Intimacy and Autonomy, Gender and Ageing: Living Apart Together

Ambivalence and Living Apart Together in Later Life: A Critical Research Proposal

“…Variations in the terminology that British LAT partners who view themselves as couples use to describe their relationship suggest greater commitment among older couples; they more often used the terms partner or husband or wife , and younger persons more often used girlfriend or boyfriend (Duncan, Carter, Phillips, Roseneil, & Stoilova, ). In Swedish (Karlsson & Borell, ) and Belgian (Lyssens‐Danneboom & Mortelmans, ) studies of LAT, fidelity was generally seen as a prerequisite for the relationship, a view also supported by a survey of LAT partners in Britain in which 87% thought it would be wrong if a LAT partner had sex with someone else (Duncan et al, ; see also Carter et al, ). In a U.S. study (Brothers, ) even sexually active older LAT couples viewed sex as a less significant component of their relationship than they did when in marriages earlier in their lives.…”

“…Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that such a large proportion of the research on older LAT couples is from Belgium (e.g., Lyssens‐Danneboom & Mortelmans, ), the Netherlands (e.g., de Jong Gierveld, ), Norway (e.g., Levin, ), and Sweden (e.g., Karlsson & Borell, ). Only recently have researchers in Australia (Upton‐Davis, , ), Canada (Funk & Kobayashi, ; Kobayashi et al, ; Turcotte, ), and the United States (Benson, ; Benson & Coleman, , ; Brothers, ) considered LAT a category of intimate relationship in later life worthy of study.…”

“…In Canada (Turcotte, ), young adults (20–29 years) averaged 2.3 years together, whereas older adults (older than 60 years) averaged 7.5 years. In a Swedish study, all 116 LAT partners aged 60 to 90 years described their relationship as long term, with a median length of 7 years and a range from 1 to 28 years (Karlsson & Borell, ). Differences in relationship duration are even more marked in longitudinal studies.…”

“…For most of the 116 older LAT partners in a Swedish study, the overwhelming motive for LAT was the intimacy of the relationship; LAT partners regarded their relationships as deeply intimate, marked by mutual trust, understanding, and the sharing of confidences (Borell & Karlsson, ). Almost all of the LAT partners had daily contact with one another via telephone, more than one third (36%) met almost daily, and another half met a couple of times a week (Karlsson & Borell, ). Most of the older LAT couples in a British study (Coulter & Hu, ) lived within an hour of each other, with two thirds less than 30 minutes apart, and saw each other at least once a week, with two thirds seeing their partner daily or several times a week.…”

Changes in household composition as a shock‐mitigating strategy

“…In the presence of credit constraints, joint residence might affect the ability of individuals to insure against risks through intra‐ and inter‐household resource allocation (Fafchamps and Lund, ). On the other hand, separate residence offers more privacy and autonomy but less power or authority (Karlsson and Borell, ).…”