Telegraph UK recently reported on the growth of a nontraditional relationship form in Britain: the LAT (living-apart-together) relationship.
Gillian Sheffer and Daniel Fisher have been in a relationship for three years. They are fully committed to one another – and are extremely happy to be together – but they have absolutely no desire to live together. Instead, they choose to reside in separate homes.
“Living apart offers the best bits of marriage without the boring parts,” says Gillian, a 49 year-old self-employed osteopath who lives in Golder’s Green, north London. Daniel, a 52-year-old teacher, lives at his own home in nearby Bounds Green. Both have children from previous relationships sharing their homes.
How common are LAT relationships?
According to a report in last month’s issue of the Sociological Review, an estimated one in 10 adults are now in committed, non-cohabiting relationships.
What do these relationships look like and who tends to be a LAT-er?
“LATs can have both an intimate couples relationship and retain their own autonomy,” says Simon Duncan, professor of social policy at the University of Bradford, who co-authored the Sociological Review paper with Miranda Phillips, research director at the National Centre for Social Research. “There isn’t an average LAT, though they tend to be better educated than the majority and somewhat more liberal. Different interpretations in the past have suggested they are either radicals or, alternatively, uncommitted, cautious people. The answer, in my view, is probably both.”
LATs can be young or old and, according to Duncan and Phillips, fall into three main categories. One group don’t see themselves as couples in the long-term sense; the second are in commuter marriages, separated by work; the third group, whose members tend to be older, choose this type of relationship because it suits their emotional and practical needs. “Often this group will have other commitments, like children or elderly parents, and value their own space, or have a cherished home they don’t want to leave,” Duncan explains.
And to quench your thirst for additional sociological commentary:
Sasha Roseneil, professor of sociology and social theory at Birkbeck University, believes that with rates of marriage at an all-time low, more of us are exploring non-traditional ways of being together.
“They desire an autonomous life,” she says. “People in LAT relationships may wish to invest more in friendships and feel that their sexual relationship is not the most important relationship in their life.”
Avoiding the entrapment of domestic drudgery is another reason for not wanting to share a roof. “Many women have said to me that the only way they could be together with their partner is if they didn’t have to deal with his mess,” she says.
Comments 4
regan — May 4, 2010
I think these relationships bring into question what it means to be in a committed relationship. I would say that many young people in LAT relationships are probably not ready for marriage and are not entirely committed to their partner yet. I would say that the people engaged in these relationships are not the norm and that very specific reasons bring them to commit to their partners in ways other than living with each other. While I haven't done any research on the matter, I doubt there is a common LAT relationship. I think we lack a lot of context to truly understand what brings people into these types of relationships.
desa0122 — May 5, 2010
I disagree with a quote in the posting that says “Living apart offers the best bits of marriage without the boring parts.” While I do agree that, at points, relationships may get "stale" after having been together for so long, they are also a societal necessity. Much research has been done into whether or not the parental figures in the household make a difference, and repeatedly it has been shown that those children that are exposed to both a male and a female presence constantly fare better in future relationships and career pursuits. If a couple truly feels that they fare better by not seeing each other constantly, they are probably too afraid to admit to themselves that they are not in a truly healthy relationship. It is fully possible to maintain autonomy while still living with a partner; bank accounts do not have to be joined, rent/mortgages can be split, separate offices can be made in the bedrooms of the house/apartment. There are many ways for a couple that is pursuing a long-term, socially beneficial relationship to maintain their autonomy while letting their relationship grow. At some point, however, the relationship becomes more about adding to the social chain than about the participants, and that is when children are introduced. After a child is introduced, it is consistently in the child's best interest to have both parents around constantly. The fact that this is a growing phenomenon worries me because, to me, it indicates that more adults, especially those with children, are jumping into a relationship and are too reluctant to tell themselves that they are not comfortable enough with a person to fully commit to it.
mele0051 — May 6, 2010
Personally, I like the idea of a LAT relationship. I agree with desa0122 though that when a child is introduced the couple should be living together. But, the article does say that those in the relationships have children from previous partners; it doesn't mention about families who have children of their own. The problem that I have noticed with failed relationships is that one side doesn't let the other breathe without being there. That isn't healthy in my opinion. If we were meant to be joined at the hip with one another then we would be born with our spouse tucked neatly at our side. But we aren't. I think the LAT relationship isn't a fear of commitment or a lack of being able to commit, but it's a safety net for an early relationship. With the failure rates of marriages within our country right now, moving in with someone could easily push one another away due to too much exposure too quickly. The LAT relationship allows the couple to get to know each other at a pace in which it is easier to handle. Instead of a couple moving in and one person thinking "Wow he does that? I can't live with someone who is like that." or "She is always doing this and I can't stand it anymore" they can allow for discussion and ways to get around what they disagree on regarding behavior. It would give time to change and compromise in the living styles of one another, therefore, when ready, the transition is smooth, easy, and long-lasting.
TC — May 8, 2010
This idea of “living-apart-together” is very interesting. It seems that our society today deems living together as a criterion for compatibility since our ability to cohabitate with our significant other often determines if the relationship can succeed. I guess I can understand that each individual may want some of their own freedom, but it seems that a crucial aspect of being in a relationship is being together. Although I find this living situation to be unconventional, I can see how this could be a reasonable option for couples who are in the early stages of their relationship or for those who are not looking for a committed relationship. What I feel can be particularly damaging is if the couple is engaged in a long-term committed relationship and decides to have kids. Kids need stability in their lives and growing up with parents who occupy two different households could have negative effects on the child. But, I guess since this idea is fairly new, there’s not much evidence surrounding how a child would be affected while being raised in this living situation. To me, it seems that this type of relationship could have some negative consequences for the child, but who knows? It was once believed that children raised in gay and lesbian families would be negatively affected, but that’s been proven wrong. It may just be that this idea will take some getting used to before it can be an accepted aspect of relationships.