a live in relationship. I am referring to society in general, not this elite group of people, men and women, who are well educated and earn well. May be this group can benefit from live in relationships. The rest of society will not. Granted that society consists of you and me and we may change in future. But as long as people like me are in a majority, social disapproval will be another handicap all live in couples will have to reconcile to. May be a 100 years from now this wont be an issue.

    4)I am acutely uncomfortable with this “Try before you buy” concept. That’s okay for dresses, cars etc. Not for human relations except perhaps for a probation period when a company recruits a new hand. I don’t believe in probationary marriages. . Do couples adopting a baby try out a baby and then return the baby if it bawls too much? Sometimes I wonder if hardcore live in enthusiasts would welcome a chance to choose their parents too! And if by some miracle, that become possible, will they ask for even more choice? Will they like to pick and choose their own facial features, height, complexion, race, place of birth etc.
    Thank God, we are born with somethings we cant change and we learn to live with them.
    Once you have a proper marriage, it should be for better or for worse, in sickness or in health etc etc. We have already relaxed some of the constraints, We allow divorce today. We allow widows / widowers to re marry. We have abolished Dowry, Sati, Child Marriages etc.We have an alternative to the costly wedding ceremonies and all that is required now is a visit to the Registrar’s office. We have relaxed caste/language/regional considerations. I would choose to continue with the reforms in marriages. I would choose to make divorce easier and simpler in order to combat live in relationships, not chuck marriage out totally in favour of live in relationships.

    5)Live in relationships may be convenient for high profile people, celebrities etc who are rich and powerful. Ordinary folks like us are better off getting married.

    6)I am acutely uncomfortable with the absence of commitment in a live in relationship. Whatever you say, I feel genuinely sorry for the children of live in partners. If they wish to have a live in relationship, let them avoid children. If they have children, I would prefer the law to step in and declare a live in couple man and wife automatically. A child cannot be subjected to the risk of suddenly having no father or mother one fine day when either partner walks out. In all probability, it will be the woman who will be saddled with the responsibility of taking care of the child. In a marriage, the law protects the children. Who will protect the child in a live in relationship? What family name or surname will a child have in a live in relationship. These questions worry me.

    7)The family has been a basic unit of all our societies all through the centuries. We are rocking the boat here. The family is now threatened. I am most uncomfortable with this.

    8) In spite of failed marriages, marriage as an institution has survived for centuries. If a marriage fails, you now have a divorce option, You have the option of marrying again. I don’t need any option to marriage, which is what live in relationships are offering.

    9)In my opinion, there is always insecurity in a live in relationship. Society’s disapproval, and also disapproval of your near and dear ones like parents and elders, imposes stresses and strains. Why live with more handicaps?

    I could go on and on but I think these points have already been flogged repeatedly

    I am now weary of this debate and cannot offer any more arguments in support of my views. I know the live in enthusiasts are not convinced, and I will cordially agree to disagree with them. I have no prejudices against a live in couple and if I meet them, there will be no hostility from me. I will wish them all happiness (and secretly, a formal marriage later)

    Thank you for offering a very lively platform for discussions and I have rather enjoyed them.
    Regards and best wishes
    GV

    Like

  40. “However, if any one else, including my own son, chooses to do so, I will calmly accept it.”

    That was the essence of this discussion. 🙂

    me – Yes, I loved that one sentence!!

    Like

  41. I love your post! Relevant questions raised and so well argued.

    In today’s world everything is changing.. society will have to deal with single mothers, children from live in relationships, children of same sex couples, etc, etc.

    And our image of what a family is, should and will slowly change and for this change to happen more and more people need to come out and talk about their views and experiences.

    FYI in France they have this law that is called ‘PACS’. The PACS is like a marriage in the sense that you have all the civil rights as in a marriage without calling it a marriage (tax benefits, child care responsibility, equal property rights, etc) PACS was initially made for same sex couples and to protect one or the other partner from abuse which could happen in live in relationships (as the ones you refer to in your post), and so they can live as a couple and have all the rights of a married couple without being ‘married’. Now many heterosexual couples are also doing this, because its simpler than a marriage, it is commitment and being recognised as a couple but rejecting the institution of marriage in a way. The separation in the case of PACS, involves a legal procedure that is much simpler than a divorce.

    May be someday India will adopt a similar policy, but first we need to do away with 377 – criminalising homosexuality!

    Excellent read! I really enjoy your blog!

    Like

  42. Really enjoyed reading this. I’ve been living together with my fiance (who’s Indian) for three years now. We’ve recently moved to India and we’re getting married in Sri Lanka on Jan. I think moving in together early on into our relationship was very beneficial. It makes getting to know one another, even the tiny details, a lot easier than seeing someone three times a week.

    Like

  43. As Divya said we should appreciate GV’s willingness to discuss these things.He had grown up in a generation conditioned to think marriage is sacred while most of the others who are pro ‘live in’ must have had a different upbringing.
    Whether you like it or not Live-in relationships will thrive in India too and the basic reason for it is the change in economic relationships.We will be like …. say Germany in not so distant future.

    Like

  44. I would definitely agree with dis statement that guys use girls like a tissue paper and use them to clean there mess and after cleaning just throw them in dustbin . A man should value women overall her mother is even a women …..
    so if a man value his mother than he should value another women

    Like

  45. Pingback: Wish every girl was like Aisha? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  46. Pingback: “There is so little conversation about a woman’s desire for sex that a lot of people simply assume it doesn’t exist.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  47. Pingback: “In my own company in a cosmopolitan city, I know women who were horrified on the First Night.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  48. Pingback: “This impudence of a widow to fall in love cannot be tolerated by any man. He punished Soorpanakha by mutilating her nose and ears.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  49. Pingback: “This man is openly threatening his daughter and is instigating others to burn alive their daughters.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  50. Pingback: A light hearted take on the way future is dear to the girls and present to the boys? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  51. Pingback: Marriage Vs Live in Relationships : Twelve points to note. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  52. Pingback: An email from the Accused Guy: ‘I would request all to respond once again after reading the other side of it.’ | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s