Alternatives to Marriage

In a recent survey, nearly 45 percent of single female respondents said they would not remarry. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't consider other relationship arrangements. While some would consider living with a man, others want a non-live-in situation. All, it seems, want to maintain their independence. Here's what they said:

Joan of Fresno, Calif., e-mailed: "I would partner with the right man; marriage would not be necessary. What would be necessary is a committed, monogamous partnership with a considerate, caring, fun gentleman wanting mutual respect, a best friend, companion, confidant and love while maintaining our individuality. Not some man wanting a dependent woman to dominate and be his maid."

Sherrie, Philadelphia, age 46, said, "I'm not interested in remarriage or living with someone," said Sherrie of Philadelphia. Here are the reasons she gave: "I enjoy my newfound freedom. Close daily contact destroys the spontaneity of sex, and men are uncomfortable in a committed relationship and cheat." Sherrie admitted she could change her mind later.

Kathy, 54, wrote: "At my age, I would be perfectly happy with a committed relationship. I value my independence more than ever after being widowed for seven years. Relationships are easier and more fun to maintain in the excitement of the infatuation stage a lot longer when you aren't tripping over each other every day."

Sylvia of New York City e-mailed: "I love my life without the responsibility of taking care of a man. Widowers particularly are very needy. I'd love to be with someone and be a couple for travel, and everything that couples do, except getting married."

"I don't want to put up with someone's difficult moods or string of bad days," wrote a woman named Laurel. "It sounds harsh, but I'm tired of always being supportive and understanding. I'd like a companion to share some of life's experiences and to laugh, though."

Bobbie from Minnesota e-mailed: "I'd prefer a committed, intimate relationship to enjoy life together, share expenses on dates and travel. He'd have his place and I'd have mine. Having space is a good thing."

"I don't need someone to take care of me, but someone to enjoy life with," said Bette of New Orleans. "I like my privacy, freedom and independence, so I see no benefit to getting entangled in anything more than a nice relationship. Separate homes and separate bank accounts are a must."

Debra wrote: "If two people are happy and in love, they don't need marriage to be committed. What's wrong with having some anticipation for seeing each other after being apart for a couple of days? A relationship comes from the heart, not from living together 24/7."

Becky, 60, of Palm Harbor, Fla., stated the following: "When I was widowed at 58, I saw the years in front of me as an opportunity to pursue dreams and desires. I've been fortunate to meet a man who is supportive of my dreams, and I'm willing to share my life with him full-time, cohabitating together."

"I would enjoy the companionship of a committed, loving, monogamous relationship," e-mailed Cheryl from Michigan. "No marriage though. I enjoy my life, career, freedoms and independence. Both parties would have to share this viewpoint."

Pat of Little Rock, Ark., said: "We go through stages. Now, I'm enjoying living alone, spending my money as I please and cooking if and/or when the fancy strikes me. Who knows -- maybe one day I'll change my mind? I believe in living in the now moment. It's the only time we have."

Lynne of Irvine, Calif., shared: "I would lose financially if I remarried. I would be happier if the right man came into my life and we could share our lives together. Having a 'your place' and 'my place' arrangement would be perfect."

In Part IV of our series, the men respond with their feelings on marriage. And what they have to say may surprise you. Stay tuned!

Tom Blake is a syndicated columnist in Southern California.