Why do people live apart together?

.


Introduction
Sociologists and demographers have recently become interested in 'living apart together' (LAT) -that is, being in an intimate relationship with a partner who lives somewhere else.Around 10% of adults in much of Western Europe, North America and Australasia live apart from a partner, although precise estimates vary according to the question asked and the survey group.This equates to roughly a quarter of all those adults not married or cohabiting (see Strohm et al, 2009;Duncan and Phillips, 2010;Reimondos, 2011;Liefbroer, 2012).This 'discovery' of another relationship type alongside marriage, unmarried cohabitation and singledom has not been replicated in the worlds of official statistics, formal institutions, government policy and the law.
Rather, it is usually taken for granted that 'single' in residential terms means 'without a partner' in relationship terms.This assumption will be incorrect about a quarter of the time.
Researchers disagree about the social importance and role of LAT.Is LAT a new way of doing intimacy in contemporary societies, where marriage and cohabitation are increasingly decentred?Or is LAT simply another stage on the well-established route to cohabitation and marriage?Taking the first view, Levin (2004: 223) sees LAT as 'a historically new family form' through which people can experience both the intimacy and satisfaction of being in a couple, but at the same time retain individual autonomy.Bawin-Legros and Gauthier (2001: 39) go further and interpret LAT as fostering 'a new form of love semantics' where couples come closer to pure love, untrammelled by structures, than is possible in marriage.Similarly, Roseneil (2006) suggests that people who live apart can de-prioritise sexual/love relationships and place more importance on friendship, thus changing the very meaning of coupledom itself.In these interpretations, LAT begins to move beyond traditional constructions of family, resonating with Giddens' (1992) notion of 'pure relationships', Beck and Beck-Gernsheim's (2002) emphasis on individualisation and Bauman's (2003) metaphor of 'liquid love'.This is paralleled in the demographic literature where LAT is seen to signal an advanced stage of the second demographic transition, whereby changes in family forms, relationship patterns and fertility are fundamentally underpinned by individualistic behaviour (De Jong Gierveld, 2004;Liefbroer et al, 2012).
Alternatively, other studies take a more 'continuist' perspective -they conclude that 'despite all the huffing and puffing nothing has really changed' (Weeks, 2007: 6).In this view, LAT is just another stage on the well-worn route from singledom to cohabitation and marriage, or is an interruption to cohabitation forced by circumstances such as job location (Haskey, 2005;Haskey and Lewis, 2006;Ermisch and Seidler, 2009).This involves little that is new, despite the new name; there have always been 'special' or 'steady' boy/girlfriends and 'courting couples', just as there have always been temporary couple separations because of economic circumstances.Furthermore, people who live apart (LATs) are not radical pioneers moving beyond the family, but are cautious and conservative (Haskey and Lewis, 2006).So instead of 'a social change in the nature of what it means to be a couple', Ermisch and Seidler (2009: 41) dismissively conclude that LAT attracts popular attention just 'because it is more prevalent among the better educated, who write about it and comment on society'.From this continuist perspective, LAT would if anything reinforce the central normative position of marriage and cohabitation.
Recent surveys of the reasons for LAT, drawing on representative national samples, provide evidence for both the 'new family form' and the 'continuist' perspectivesalthough the quantitative emphasis rests on the latter.These surveys construct LAT as a heterogeneous category made up of several groups according to their reasons for living apart.For example, in Britain in 2006, as many as 40% of LAT respondents were 'not ready' to live together (Duncan and Phillips, 2010).Of the remaining 60% of more established 'partner LATs', almost half cited external constraints to living together because of financial problems (mostly housing affordability) or job/study location.Another 13% of partner LATs indicated 'constrained choice' -they put responsibilities to children or older parents first, or were waiting to marry.As many as two thirds of respondents said they 'definitely' or 'probably' would like to live with their partner in the future.Nor were LATs as a category particularly pioneering in their attitudes about families and relationships; rather they were part of a younger, more liberal group together with cohabitants and young singles, in contrast to older married people.All this supports a continuist perspective.Yet half of partner LATs also cited more 'open choice' reasons for living apart, including those who wanted to keep their own home or who 'just do not want to live together' (respondents could choose more than one option).This suggests the credence of 'new family form' perspectives.Evidence from France (in 2005) suggests similar conclusions: the majority of people living apart 'were obliged to live separately because of circumstances' such as job location, housing or finance (over 60%), while about 15% were 'not yet ready' to live together.Overall, 70% intended to live with their partner within three years.Nonetheless, a quarter lived apart because of 'the desire to remain independent' (Régnier-Loilier et al, 2009: 93).
Similarly, Liefbroer et al (2012), using a 2004-08 survey of seven European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Germany, Romania and Russia), found that 'practical reasons' of job location, housing and finance were mentioned most often as a reason for living apart (ranging from 47% in Germany to 75% in Georgia), with around a fifth 'not being ready yet' (from 6% in Georgia to 24% in Romania).Again, LATs as a category showed little attitudinal difference compared with cohabiting, unmarried couples, where it was age, not relationship form, that made a difference.Nevertheless, 'independence' as a reason for living apart reached highs of 21% in France and 25% in Germany, although dropping substantially in Eastern Europe.
On this evidence, these recent surveys take what we might call a 'qualified continuist' position.Liefbroer et al (2012: 11) conclude that 'only a minority of people in a LAT relationship do so for ideological reasons.For most, it is a living arrangement entered into out of necessity.For others, it is a convenient -and probably temporary -arrangement'.Similarly, Duncan and Phillips (2010: 132), although admitting that '[f]or some, but not for many others, being a LAT may be experienced as a new family form', conclude that LATs 'as a whole do not show any marked "pioneer" attitudinal position', where '"steady" boyfriend/girlfriend relationships and … those partners who are primarily LATs because of external constraints … are hardly "new family forms" ' (2010: 131).
We question this 'qualified continuist' position on three, interlinked, grounds.First, the minority of those living apart who do choose 'independence', 'choice' and so on in their questionnaire or interview responses are sociologically important; possibly they do constitute an emergent, new and different way of 'doing intimacy', albeit quantitatively smaller than sometimes assumed in non-representative qualitative studies.Second, compounding this issue is the ambiguity of survey evidence despite its apparent robustness.Many LATs will have a number of overlapping reasons for doing so, with various degrees of certainty and ambivalence, and sometimes these reasons will be contradictory.For example, in our 2011 survey of LAT in Britain (discussed below), almost half (49%) of respondents gave several reasons for living apart, some of which were apparently contradictory (for example, they chose both 'independence' and 'circumstance' reasons).Some of the reasons themselves suggest ambivalence or indecision.Third, is the question of how we interpret these survey responses.Some respondents who gave 'constraint' or 'circumstance' reasons for living apart might well appreciate the independence that these situations conveniently allow them.Or the responses suggesting 'choice' or 'independence' may not in fact represent a simple desire for autonomy.Respondents may in fact be exercising a more negative choice -they might ideally want to cohabit but choose to live apart in avoiding what they see as unpleasant situations consequent to cohabitation.Or LATs may feel that obligations to others -such as children -shape their 'choice' to live apart.All of this suggests a complexity about the reasons for LAT that is difficult to unpick from survey evidence alone.The 'qualified continuist' interpretation might not be so self-evident after all.
A key to resolving these differences and difficulties of interpretation is to examine in detail why people live apart, which is our focus here.To do so, we use a mixed methodology research design, based on new quantitative and qualitative evidence from Britain in 2011.

Sources
Our 2011 survey of people in LAT relationships in Britain 2 (hereafter 'the national survey') combined data from three statistically representative general population surveys -the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) Omnibus, the British Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Omnibus.Together these three surveys yielded a total of 572 people in a LAT relationship -9% of respondents. 3These LAT respondents were asked questions about practices, experiences, motivations and attitudes in relation to living apart, and provided sociodemographic information. 4 The national survey provides representative data on LAT in Britain, but at the expense of depth and context.Second, therefore, we drew on 50 semi-structured, conversational interviews of around one hour with people in a LAT relationship, which sought to assess practices, meanings and understandings about LAT in more depth (hereafter 'the interview sample').This took the national survey as a sampling frame from which respondents were purposively selected according to the reasons for living apart given in their survey responses.As Table 1 shows, the interview sample roughly corresponds with the national survey in terms of reason, age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, household type and occupational group (although some categories are overor under-represented). 5This has the advantage of creating an interview sample that, while not statistically representative, is not limited to a particular type of LAT but instead reflects the range and diversity of LAT in Britain. 6

Analysis
The national survey information was coded for the statistical software package SPSS and analysis proceeded through standard frequency distribution and cross-tabulation.The 50 semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded using NVivo.The analysis of the semi-structured interviews was grounded on a close reading of each interview transcript, identifying respondents' discursive rationalisations of their agency and decisions in living apart from their partner.We looked for statements in respondents' accounts that demonstrated either a preference for LAT (the respondent talked about the advantages of, and/or their preference for, living apart) or constraint in LAT (the respondent talked about circumstances preventing desired cohabitation).At the same time we recorded stage statements (plans and ideas about moving in together, sometimes with marriage and children) and state statements (about how current LAT was seen as a continuing and satisfactory arrangement).Finally, we noted statements signifying that living together was thought to be too early in the relationship, or that LAT was situational consequent to job/study location or a response to demands of an outside agency (such as an employer or prison).
As many participants expressed combinations of preference and constraint and/ or stage and state, we made overall judgements about each interviewee's responses as relatively 'strong' or 'weak'.For example, more statements of one category would make that category stronger (and fewer would make it weaker).Similarly, the way interviewees made the statement, or the context in which the statement was made, would affect this 'strength' assessment (if, for example, it was hypothetical or heavily prompted).This assessment then allowed graphical representation of the analysis, with qualitative plotting of interviewees' positions on a summary diagram as defined by preference and constraint, state and stage.We used this to visually discover and present social clusters and associations in displaying the whole interview sample; individual interviews were then used to illustrate these.We also plotted other social variables on this basic grid, including the gender, class and age of interviewees, the length of their relationship and the presence of dependent children.

National survey patterns
Table 2 presents the distribution of reasons the national survey respondents gave for LAT.Respondents could choose any number of reasons from 16 available options, or give their own reason (some of which were reclassified among the pre-given options).The distribution of these responses is shown in the 'all reasons' column in Table 2. Respondents who chose more than one reason, 49% of the total, were then prompted to choose a main reason for living apart.The distribution of these main reasons, together with the only reason of the remaining 51%, is shown in the 'main/only' column in Table 2.For both we have grouped reasons into five main categories -too early/not ready, financial constraint, situational constraint, obligated preference and preference.The most popular reason chosen for LAT was that it was too early in the relationship to cohabit, or that the couple were not yet ready to do so.Adding in the small number who simply had not thought about cohabitation, this implies that many LATs saw their relationship in terms of a 'special boy/girlfriend' where, if the relationship proceeded, they would eventually cohabit.Altogether, 31% of respondents chose some expression of LAT as a phase before cohabitation as their only or main reason.Further along this path was the small number of respondents who were explicitly waiting to marry/ civil partner (coded under preference) -3% gave this as their main/only reason.
Another third (30%) of respondents chose various forms of constraint impeding cohabitation as their main/only reason, with affordability most common.These were couples who ostensibly wanted to cohabit now, but found difficulties in doing so.Only 12% of respondents chose 'situational constraints' as main/only reasons (where living apart was a response to the demands of employers, state authorities or other We haven't thought about living together 14 3

Financial constraint
We can't afford to live together 28 17 It would affect my/my partner's benefits 4 1

Situational constraint
My partner has a job elsewhere 13 8 My partner is studying elsewhere 5 3 My partner is living in an institution (care home/prison) 1 1

Obligated preference
Because of my or my partner's children 7 5 We have other responsibilities 9 3

Preference
We are waiting until we get married/ have a civil partnership 5 3 I prefer not to live with my partner (s/he wants to live with me) 8 4 My partner prefers not to live with me (I want to live with them) 2 0 We both want to keep our homes 13 5 It's just how things are 19 5 We just don't want to live together 8 5 Other/none 11 8 TOTAL * 100

Notes:
Weighted bases 533, unweighted bases 572.* Respondents could choose more than one option.
Source: 2011 national survey organisations).This included just 8% with jobs elsewhere -in some contrast to many popular accounts where this is assumed to be a major reason for LAT.Similarly, only a very small number admitted to concerns about benefit payments as their main or only reason for living apart -just 1%.While respondents might have been reluctant to admit to this motivation for LAT -and 4% did mention this in their complete list of all reasons -this low figure undermines the 'moral breakdown' interpretation of LAT sometimes found in British political discourse. 7 Many respondents chose various 'preference' reasons for LAT, but in choosing a main reason this was reduced to 30%.In fact of these 8% in Table 2 were what we call 'obligated preference': respondents did not live together because of their own or their partner's children (5%), or because of other responsibilities such as caring for older relatives (3%).This left 22% who chose more personal preference reasons for LAT -they wanted to keep their own homes, they preferred not to live with their particular partner, they simply did not want to live together, LAT was just how things were or they were waiting for marriage/civil partnership (see Table 2).Finally, 8% gave other (unclassifiable) main reasons or no reason.
Perhaps surprisingly, in the survey data, social class was not significantly related to reasons for living apart.Constraints to living together appear to be experienced just as much by higher-and lower-income occupational groups, and routine or manual workers may prefer to live apart together just as much as professionals.Similarly, there is little gender difference in the survey responses.In particular, one reason for LAT where we might expect gendered distributions -'obligated preference' (where caring for other family was prioritised) -in fact showed similar proportions of men and women.However, obligated preference as a category includes living apart 'because of my or my partner's children' and more women than men actually lived with children (33% as opposed to 15% of men).
There is, however, more significant association between reason for LAT and age.A large majority of the 'too early/not ready' and 'constraint' categories (as defined by main/only reasons) are bunched into the youngest age bands below 35 years old and, for both categories, a little over half are below 25.We might assume, then, that LATs in these categories are mainly early on in their relationship, where living apart is a stage before cohabitation -either hypothetically or idealistically for the too early/ not ready category, or more concretely for the 'constraint' category.In contrast the 'preference' category is spread more evenly across age bands. 8Nonetheless, as Table 2 shows, many respondents have a complex mixture of motives for living apart, and indeed each category is represented in all age bands.Thus, some respondents in the 'too early/not ready' category are middle-aged or older, while a significant proportion of the 'preference' category are young.All this suggests that it is both someone's age and the nature of the relationship that influences people's reasons for LAT, rather than factors such as class or gender.
The categorisation in Table 2, like the other recent surveys discussed above, supports the 'qualified continuist' view of LAT.The majority (62% of main/only reasons in this survey) appear to see LAT as a stage before cohabitation, either because of various constraints to cohabitation or because cohabitation was seen as not yet appropriate.Some respondents saw obligations and commitment to others as precluding cohabitation.However, this still left about a fifth who expressed a more clear-cut preference for LAT rather than cohabitation -similar to the proportions discovered for France in 2005 (Régnier-Loilier et al, 2009), Britain in 2006 (Duncan and Phillips, 2010) and Germany in 2011 (Liefbroer et al, 2012).
However, Table 2 raises as many questions as it answers.First, as already discussed, half of the national survey respondents gave several reasons for living apart, and their secondary reasons often qualified or even contradicted the main reason.The contrast in Table 2 between 'all reasons' and 'main/only reasons' suggests this complexity well.Second, how should these reasons for LAT be interpreted?Do the 'preference' respondents represent people using LAT as a 'historically new family form' (Levin, 2004), or similarly as an 'ideological' alternative to cohabitation (Liefbroer et al, 2012)?This seems problematic as the 'preference' category includes those couples apparently in conflict over cohabitation (the options 'I prefer not to live with my partner (s/he wants to live with me)' and 'my partner prefers not to live with me (I want to live with him/her)'.'Preference' can also include ambivalence or indecision ('It's just how things are').Hence, clear-cut 'preference' for living apart may be even less than Table 2 suggests.
Alternatively, 'preference' for living apart could be interpreted as being much greater, as some form of preference was the most popular response among 'all reasons' for being a LAT.It may be that LAT gives couples greater freedom for manoeuvre than in earlier periods or in other living arrangements; they may be using LAT as an ongoing alternative to the choice between cohabitation or relationship breakdown.Similarly, constraints and circumstances may sometimes provide a justification for desired or appreciated autonomy.This may not be rationalised as a main or only reason for LAT.Nonetheless, in Levin's (2004) terms such respondents may be able to simultaneously maintain autonomy and intimacy through living apart, even if this is not explicitly expressed as 'preference'.
To address this complexity, we go on to examine respondents' understandings of LAT in more depth, using the 50 semi-structured interviews.

Understandings of LAT
Figure 1 presents the allocation of all 50 interviewees from the interview sample along a constraint/preference and stage/state grid, as discussed in the Methodology section.Our analysis found four fairly distinct clusters, with relatively few outliers or transitional cases: • constraint with stage; • preference with stage; • preference and constraint with stage (obligated preference); • preference with state.
We comment on each of these clusters in turn below.
As with the national survey, there were no significant class or gender associations with this distribution, with one significant exception -the 'constraint with stage' cluster (obligated preference) in this non-representative sample was mostly composed of women with children.There were also some differences according to age -not unexpectedly more of the 'preference with stage' cluster (mostly 'too early' respondents) were under the age of 40, and more of the 'preference with state' cluster were over the age of 40.

Can't live together -constraint with stage (14/50)
These respondents understood their living apart as a temporary stage enforced by severe external constraints to their desired cohabitation.Difficulties with housing and/or finance were most often discussed and these were usually felt as fairly decisive.Others could not live together because of family opposition to cohabitation with their partner (or even to any relationship) on cultural and religious grounds, or because of the demands of outside agencies such as employers or state authorities.Most had active plans about living together in the near future, and many talked about marriage and children.Not surprisingly, nearly all were shorter relationships of under two years, and were most likely to live over an hour away from their partners -in fact, five respondents had partners living abroad.This group represents the 'constraint' summary categories in the national survey, accounting in total for 30% of 'main/ only' reasons (see Table 2).
Craig 9 was a type-case example; his partner could not move in just then because of her house lease, but she would do when that ended in a year's time.Peter, who envisaged joint relocation to a mid-point between their two jobs with engagement and marriage -all within the next two years, called his partner 'wifey' and was called 'hubby' in return.Annabel and her partner could not afford a house together but were saving to set up in New Zealand, with marriage and children to follow.Ravi really wanted to marry his partner, but his family were implacably opposed to him marrying someone of a different caste.For Katie, the overwhelming opposition to marriage from her partner's parents on religious and cultural grounds seemed so insoluble that this stage was becoming a constant state, and she was left contemplating some of the advantages of living apart.As she wryly noted: "the way he's been brought up the women -the woman does everything … it's like having two children.So I do like the days that I know he's not coming".
Unsurprisingly, all seven 'situational' respondents (where one partner was required by outside agencies to live somewhere else) shared this 'can't live together' position.In the national survey such situational respondents accounted for 12% of the total (see Table 2).This more obligatory living apart was not only consequent to job location (where some element of choice exists), but was also imposed by state-enforced rules about immigration or imprisonment.Thus, Henry cited visa restrictions on his plan to bring his wife from Thailand, Stacey's partner lived in army barracks, and Lisa's in a restricted bail hostel subsequent to a prison term.Nonetheless, some found incidental advantages in being apart from their partner, thus Lisa noted that "if there is a benefit [from living apart] it's still that you've still got your own space, you know I still can get up in the morning and walk around with my make-up half-way down my face".Furthermore she was able to "see my friends or my family or do whatever I want".But this incidental autonomy did not override her strong wish to live with her partner on release from bail hostel and then, in short order, to house hunt, marry and have (more) children.Like most others in this group, Lisa did not see LAT as an alternative family form.Geneva put this normalisation of cohabitation well: "I don't think it [LAT] would work long term.I don't understand it.Don't get it.I d-I don't.But because human beings are supposed to be together, aren't they?Natural -it's a natural kind of biological thing isn't it?" This cluster presents a 'traditional' or 'continuist' position in living apart, in the sense that we come across similar stories of constrained separation in the family surveys of the 1950s and 1960s (Duncan, 2011).An important difference now, however, is that respondents could enjoy couple intimacy through LAT without undergoing the tolerated deviancy of 'pre-marital sex', or the enforced separation, reported in these earlier surveys.And, as Lisa and Katie show, women may be able to experience greater autonomy with LAT than with cohabitation.

Not cohabitation just now -preference with stage (10 /50)
These respondents preferred to live apart just now, but saw their relationship ideally developing further into cohabitation, sometimes with marriage and children.Most in the 'too early' category, who did not think themselves emotionally ready to live with their partner, were located in this group.So Tom, for example, "wouldn't want to live with someone straight away, to be quite honest.'Cause you need to get to know the person … 'cause it is a very big commitment when you start living with someone … at the moment we're getting to know each other" [even though] "there's no reason why … she can't live here, there's plenty of room." Three women in this group were partial exceptions.While not feeling 'too early' in the relationship to live together, strong feelings of emotional defence and/or insecurity meant they also preferred not to live together just now.These respondents illustrate the 'not ready' element of the 'too early/not ready' option in the national survey (Table 2).Gemma, while enjoying holding more relationship power through being a LAT, also feared losing her assets to the Child Support Agency with cohabitation.Hannah enjoyed the autonomy LAT provided but, recovering from a searing divorce, was "keeping him at arm's length, … I'm trying not to get too close 'cause my heart's trying to be sensible, and you know, not fall in love too deeply and just make the same mistakes that I did before".
Michelle was even more self-protective, for her first partner had "emptied my house and … left loads of bills, debt", while a succeeding partner had become violently possessive and finally attacked her, damaging her eye.Not surprisingly, Michelle had "kind of learnt from my lessons and … I don't want to lose everything in my house, I don't want to be possessed, I don't, and I don't want to be beaten up [small laugh], by someone who's meant to love me.Um so, yeah, I've just, kind of become a bit wary".Consequently, she did not live with her current partner, even though it was a "good relationship" and they had a son together.Nonetheless, Michelle "would love to live with him and have a perfect family, and I fight myself ".
Unsurprisingly, nearly all these respondents were in shorter relationships of under two years, and most were under the age of 40 and without dependent children.They represent the large 'too early/not ready' category in the national survey, accounting for 31% of the 'main/only' reasons for LAT in Table 2.
This group ostensibly shows a 'continuist' position where LAT is part of being early on in the relationship, resembling the 'special girlfriend or boyfriends' that Gorer (1971) found in his 1969 survey of people under the age of 40 in England.Then, 44% of 'the unmarried' had such a partner, with half of these 'on terms of real physical intimacy' (Gorer, 1971: 213).However, in 1969 few were aged over 25 and 60% already had a day for their wedding fixed, whereas for the 2011 LAT group the average age had increased (in the national survey, 57% were over the age of 25) and future cohabitation was less assured (in the national survey, 46% did not expect to be living together within two years).Living apart together as 'special boy/girlfriend' nowadays might be more flexible and longer term, with marriage or even cohabitation less likely to be the desired goal than for those engaged and waiting to marry in 1969.
'Oughtn't to live together ' -preference and constraint with stage (7/50) This group showed more of a balance of preference and constraint in living apart.In most cases, this was because of obligations felt to dependants, usually a child but in one case to an infirm mother.(While several other respondents did provide some care for older parents living elsewhere, and this might complicate things, in itself this was not seen as precluding cohabitation.)Most of these interviewees were women who had dependent children and were previously married.They represent the 'obligated preference' category of the national survey, accounting for 8% of 'main/only' reasons (Table 2).Obligations to children were felt as much -if not more -for teenagers as for young children -the parental house was 'their home'.For example, Stephanie had "to sort my daughter out first, she comes first really" and arrange her leaving home into independent life.So adding to her worries about getting 'it wrong the first time round', cohabitation would have to wait for a year or so.Such obligations were particularly felt for children seen as disabled.Thus Carrie did not "want to rush into it [cohabitation] because my son suffers from ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder], and he doesn't deal with change very well.So um, I just want to take it, each day as a t-at a time.I'm not saying it will never happen.I do hope it does happen." These obligations to dependants sometimes extended to the other partner, usually a man, who worried about upsetting their partner's children if they lived together.As David put it: "the last thing a 16-year-old lad wants is somebody coming into their life and pretending to be dad.…They come first every time and their feelings come first".Nor did obligations to children necessarily disappear with their adulthood.Five older respondents raised worries about inheritance issues if they lived with their partner, although this was felt as a reinforcing background to a given decision to live apart for other reasons.
These interviewees mostly saw living apart as a temporary stage before cohabitation, although for Ben this wait was indeterminate when 'the crunch' would only come with his mother's death.This group also appears 'traditional' in the sense that not living with a partner because of obligations to others was reported in the 1950s and 1960s family surveys (Duncan, 2011).What is different, however, was that now such individuals could maintain an open and intimate couple relationship, through LAT, while still taking care of existing obligations.In particular, in contrast to this earlier period, women are now able to mobilise the financial resources to do so.
'Won't live together ' -preference with state (19/50) All interviewees in this group preferred to live apart, in the sense that they talked about the advantages of, and/or their preference for, living apart, even though most could cohabit relatively easily in the absence of major external constraints to living together.All saw this as a continuing state, although some admitted to hypothetical or ideal-stage ideas about cohabitation.As most lived less than 20 minutes away from their partner, this position was also more practical -they could easily see their partner regularly.Most were in longer relationships of over two years.Nearly all were aged over 40, including all five of the total interview sample who were over 60, and most had been married before.In addition, almost all of the small minority who said they were not in love with their partner (five out of six sample respondents), or in love but not committed (two out of three), were in this group.This group parallels the overall 'preference' category in the national survey with 30% of 'main/only' reasons (Table 2).
Autonomy and independence were major issues for most in this group, for example Helen became "annoyed after 10 days" when her long-distance partner stayed with her: "I'm used to having things done my way, rather than sharing space.It's awful, absolutely awful, I know it's really selfish."She felt "like I've got my cake and eat it" -so even if her partner moved up from London to Edinburgh, she would still prefer him to get his own place.Or as Nicola put it: "You can do what you want when you want, you don't have to ask….I like my own space.… he's got a bigger house than mine but I don't like his house as much as I like mine so…" Perhaps it was some sort of traditionally gendered 'payback' for her autonomy that she did her partner's ironing and house cleaning every week.Andrew, the only person in the interview sample who explicitly saw LAT as temporary before separating and moving on, took autonomy further: "as a bloke…, it's quite a good situation.Because I can do what I want….And have the best of both worlds." At first sight, then, this group appears as a non-traditional relationship or 'new family form' version of LAT -these interviewees were not planning or wanting to move in together, they particularly valued autonomy but also desired intimacy, and they were not especially constrained from living together had they so wanted.This is a position rarely, if ever, reported in the 1950s and 1960s family surveys (Duncan, 2011).Rather, LAT enabled these respondents to 'have the best of both worlds', as Andrew put it.
However, a closer look at their motivations for living apart reveals a more nuanced and complex picture.First, three young interviewees felt that it was too early to move together; LAT was an early stage in their lifecourse that was not leading to anything else.Second, for six respondents it was not so much the case that they wanted to live apart -rather, more negatively, they did not want to live with their current partner.This reflects the national survey option 'I prefer not to live with my partner (s/he wants to live with me)' with 4% of 'main/only' reasons (Table 2).Neither Wendy nor Janet would countenance living with alcoholic partners, Sharon disliked her clinging and emotionally insecure husband but although separated felt a continuing obligation to him.Gary was more forthright -the problem was that "we argue too much together … when she gets a drink in her and … I've had a drink, then we just start arguing I just hate-I just want her away".
Maggie was repelled by her partner's 'hardcore' green lifestyle (his lack of washing, no central heating and sporadic toilet flushing).Like Sharon, she also thought her partner looked down on her as ill-educated and intellectually inferior.Some of these respondents with this 'negative preference' for LAT consequently held on to idealised desires for cohabitation -if only Wendy's partner would "stop the drink and I would love him, so that we could be together", or Maggie's partner would offer "marriage and central heating" (the latter particularly important for medical reasons).LAT was a deficit position for these two respondents -ideally they would rather be married.Indeed, Maggie saw marriage as "the top", without which "society will go downhill".Third, three others in the group were less antipathetic to their particular partner but sought emotional security as well as autonomy through LAT.This perhaps reflects the 5% in the national survey who picked 'it's just how things are' as their main/ only reason for living apart (Table 2).So while Julie valued her own space, did not want to end up "running around tidying up after him" and certainly "could not be doing with mongy men", she mainly used living apart to protect herself against any repeated infidelity.Similarly, Charlotte and her partner "both had us fingers burned….We both ended previous relationships with literally nothing … I lost everything".As she continued: "I don't want to lose him, so he's not moving in basically."We are left, therefore, with only eight interviewees who, like Nicola and Helen, more clearly preferred to live apart for positive 'lifestyle' reasons centred on autonomy and independence.

Conclusion
At one level both the analysis of the national survey and of the interview sample can be taken as supporting the 'qualified continuist' view of LAT.Most people who live apart together appear to do so because it is too early in their relationship to live together (although they imagined doing so later on), or they are constrained by external circumstances or agencies from achieving their desired cohabitation, or they feel prior emotional and practical obligations to others, which prevent cohabitation.All these circumstances would have been recognised in the 1950s and 1960s.For the majority, LAT is seen as a stage before cohabitation.While a minority do prefer to live apart, many do so for 'negative' reasons such as reservations about their partner, women interviewees, echoing 1960s' feminism, described the advantages of increased personal autonomy from their male partners.For most this autonomy was more of a circumstantial, if pleasant, by-product of being apart, where living together in a family home remained the ideal.Nonetheless, experiences of how relationships can be conducted have changed, and expectations of autonomy may persist beyond LAT into cohabitation.In this way, LAT can open up new possibilities and expectations in personal relationships and family life.
LAT is not simply a new family form, but nor is it just a stage in courtship or marriage, or a simple reaction to constraints.Rather, LAT is better characterised as flexible pragmatism.As a category, LAT contains different sorts of relationship, with different needs and desires around personal autonomy, emotional management, couple intimacy, other family commitments, and how to respond to external circumstances.Potentially, living apart from a partner allows greater flexibility for individuals than co-residential relationships.This flexibility gives people more room for manoeuvre in conducting their relationships.LAT therefore combines elements of both 'new' and 'continuation' or 'tradition' as people draw on existing practices, norms and understandings in order to adapt to changing circumstances.In so doing they both rework and reproduce established ways of doing relationships.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Understandings of living apart together