In a news which speaks tax when discussing the marriage , the taboo combining love and money seems outdated. Some do not hesitate, it is true, to discuss the economic reasons for their choices in love, much damn romantic.
Make the choice to live together or, conversely, to keep his own apartment has indeed financial consequences: double rent, energy costs doubled, residential taxes and constant trips between each home … This choice implies a certain economic independence.
Conversely, for those who individually have a comfortable apartment, it sometimes seems difficult to find a large enough home for two (or more in the case of a blended family) while maintaining the comfort and space provided in the first case. It is not uncommon, for example, to benefit from office room converted into individual apartments. However, finding a family home that contains two looks trickier … we quickly understand that the couple installation involves the loss of personal space.
Know abandon its sovereignty to live together
Living alone is to reserve a privileged space but also time during which one can think only of yourself: the choice of meals improvised outputs via the freedom not store or on the contrary, to maintain order Standing … Living alone is therefore support a minimum of stress and frustration.
Certainly couples living their separate also share time two, but these moments are chosen deliberately. In a way, the partners choose to be together and to make room for another one objective place when they welcome in their home.
The term ‘living together’ clearly reflects the implications of the installation of the couple under the same roof. This is indeed ‘share’ his life, to confront together the difficult times or to compromise. For if the idealized image of the other early love mask differences and eats small defects, the ‘living together’ recalls ‘reality principle’ Freudian that demystifies the fantasy of omnipotence of I.
Moving to torque supposes to trust the other: “Will he (she) respect me? “,” He appreciate (it) or the one I’m in my whole? “. It also means having confidence : “I have enough confidence in me to separate myself from a share of my assets to make room to another? “; because giving necessarily means losing something in favor of another.
The case of step families
Among those who opt for the ‘ each to his own ‘is a number of parents with children who, if they lived together, become a blended family. Changes already mentioned above then add the issues of education, changing the place given to each child, report the new spouse as well as links to the absent parent. Some choose to maintain two places of residence in order to maintain stability for relations ‘parent-child’ or ‘child-child’.
The ‘wrong reasons’ of each home
The refusal to live together can indeed be a screen to deeper fears such as fear of engaging, of being abandoned or rejected. Maintaining respective apartments will thus be a way not to question and to avoid answering a sensitive issue which nevertheless hinders the choices of the individual.
Trans-generational issues may further condition these choices. A woman whose mother has suffered abuse from a man or society (in the case of prostitution, for example) will be able to refuse to install in pairs in a kind of loyalty to the painful experience of his mother , she unconsciously tries to solve the problem.