Hubbry Logo
Free unionFree unionMain
Open search
Free union
Community hub
Free union
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Free union
Free union
Free union
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Purple Möbius symbol for polyamory and non-monogamy

A free union is a romantic union between two or more persons without legal or religious recognition or regulation.

The term has been used since the late 19th century to describe a relationship into which all parties enter, remain, and depart freely. The free union is an alternative to, or rejection or criticism of marriage, viewing it as a form of slavery and human ownership, particularly for women. According to this concept, the free union of adults is a legitimate relationship that should be respected. A free union is made between two individuals, but each individual may have several unions of their own.

History

[edit]
The "love outside the box" symbol for polyamory and non-monogamy

Much of the contemporary tradition of free union under natural law or common law comes from anarchist rejection of marriage, seeking non-interference of either church or state in human relations.

Leaving behind what was seen as law imposed by man in favor of natural law began during the late Enlightenment, when many sought to rethink the laws of property, family, and the status of women. Utopian socialist Robert Owen (1771–1858), who decried marriage as principally linked to the principle of ownership, offers a foretaste of the free union by use of the term "marriage contract in front of nature." Philosopher and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) stated, "Marriage is an affirmation of the supremacy of man over woman [...] if I love a man, I want to love him while keeping my freedom." In the 1882, Élisée Reclus initiated the Anti-Marriage Movement, in accordance with which he and his partner allowed their two daughters to marry without any civil or religious ceremony, despite public and legal condemnation. Reclus had four partners throughout his lifetime, each with a different social contract.[1] [2]

In more modern times, free unions were common among members of the Spanish anarchist CNT political party[3] during the popular revolution that ran alongside the Spanish Civil War.[4] The couple desiring contractual validation of their relationship would simple go to the Party Headquarters and request the forms, which would be destroyed if the relationship were to not work out. The couple however, were strongly encouraged to make it work, as separation created administrative work for the party.

Additionally, many leading 20th Century intellectuals, including James Joyce, Pablo Picasso, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Simone de Beauvoir never chose to marry, or delayed it until the end of life for legal reasons. De Beauvoir said of the institution, "When we abolish the slavery of half of humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that it implies, then the 'division' of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form."

Contemporary law

[edit]

In French law, the union libre is an agreement between adults which grants rights between parents and potential children, but holds no obligation of sexual fidelity, nor does it grant reciprocal duties and rights between partners.[5]

A free union can be between individuals of any gender, and an individual may have several concurrently,[6] therefore making free union an option for LGBTQ or polyamorous relationships, as well as heterosexual and/or monogamous ones that do not wish to enter the contract of marriage for historical, social, or financial reasons.

United States law has no exact legal equivalent of a free union, although comparisons are often made to common law marriage. In the United States, partners wishing to have legal rights without entering into a marriage contract may choose to complete documents such as a healthcare proxy, domestic partnership agreement, will, and power of attorney.[7] Members of a free union may refer to each other as partners, spouses, or any other title, but may find themselves subject to the laws of common law marriage if they consistently refer to themselves as husband and wife according to their local jurisdiction.

Roman Catholic criticism

[edit]

According to Catholicism, the expression "free union" includes situations such as concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.[8] According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, being in a "free union" is a grave offense against the dignity of marriage,[9] which it sees as a Sacrament.[10] However, proponents maintain that the free union acts as a public recognition of a relationship without the obligations of church or state.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Free union

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A free union is a voluntary romantic or sexual between two or more consenting individuals conducted without legal , religious ceremony, or institutional oversight, emphasizing personal over state or ecclesiastical validation. Historically rooted in 19th-century anarchist and movements, free unions reject traditional as a coercive that enforces , property rights, and gender roles through authority rather than mutual agreement, proposing instead simple affirmations of commitment among peers. Advocates argued that such unions foster genuine affection by allowing dissolution at will, avoiding the permanence of legal bonds that can trap partners in discord. In practice, free unions manifest as arrangements worldwide, particularly in regions where cultural norms tolerate or prefer informal pairings over formalized wedlock, though they often lack , spousal, or parental absent specific . Controversies arise from empirical observations of higher compared to marriages, with critics, including religious doctrines, contending that the absence of public vows undermines commitment and exposes participants—especially women and children—to economic and emotional vulnerabilities deriving from uncontracted intimacy. Despite these critiques, free unions persist as a deliberate for those prioritizing relational , occasionally extending to polyamorous configurations symbolized by interlocking forms representing infinite .

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

A free union denotes between romantic partners without formal or legal ceremony. This arrangement emphasizes voluntary , shared living, and mutual consent, often mirroring marital roles in daily life such as household management and , yet eschewing state-sanctioned vows or registration. In sociological terms, free unions arise from personal choice to forgo institutional , potentially driven by ideological aversion to state oversight, economic , or cultural norms prioritizing relational over contractual obligations. Unlike transient , free unions generally imply stability and exclusivity akin to , though variations permit non-monogamous structures without inherent legal enforcement. Partners in free unions retain individual property rights absent marital laws, and dissolution occurs informally without proceedings, highlighting the causal primacy of interpersonal agreement over juridical intervention. Empirical data from regions like , where the term "unión libre" prevails, show such unions comprising 10-20% of adult partnerships in countries such as and as of 2020 censuses, reflecting broader trends in delayed or rejected formal amid rising . The concept traces etymologically to "unión libre" in Spanish-speaking contexts, denoting consensual recognized in civil law for certain rights like or social benefits, yet fundamentally distinct from matrimony's binding permanence. This form of union underscores causal realism in relationships: sustained by direct incentives like compatibility and shared rather than enforced or societal pressure, though it risks instability without legal deterrents to separation.

Key Features and Variations

A free union, or consensual union, consists of two individuals sharing a household and maintaining an intimate, marriage-like partnership without formal marriage registration, ceremony, or religious consecration. Core elements include voluntary co-residence, emotional commitment, sexual exclusivity in most cases, and often joint economic responsibilities, though these lack the automatic legal enforceability of marital vows. Unlike casual dating, free unions typically emulate spousal roles, including potential childbearing and child-rearing, with partners presenting as a family unit to society. Distinguishing traits encompass higher compared to formal ; data from cross-national studies indicate dissolution rates for cohabiting unions exceed those of marital ones by 20-50% in regions like and the , attributed to weaker institutional barriers to separation. Participants often cite flexibility and avoidance of bureaucratic or financial costs as motivations, with entry typically occurring at younger ages—median age around 25-30 in Latin American cohorts—versus mid-20s to early 30s for first . Legal vary: absent specific statutes, partners forfeit default spousal privileges like survivorship benefits or simplified proceedings, though some jurisdictions grant partial protections after prolonged cohabitation (e.g., 2-5 years). Variations arise in duration, socioeconomic correlates, and cultural embedding. Short-term or serial free unions predominate in urban Western settings as precursors to , with 50-70% transitioning to wedlock within 5 years per U.S. and European demographic surveys, whereas lifelong variants persist in rural Latin American contexts as equivalents to . Socioeconomically, they cluster among lower-education and lower-income groups in and , where prevalence reaches 40-60% of unions, reflecting barriers to formal like costs or ; yet upward diffusion occurs, with middle-class adoption rising 15-20% from 1970-2010 amid . In West Africa, prevalence fluctuates from 10-50% across nations, influenced by ethnic norms favoring informal partnerships over institutionalized ones. dynamics differ: Latin American free unions show lower than marriages (1.5-2.0 children per woman versus 2.5+), tied to delayed formalization and economic .

Distinctions from Formal Marriage

Free unions differ from formal marriages in their foundational structure, as they lack any required civil registration, religious ceremony, or official documentation, depending solely on the voluntary cohabitation of partners without state intervention. Formal marriages, by contrast, necessitate legal solemnization to establish the union, providing immediate and unequivocal recognition under civil law. This absence of formality in free unions often results in evidentiary challenges for claiming rights, requiring partners to demonstrate the relationship's duration and intent through witnesses or shared assets in court, whereas marriage certificates serve as prima facie proof. Legally, formal confers automatic and comprehensive spousal rights, including without a will, social security survivor benefits, and joint regimes from the outset, obligations that bind partners irrevocably until dissolution. In regions like , where free unions—known as unión libre—are common, some jurisdictions grant de facto recognition after a minimum period (e.g., two years in under Law 54 of 1990), extending limited division and rights but excluding automatic privileges or federal-level uniformity found in . However, these protections vary widely and are not inherent, leaving partners in unrecognized free unions vulnerable to disputes over assets or support. Socially and culturally, formal typically symbolizes greater commitment and receives broader institutional endorsement, including religious sanction in traditional societies, while free unions are often perceived as provisional or associated with lower socioeconomic strata. Empirical data indicate that cohabiting unions, akin to free unions, exhibit lower stability than s; for example, U.S. studies show cohabiting parents' relationships dissolve at rates three times higher, leading to elevated instability for children, a pattern observed in Latin American contexts where traditional correlates with early union formation and higher breakup risks. Upon dissolution, s trigger structured processes with enforceable and custody rules, whereas free unions generally terminate informally without such mandates unless prior de facto status was declared, minimizing but not eliminating potential claims for equitable division.

Historical Development

Origins in Pre-Modern Societies

In ancient civilizations, emerged as a prevalent form of informal union, characterized by without the legal formalities, exchanges, or full associated with formal . This practice allowed for stable partnerships when social, legal, or status barriers precluded matrimony, such as between individuals of disparate ranks. Anthropological analyses indicate that most pre-modern societies maintained a distinction between such consensual cohabitations and institutionalized marriages, which often served broader functions like alliances and property transfer. In , functioned as a monogamous alternative for groups like soldiers, who were temporarily barred from , or senators partnering with freedwomen of lower status; it involved no and offered limited protections compared to matrimonium iustum. Roman emperors, including after his wife's death, openly maintained concubines, highlighting the arrangement's acceptance among elites despite its informal nature. Children from these unions typically lacked automatic inheritance rights, underscoring the causal link between formality and legal privileges in Roman civil law. Classical Greece similarly recognized pallakai (concubines) as companions for daily companionship and household support, separate from wives selected for producing legitimate heirs and forging political ties. ' citizenship law of 451 BCE explicitly curtailed inheritance and civic rights for offspring of concubines, reinforcing the empirical divide between informal unions and formal gamos. In ancient , biblical accounts depict kings like maintaining concubines alongside wives, as evidenced in 2 Samuel 5:13 and 15:16, where these relationships provided additional progeny without equating to primary marital bonds. These pre-modern examples illustrate free unions' roots in pragmatic adaptations to social hierarchies and legal constraints, predating modern by millennia, though they often reflected patriarchal structures limiting women's relative to formal spouses.

19th and 20th Century Shifts

In the nineteenth century, free unions gained conceptual prominence within movements in the United States and , where advocates rejected state-regulated as a form of bondage and promoted voluntary, non-legal romantic partnerships based on mutual affection and consent. These movements, originating in the mid-1800s, emphasized individual over institutional ties, with proponents arguing that free unions allowed for easier dissolution and equality, particularly benefiting women constrained by marital laws. Transatlantic networks of radicals, connected via print media, disseminated these ideas, fostering a committed to sexual reform and decoupling love from legal enforcement. Prominent figures like in the U.S. exemplified this shift, campaigning for "" as essential to women's liberty and running for president in on a platform challenging marital norms. However, beyond ideological circles, actual often stemmed from practical barriers to , such as economic hardship among England's working classes, rather than deliberate rejection of formality; such unions faced intense stigma, with participants labeled as living "in sin." Prevalence fluctuated, appearing more common before 1840 and after 1880 than during the Victorian mid-century, when moral rigor intensified condemnation of non-marital relations. In the United States, the widespread recognition of common-law in most states during the nineteenth century provided partial legitimacy to cohabitating couples exhibiting marital intent, though judicial debates eroded this by the early twentieth century. This legal ambiguity facilitated informal unions without ceremonies, yet formal remained dominant, with rates remaining low outside radical or impoverished groups. The twentieth century's early decades saw free unions persist mainly in bohemian, socialist, and communities, where they symbolized resistance to bourgeois conventions. accelerated shifts by creating widows, separated partners, and disrupted norms, elevating unmarried as a pragmatic response amid high mortality and social upheaval from 1914 to 1918. literature and discourse in the further intellectualized free unions, portraying them as modern alternatives, though broad societal acceptance lagged, confined largely to elites or the unconventional. Overall, these periods marked a transition from necessity-driven or fringe practices toward ideologically framed alternatives, setting precedents for later expansions despite enduring legal and cultural barriers to formal equivalence with .

Post-1970s Expansion and Trends

Following the social upheavals of the , including the and widespread adoption of laws, —often termed free union or consensual union—expanded significantly across multiple regions starting in the 1970s. In and , premarital rates among those forming first unions rose from under 10% in the early 1970s to over 50% by the 1990s in many countries, reflecting a shift toward viewing as a normative precursor to rather than a fringe practice. In the United States specifically, the proportion of young adults aged 18-34 cohabiting increased from 0.1-0.2% in 1968 to approximately 9% by 2018 among certain age groups, paralleling a decline in rates from 59% to 30% over the same period. This trend correlated with rising nonmarital births, which climbed from less than 10% of total births in most countries in 1970 to over 30% by 2020. Latin America experienced an even more pronounced "cohabitation boom" during this era, with the share of consensual unions among individuals aged 25-29 in unions surging from 5-20% in the early census round to 20-50% or higher by in countries like , , and . Regional variations were stark: in some areas, cohabitation prevalence among partnered women aged 25-29 escalated from under 5% in 1970 to 40% by 2000, driven by , declining Catholic influence on family norms, and economic pressures favoring flexible partnerships over formal . In , for instance, the proportion of such women in consensual unions rose from 13% in 1970 to 72% by 2010 among lower-education groups. Unlike earlier patterns where free unions were concentrated among lower socioeconomic strata, post-1970s growth diffused across education levels, though less-educated populations continued to show higher rates. In and parts of , expansion was more gradual and uneven, often accelerating after the amid economic transitions and weakening traditional marriage norms. rates among cohorts born after 1960 increased notably in countries like and , with premarital cohabitation becoming common by the , though remained the dominant union form for childbearing. In , adoption lagged behind, with cohabitation remaining rare outside urban elites in nations like and , where cultural emphasis on formal persisted despite rising delayed unions. Overall, global data indicate that by the , cohabitation had transitioned from a marginal to a mainstream phenomenon in much of the developed and developing world, often substituting for or delaying , with stability varying by region—higher in than in , where half of U.S. cohabitations dissolve within two years. This shift correlates empirically with greater female labor force participation and , though causal links remain debated, with some analyses attributing persistence to socioeconomic selectivity rather than inherent union instability.

Recognition in Latin America

In , free unions—termed uniones libres, uniones de hecho, or uniones maritales de hecho—receive varying degrees of legal recognition across countries, generally entailing to division, social security, and sometimes inheritance after demonstrating stable . This framework emerged from mid-20th-century reforms influenced by civil law traditions and demographic shifts toward , with most nations requiring evidentiary proof such as two to five years of shared residence without formal . Recognition does not universally equate to ; for example, it often excludes automatic unless specified by or judicial ruling, and same-sex unions face additional hurdles in conservative jurisdictions despite progressive trends. Colombia exemplifies comprehensive protections under Law 54 of 1990, which defines unión marital de hecho after two years of , entitling partners to joint regimes, benefits (without the two-year limit since 2007), and shares; followed a 2015 ruling, while same-sex recognition dates to 2007 jurisprudence. In , the Civil and Commercial Code (effective August 1, 2015) acknowledges uniones convivenciales as public and stable without a minimum duration, granting occupancy and claims under Article 527, though and full social security parity remain restricted absent a will or opt-in. Chile's Law 20.830 (effective October 21, 2015) mandates formal registration of acuerdo de unión civil for partners, conferring , social security, and via a default separation-of-goods regime, applicable to both opposite- and same-sex couples. Further south, Uruguay's Law 18.246 of 2007 recognizes unions after five years of , providing , , and social security entitlements equally to married couples, with same-sex inclusion. Peru's (Article 326) stipulates two years of continuous for property community akin to , bolstered by Law 30.007 (2013) for and Law 30.311 for , though same-sex unions lack explicit protection. In , the 1988 Constitution (Article 226, §3) elevates união estável to familial status equivalent to , with Federal Law 9.278 (1996) regulating property and subsequent rulings extending benefits like pensions and succession; no fixed duration is required if stability is proven. Mexico's approach is decentralized, with federal recognition limited but states like permitting concubinato inscription after two years for property and support claims via civil registry.
CountryKey Law/ProvisionCohabitation RequirementPrincipal Rights Granted
ColombiaLaw 54/19902 yearsProperty, inheritance (post-2012), social security, adoption (post-2015)
ArgentinaCivil Code (2015)None specifiedProperty/housing, limited inheritance
ChileLaw 20.830/2015Registration requiredInheritance, social security, property
UruguayLaw 18.246/20075 yearsInheritance, adoption, social security
PeruCivil Code Art. 326; Law 30.007/20132 yearsProperty, inheritance, adoption
BrazilConstitution 1988; Law 9.278/1996Stability provenProperty, pensions, succession
These frameworks reflect pragmatic adaptation to high cohabitation rates—exceeding 50% in some nations like those in —yet enforcement relies on judicial discretion and documentation, often disadvantaging informal or rural unions. Countries like and impose constitutional bans on unions for same-sex pairs, limiting broader applicability.

Status in Europe and

In the United States, free unions, often termed common-law marriages, receive formal recognition in only eight jurisdictions as of 2025: , , , , , , , and the District of Columbia. These require elements such as continuous , mutual agreement to be married, and holding out to the public as spouses, typically for at least several years depending on state statutes. The remaining states prohibit new common-law marriages but may validate those established in recognizing jurisdictions under full faith and credit principles, though cohabitants outside these frameworks lack automatic spousal rights in areas like , proceedings, or medical absent separate agreements. In Canada, common-law partnerships—functionally similar to free unions—are acknowledged federally for , taxation, and benefits after 12 consecutive months of in a conjugal relationship, evidenced by shared finances, residence, and social integration. Provincial and territorial laws govern most family matters, with recognition thresholds varying from one year in provinces like and to three years in , or immediately upon having a child together in several jurisdictions; this confers rights to spousal support, property equalization upon separation, and pension sharing, though not always matching married couples' automatic entitlements, such as in estate succession without a will. Across , unregistered free unions or lack uniform legal standing, with protections fragmented by national laws rather than EU-wide harmonization. In , "union libre" is defined in Article 515-8 of the solely as a factual union of two persons, granting no inherent rights to , inheritance, or social security, and requiring separate contracts like the PACS for any formal benefits. Over half of EU member states regulate to some degree, often providing limited remedies for long-term partners in housing, maintenance, or parental rights, but without the comprehensive safeguards of ; for instance, like and impose statutory division upon dissolution after two years, yet cohabitants forgo marital presumptions in or succession absent explicit . In southern and , such as or , informal unions yield minimal automatic entitlements, relying on or contracts for , reflecting a policy preference for formal unions to ensure relational stability and enforceability.

Approaches in Asia, Africa, and Other Regions

In , free unions or generally receive minimal legal recognition, with formal marriage remaining the dominant framework under civil, religious, or customary laws. In , does not confer automatic spousal rights such as or upon dissolution, though parties may execute a deed of to outline contractual terms for and support, which courts may enforce if not contrary to . Similarly, in , agreements function as enforceable civil s for asset management, but Thai law explicitly rejects equivalents, treating prolonged as a mere factual arrangement without . In more conservative jurisdictions like , outside wedlock violates and can result in penalties, reflecting Islamic-influenced norms that prioritize registered marriages. Across much of the region, including and , unions lack statutory protections for division or parental rights, often leaving partners reliant on general or laws, with further discouraging formal reliance on such arrangements. In , approaches to free unions vary by country but predominantly exclude automatic legal equivalence to , despite high prevalence in sub-Saharan contexts where rates reach 10.9% on average, ranging from 50.6% in to 0.1% in . South African explicitly denies recognition as a spousal relationship, providing no default rights to sharing, pensions, or absent a separate , a stance upheld to preserve 's distinct . In , section 160 of the Law of Act (1971) historically acknowledged de facto unions after two years of repute, granting limited and claims, but legislative proposals since 2009 have sought abolition amid concerns over undermining formal and customary practices. Countries including , , , , , , and offer neither legislative nor judicial recognition of de facto unions for distribution, exposing cohabiting partners—often women—to vulnerability upon separation, as evidenced by ongoing reform studies in advocating regulation for equity. similarly affords scant protections, prompting calls for reform to address inheritance and support gaps. In other regions, such as the and , recognition remains patchwork and recent in select areas. The decriminalized for unmarried couples via Federal Decree-Law No. 31/2021 (effective 2022), permitting shared residency without prior criminal sanctions under Sharia-influenced provisions, yet it confers no marital rights, joint visas, or property presumptions, positioning free unions as tolerated but unprotected. In contrast, Oceanic nations like recognize de facto unions (opposite- or same-sex) after three years of or with shared children, equating them to marriages for property division under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, supported by affidavits or statutory declarations for proof. provides comparable de facto status after two years, granting access to superannuation splits and remedies, though customary or religious marriages in Pacific islands often supersede claims. These variations underscore a broader trend where legal acknowledgment correlates with secular governance, while religious or traditional systems in the and parts of prioritize formal unions to maintain social order.

Demographic and Social Patterns

In , free unions—known as unión libre or consensual unions—exhibit the highest prevalence globally, often surpassing formal s among partnered women aged 25-29, with rates exceeding 50% in countries such as (65.6% as of 2000) and (69.8%). This pattern reflects a dual nuptiality system where free unions serve as a stable alternative to marriage, particularly among lower socioeconomic groups, though the practice has diffused across levels since the . In , historical data show even higher shares, such as 70% in during the mid-20th century, maintaining continuity into recent decades. Trends in the region indicate a cohabitation boom from 1970 to 2007, with the share of free unions among women aged 25-29 rising dramatically in most countries; for instance, increased from 7.6% to 39.3%, from 11.1% to 41.3%, and from 4.6% to 24.6%. This acceleration, especially post-1990, stems from socioeconomic factors including and weakened religious influences, leading to cohabitation rates above 40% in six countries by 2000, up from one () in 1970. Recent censuses (post-2000) confirm persistence or slight stabilization at elevated levels across 353 regions, with free unions now common even among higher-educated populations, narrowing traditional gradients. Worldwide, free unions and have trended upward since 2000, though less as permanent alternatives outside . In , the proportion of adults in cohabiting couples reaches 20% in and over 15% in countries like and the , with extramarital births rising to 42% EU-wide by 2018 from 25% in 2000. In , cohabitation accounts for 13% of partnered adults in the as of 2023, up from under 1% in 1967, often preceding (76% of 2015-2019 unions). Globally, this shift correlates with delayed and declining formal unions, yet free unions remain regionally concentrated, comprising about half of reproductive-age partnerships in Central and compared to one-third elsewhere.

Socioeconomic Correlates

Free unions, or unmarried s, exhibit distinct socioeconomic patterns, with prevalence often inversely related to and income levels. , women with less than a high school are more likely to cohabit than those with higher education, with 68% of low- women having cohabited by age 30-44 compared to 59% of college graduates. Similarly, cohabitation rates are higher among individuals with lower household incomes, reflecting barriers to such as economic instability. status also correlates, as cohabiting couples are increasingly dual-earners, with 54% of U.S. cohabiting couples with children having both partners employed in 2020, up from 40.9% in 2010, though this masks underlying disengagement compared to married couples. In , where "unión libre" denotes consensual unions, these arrangements have historically concentrated among lower socioeconomic strata, rural populations, and less educated groups, stemming from limited access to formal institutions and economic . Data from and broader regional studies confirm that consensual unions remain more prevalent in lower social classes, though recent and gains have spurred increases across demographics since the 1970s. Logit analyses of union formation indicate that factors like lower and incomplete schooling significantly predict entry into free unions over , with rural residence amplifying this association. Cross-nationally, higher correlates with stability rather than prevalence; college-educated cohabiters report greater relationship durability and higher adjusted household (e.g., $106,400 median in U.S. data) than less-educated peers, yet economic stressors like volatility predict higher conflict and dissolution in these unions. These patterns suggest causal links wherein economic independence enables as a alternative for the affluent, while constraint drives it among the disadvantaged, though rising rates since 2000 indicate weakening traditional SES barriers.

Cultural Influences

Cultural acceptance of free unions, or without formal , exhibits significant cross-regional variation, with higher prevalence in stemming from historical continuities in indigenous and practices that prioritize informal partnerships over civil ceremonies. In Central American societies, consensual unions often reflect egalitarian ideals and sociocultural adaptations, encompassing not only co-residence but also shared economic and familial responsibilities, distinct from mere premarital experimentation. In Western contexts, has been identified as a primary driver elevating rates by diminishing the institutional authority of and fostering norms of personal in partnering decisions. This shift aligns with broader cultural emphases on and delayed family formation, particularly in and , where attitudes toward have liberalized amid declining religious participation. Religious adherence consistently correlates inversely with approval and uptake; for instance, in the United States, white evangelicals express the lowest acceptance (33%) compared to black Protestants (59%) or unaffiliated individuals, reflecting doctrinal commitments to marital exclusivity. Ethnic and racial cultural norms further modulate prevalence, with cohabitation more normalized among Hispanic and black populations in the U.S. due to intergenerational transmission of union patterns originating from high-consensual-union countries of ancestry, often intertwined with lower socioeconomic resources that deter formal marriage. Among immigrants, origin-country cohabitation norms influence adoption rates, while persistent ethnic differences persist even after controlling for education and income, underscoring the role of enduring cultural repertoires over purely economic rationales. In contrast, more traditional ancestral cultures in Europe reduce cohabitation with majority partners among descendants of migrants, highlighting how cultural heritage shapes partnering selectivity.

Empirical Outcomes and Stability

Relationship Dissolution Rates

Empirical research indicates that free unions, or cohabiting relationships without formal marriage, dissolve at higher rates than marital unions across diverse contexts. In the United States, cohabiting parents face a 35% separation rate within five years of union formation, compared to 19% for married parents, yielding a hazard ratio of 2.06 for dissolution. Similar patterns emerge in Europe: in Norway, cohabiting parents exhibit a 15% five-year separation rate versus 10% for married parents (hazard ratio 1.53), while in Sweden the figures are 9% versus 5% (hazard ratio 1.67). These disparities persist even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, suggesting inherent differences in union stability. In , where free unions serve as a prevalent alternative to , dissolution risks are markedly elevated. Studies from , , and reveal that consensual unions carry several times the separation risk of legal marriages across demographic subgroups, with cumulative dissolution probabilities reaching 18% in Peru, 27% in , and 40% in within 20 years of formation. This elevated instability correlates with factors such as younger entry ages and urban residence, though the core comparative risk remains consistent. Recent analyses show that while premarital cohabitation's association with subsequent marital dissolution has weakened for some cohorts—potentially due to its normalization—the overall gap in union stability endures. For instance, U.S. data from marriages formed between 2010 and 2019 indicate a 34% dissolution rate (including separations) for those cohabiting before , versus 23% for those cohabiting only after, representing a 48% higher . Standalone cohabitations themselves dissolve at rates of 35-36% within five years, underscoring their comparative fragility regardless of transition to .

Impacts on Children and Family Dynamics

Children in free unions, defined as unmarried cohabiting partnerships, experience greater family instability compared to those in married families, with cohabiting couples exhibiting dissolution rates up to twice as high, leading to frequent transitions that disrupt parental relationships and household structures. This instability arises from lower commitment levels and fewer legal or social barriers to separation in cohabitation, resulting in more serial partnerships and stepfamily formations, which strain family dynamics and resource allocation. Such dynamics correlate with adverse outcomes for children, including elevated risks of behavioral problems; for instance, children born to cohabiting parents show higher rates of externalizing behaviors at age three than those born to married parents, even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Emotional and physical suffer due to this volatility, with children in cohabiting households facing increased exposure to multiple parental breakups—often 50% more likely than in intact marriages—linked to heightened stress, poorer academic performance, and chronic health issues. Economic disadvantages compound these effects, as cohabiting families with children are over four times more likely to live in (38.1% versus 7.5% for married families in 2019 U.S. data), limiting access to stable , , and educational resources. Longitudinally, repeated family transitions from elevate risks of internalizing problems like anxiety and depression in , with studies indicating that family —prevalent in 40% of children's early lives involving cohabitation—mediates poorer social development and competence compared to two-biological-parent marriages. While some research attributes part of these disparities to selection effects (e.g., lower among cohabitors), causal analyses confirm that the instability inherent to cohabitation independently harms child outcomes, outweighing benefits from dual-parent presence alone. In regions like , where free unions predominate, similar patterns emerge, though data gaps persist; available evidence ties higher cohabitation prevalence to elevated and educational disruptions, reinforcing the role of marital stability in buffering against these risks.

Long-Term Societal Effects

The rise of free unions, or unmarried , has coincided with declining total rates in developed nations, as cohabiting couples exhibit lower completed fertility compared to married ones, partly due to higher union and delayed childbearing. For instance, in , longitudinal data from the 2000s onward indicate that cohabitation is less predictive of subsequent births than , with longer pre-marital cohabitation linked to fewer children overall. This pattern contributes to aging populations and strained systems, as evidenced by fertility drops below replacement levels (e.g., 1.5 children per woman in the EU by 2020) amid rising cohabitation shares exceeding 20% of unions in countries like and . Economically, the institutional gaps between and —such as weaker legal protections for property division and support upon dissolution—exacerbate inequality, particularly for lower-educated women in free unions, who receive fewer post-separation resources than married counterparts. U.S. studies from the show non-college-educated cohabiting mothers facing 20-30% higher risks after union end compared to married peers, amplifying public welfare expenditures estimated at billions annually from fragmentation. In Latin America, where free unions constitute up to 50% of partnerships in nations like , this instability correlates with persistent informal labor markets and intergenerational transmission, as informal unions yield lower household wealth accumulation over decades. On social stability, the normalization of free unions fosters greater acceptance of relationship dissolution, eroding norms around lifelong commitment and contributing to fragmented structures over generations. European panel data reveal that experiencing increases endorsement of by 10-15 percentage points, perpetuating cycles of serial partnering and single parenthood that strain cohesion and correlate with elevated youth behavioral issues at societal scales. While some demographic shifts, like extended durations (averaging 2-3 years in the U.S. by 2020), suggest partial stabilization, overall dissolution rates remain 1.5-2 times higher than in marriages, hindering broad societal trust in relational institutions.

Criticisms and Debates

Religious and Traditional Perspectives

In , without is widely regarded as contrary to biblical teachings on sexual purity and the sanctity of , often equated with or living in sin. The explicitly teaches that such unions contradict the indissoluble nature of and risk scandalizing the faithful by mimicking spousal roles without sacramental commitment. Evangelical perspectives similarly emphasize that Scripture, including passages like 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 and 13:4, prohibits sexual relations outside , viewing as a pathway to and relational instability rather than a for compatibility. Islamic doctrine strictly prohibits unmarried men and women from living together, as it constitutes (fornication) and violates modesty requirements between non-mahrams. via nikaah is mandated as the sole lawful framework for intimate relations, with scholars arguing that undermines familial honor, rights, and societal order prescribed in the (e.g., 24:30-31). This stance persists across Sunni and Shia traditions, where even temporary arrangements like mut'a in some Shia contexts require formal contracts, not informal . Traditional Jewish perspectives, rooted in , prioritize formal kiddushin (betrothal) and nissuin ( consummation) for legitimacy, viewing premarital as eroding the covenantal commitment essential to (household peace). Orthodox authorities cite Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and rabbinic texts to argue that unions without or proper ceremony lack validity, potentially leading to mamzerut (illegitimacy issues for offspring) and communal discord. While some or secular Jews in modern contexts tolerate it, traditional sources maintain that true partnership demands public vows to honor divine and familial obligations. In , traditional views embedded in dharma shastras like the emphasize grihastha ( stage) beginning with vivaha (sacramental marriage), rendering free unions incompatible with varnashrama duties, kula maryada (), and progeny legitimacy. outside this framework is seen as , disrupting ancestral rites, gotra continuity, and social stability, with texts warning of karmic repercussions for violating marital samskaras. Across indigenous and tribal traditions, such as those in or pre-colonial , free unions are typically rejected in favor of clan-sanctioned marriages to secure alliances, lineage tracing, and , with informal pairings often deemed disruptive to elder authority and communal harmony. These perspectives collectively prioritize formalized unions for empirical stability in child-rearing, , and , viewing free unions as causally linked to higher dissolution risks and weakened kin networks based on historical ethnographic data.

Secular Critiques Based on Data

Empirical analyses reveal that free unions, characterized by without formal , exhibit significantly higher dissolution rates than marital unions. Data from longitudinal studies indicate that approximately 50% of cohabiting unions dissolve within five years, compared to around 20% of first marriages over the same period. This instability persists even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, suggesting that the absence of legal and public commitment mechanisms contributes to lower relationship endurance. Children raised in free unions face elevated risks of adverse developmental outcomes relative to those in intact marital families. Research drawing on national datasets shows that children born to cohabiting parents experience three times as many family structure transitions by age five, correlating with increased behavioral problems, lower academic performance, and poorer emotional adjustment. For instance, at age three, children of married biological parents display fewer externalizing behaviors than those of cohabiting parents, a gap attributable to greater parental relationship stability rather than selection effects alone. These patterns hold across demographic groups, with children in cohabiting households accumulating about 8% less due to disrupted family environments. Economic consequences further underscore critiques of free unions' viability. Dissolution of cohabiting partnerships leads to sharper declines in women's financial standing than in marital divorces, often resulting in higher rates for single mothers and reduced accumulation overall. Cohabiting couples, lacking marital benefits and protections, also report lower long-term , exacerbating intergenerational disadvantage for offspring. Safety data highlight heightened interpersonal risks in free unions. Women in cohabiting relationships are approximately nine times more likely to experience lethal than those in , linked to lower barriers to exit and reduced external accountability. Additionally, the serial nature of many cohabiting sequences correlates with elevated risks due to shorter gaps between partners and higher premarital sexual histories. These findings, derived from population-level surveys, indicate that free unions may amplify vulnerability without the stabilizing incentives of .

Arguments Supporting Free Unions

Proponents of free unions, understood as consensual non-monogamous relationships such as , emphasize enhanced personal as a core benefit, enabling individuals to form multiple emotional and sexual bonds by mutual rather than adhering to enforced . This structure prioritizes voluntary agreements over institutional or cultural mandates, allowing participants to exercise relational and avoid the constraints of exclusive pairings that may limit self-expression. A 2025 study identified relational —specifically the to and be intimate with multiple partners—as a primary for engaging in such arrangements, with participants reporting fulfillment derived from self-directed intimacy choices. Empirical data from large-scale surveys and meta-analyses reveal that relationship satisfaction in free unions matches or approximates that in monogamous relationships, challenging assumptions of inherent inferiority. A 2025 meta-analysis of nearly 25,000 individuals across studies found no significant differences in overall relationship satisfaction or sexual fulfillment between non-monogamous and monogamous participants, suggesting free unions can sustain comparable emotional stability when and communication are prioritized. Similarly, a 2017 study of over 2,000 participants reported equivalent levels of trust, satisfaction, and passionate love in consensual non-monogamous relationships versus monogamous ones, attributing this to deliberate boundary-setting practices. Free unions may also enable a wider array of needs to be met through distributed support networks, fostering personal growth and resilience. Participants often cite benefits like diversified emotional resources and reduced dependency on a single partner, which can mitigate risks of relational burnout observed in strict . A 2024 narrative review noted post-transition increases in sexual satisfaction among those shifting to , linked to expanded intimacy options without compromising primary bonds. These outcomes are evidenced in peer-reviewed accounts where individuals report heightened self-awareness and adaptive skills from navigating multiple connections. From a causal standpoint, free unions align with human behavioral variability, accommodating innate desires for sexual and emotional diversity that monogamy may suppress, potentially averting dissatisfaction from unmet inclinations. Research modeling motivations highlights how such structures satisfy drives for variety while promoting ethical non-exclusivity, with autonomy serving as a buffer against jealousy through explicit negotiation. Historical precedents in free love movements further underscore consent-based multiplicity as a means to equitable partnerships, free from coercive norms. While data limitations exist—such as self-selection in samples—these arguments rest on observable patterns where voluntary non-monogamy correlates with sustained well-being absent in forced exclusivity.

References

  1. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/elie-reclus-elisee-reclus-free-union
  2. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-russell-coryell-marriage-or-free-union-which
  3. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=6223
  4. https://merelfamilylaw.com/blog/why-some-couples-choose-civil-unions-over-marriage/
  5. https://www.detectives-prives.com/en/individuals/marital-and-family-affairs/pacs-free-union/
  6. https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/union-libre.13631/
  7. https://chapala.com/webboard/index.php?/topic/65651-union-libre/
  8. https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_6/iv_offenses_against_the_dignity_of_marriage.html
  9. https://demography.cass.anu.edu.au/files/docs/2025/5/BPS_Day_Consensual_Unions_25_07_2021_0.pdf
  10. https://www.scielo.br/j/rbepop/a/GgXJbFrtKwW8nVB8yYHKVJC/?lang=en
  11. https://old.alapop.org/Congreso2018/PDF/00231.pdf
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6286255/
  13. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/103940
  14. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3700853
  15. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-31442-6_6
  16. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a101/83e28d92f3bad6925274448e4e8e1e9d4190.pdf
  17. https://uaps2015.popconf.org/papers/151003
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259904634_Consensual_Unions_in_Latin_America_Persistence_of_a_Dual_Nuptiality_System
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X23000534
  20. https://expatgroup.co/common-law-marriage/
  21. https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html
  22. https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/index.php/interpersona/article/view/3505/3505.html
  23. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/trends-in-relationship-formation-and-stability-in-the-united-states-dating-cohabitation-marriage-and-divorce
  24. https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/32/32
  25. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/ancient-history-middle-ages-and-feudalism/concubinage
  26. https://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CxP-Free_Love.htm
  27. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldman-free-love/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7380549/
  29. https://time.com/6107025/victoria-woodhull-free-love-movement/
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt155jbv5
  31. https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/830/print/
  32. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/A_Kuperberg_Premarital_2019.pdf
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/changing-legal-regulation-of-cohabitation/unmarried-wives-in-war-and-peace-19001927/BACC0BB27AB2F341DDE662A544136313
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5548437/
  35. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol40/42/40-42.pdf
  36. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/11/cohabitation-is-up-marriage-is-down-for-young-adults.html
  37. https://www.globalissues.org/news/2025/05/14/39850
  38. https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3500917/
  40. https://ced.cat/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Chapter_2.pdf
  41. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00472.x
  42. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/6/19-6.pdf
  43. https://genus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41118-020-00077-4
  44. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Human_Development/Lifespan_Development_%28Lumen%29/08%253A_Early_Adulthood/8.14%253A_Trends_in_Dating_Cohabitation_and_Marriage
  45. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/popfacts/PopFacts_2016-2.pdf
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4712741/
  47. https://amedip.org/reconocimiento-de-las-uniones-no-matrimoniales-en-latinoamerica/
  48. https://www.iafl.com/media/6787/20210514-panel-4-supporting-documents.pdf
  49. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36149539.pdf
  50. https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/common-law-marriage-by-state
  51. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/common-law-marriage-states
  52. https://www.modernfamilylaw.com/resources/common-law-marriage-states/
  53. https://ircc.canada.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=346&top=14
  54. https://www.willful.co/learn/common-law-canada
  55. https://www.lawdepot.ca/resources/family-articles/common-law-unions-in-canada/
  56. https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/350
  57. https://www.thelocal.fr/20190425/qa-what-it-means-to-be-a-concubine-according-to-french-law
  58. https://www.juridicainternational.eu/article_full.php?uri=2013_XX_104_non-married-cohabiting-couples-and-their-constitutional
  59. https://theitalianlawyer.com/cohabitation-agreement-italy/
  60. https://www.gjclaw.com.sg/articles/legal-implications-of-cohabitation-de-facto-relationships-in-singapore/
  61. https://www.pslawbusiness.com/blog/cohabitation-agreements-thailand
  62. https://360info.org/can-indonesias-love-law-ensure-domestic-harmony/
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394866383_The_Legal_Recognition_of_Same-sex_Couples%27_Status_in_China
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12058170/
  65. https://www.divorcelaws.co.za/the-law-on-cohabitation.html
  66. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-law/article/proposed-abolition-of-de-facto-unions-in-tanzania-a-case-of-sailing-against-the-social-current/5838FE4B5B0A20D1B720E16B48D94838
  67. https://uwcscholar.uwc.ac.za/bitstreams/d36b4daf-99f0-4544-b411-116cffae1c5a/download
  68. https://ulrc.go.ug/documents/8/Study_on_Cohabitation_in_Uganda_wJLsCGX.pdf
  69. https://www.lac.org.na/projects/grap/Pdf/cohabitationbrief.pdf
  70. https://aws-legalgroup.com/unmarried-couples-living-together/
  71. https://www.lexismiddleeast.com/eJournal/2025-07-02_3
  72. https://www.unjspf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/250804-Annex-Revised-Guidelines.pdf
  73. https://expatriatelaw.com/living-together-how-unmarried-couples-can-protect-themselves/
  74. https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/SF_3-3-Cohabitation-forms-partnership.pdf
  75. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200717-1
  76. https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-is-popular-but-its-still-no-replacement-for-marriage
  77. https://www.foryourmarriage.org/blogs/world-family-map-shows-global-trends-in-family-structures-childbearing/
  78. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/socioeconomic-factors-and-differences-in-forming-and-maintaining-marriages-and-cohabitations
  79. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/06/27/living-together-the-economics-of-cohabitation/
  80. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/06/unmarried-opposite-sex-couples-living-together-more-likely-than-married-couples-to-both-work.html
  81. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/2/19/change-in-american-families-favoring-cohabitation-over-marriage
  82. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/06/27/ii-the-economics-of-cohabitation/
  83. https://fiveable.me/sociology-marriage-family/unit-8/cohabitation-patterns-reasons-outcomes/study-guide/omi6NtArwjURm69U
  84. https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/23/2/591/8078032
  85. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-73722024000100107&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en
  86. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol33/25/33-25.pdf
  87. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-role-of-culture-in-declining-marriage-rates
  88. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/11/06/marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3242441/
  90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41603780
  91. https://ccpr.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Race_-Ethnic_-and-Nativity-Differences-in-the-Demographic-Significance-of-Cohabitation-in-Women_s-Lives.pdf
  92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00324728.2025.2510986
  93. https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2060954
  94. https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/cohabitationreportapr2023-final.pdf
  95. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/r87.pdf
  96. https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-contributes-to-family-instability-across-the-globe/
  97. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746306/full
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4768758/
  99. https://ffcws.princeton.edu/publications/young-childrens-behavioral-problems-married-and-cohabiting-families
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4240051/
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227693215_Family_Structure_and_Child_Well-Being_The_Significance_of_Parental_Cohabitation
  102. https://acpeds.org/marriage-divorce-and-family-relations-effect-on-children/
  103. https://cms.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/r03brief_ChildTrends_Aug2019.pdf
  104. https://paa2004.populationassociation.org/papers/40624
  105. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/661922
  106. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/cohabiting-parents-differ-from-married-ones-in-three-big-ways/
  107. https://academic.oup.com/ooec/article/4/Supplement_1/i292/8046475
  108. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol52/7/52-7.pdf
  109. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-024-09703-9
  110. https://www.paulacalvo.net/publication/pcalvojmp/pcalvojmp.pdf
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4337881/
  112. https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/37/4/541/6125358?rss=1
  113. https://www.prb.org/resources/cohabiting-couple-staying-together-longer/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5956907/
  115. https://www.gotquestions.org/living-in-sin.html
  116. https://www.usccb.org/topics/marriage-and-family-life-ministries/marriage-preparation-and-cohabiting-couples
  117. https://probe.org/cohabitation/
  118. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/living-together-before-marriage-sin/
  119. https://fiqh.islamonline.net/en/living-as-husband-and-wife-without-marriage/
  120. https://www.islamhelpline.net/answer/1260/living-together-without-nikaah
  121. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/4697
  122. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/539483/jewish/Living-Together-Before-Marriage.htm
  123. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx76vj6
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3705697/
  125. https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/why-not-live-common-law
  126. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/cpu_marriage.pdf
  127. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240647055_The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Dissolution_of_Cohabiting_Unions
  128. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/52/2/401/169353/Trends-in-the-Economic-Consequences-of-Marital-and
  129. https://acpeds.org/cohabitation-effects-of-cohabitation-on-the-men-and-women-involved-part-1-of-2/
  130. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sliding-vs-deciding/201807/the-risks-couples-moving-in-together
  131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30646299/
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12457472/
  133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S115813602200024X
  134. https://newatlas.com/society-health/monogamy-non-monogamous-relationships-satisfaction/
  135. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1077958
  136. https://record.umich.edu/articles/study-finds-trust-satisfaction-high-consensual-open-relationships/
  137. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/resources/consensual-non-monogamy.pdf
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10920412/
  139. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-38120-005
  140. https://medium.com/conscious-relationship-design/love-multiplied-a-historical-perspective-on-polyamory-a32b5c328d13
  141. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375966693_A_scoping_review_of_research_on_polyamory_and_consensual_non-monogamy_Implications_for_a_more_inclusive_family_science
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.