White Marriage: A Room with an Open Door

It is described as a room with an open door. You can enter whenever you want and leave whenever you want. This refers to white marriage. A type of cohabitation that media reports say has become common in Iran, to the extent that the Ministry of Interior has formed a special working group to examine it. White marriage, or cohabitation, is a way of living together where individuals experience life under one roof without registering any government, legal, or religious documents. In this method, life is governed by rules and regulations determined by both parties rather than the government or religion. So far, no statistics have been provided on the number of people living in Iran without an officially registered marriage. This is because, for legal reasons and what is termed religious reasons, choosing this way of life is illegal in Iran. Media in Iran cite reasons such as economic issues, the desire to get to know the other person better, and even the high costs of marriage as factors behind this trend. Farangis, a woman in her thirties, has chosen this way of life for the past four years and believes that despite the problems and concerns of being in a relationship deemed illegal in Iran, she prefers this lifestyle. Farangis states: "In a free lifestyle, a woman feels more independent compared to married life. Many decisions remain personal, and she can have her own social interactions without the obligation to always host or be a guest together. One can live a bit more individually. In this respect, it is much better. There are no conflicts and dependencies of married life." Financial complexities are a weakness of white marriage. Despite the widespread financial crises in Iran and high unemployment rates, some media have described the spread of what is called white marriage as a temporary economic necessity for survival. Farangis also considers financial issues a key element in this lifestyle, saying: "I have often seen that boys do not take financial commitments seriously. In my case, it was like that. Although we lived together, many of his belongings are in my house, and except for some nights when he went to talk to his mother, we lived together all week, it seemed that only I was responsible for paying the rent. When we went out, sometimes I would buy and sometimes he would. If something broke, he would help or bring someone to fix it. But it seemed he did not feel obligated to cover the main living expenses. He thought, 'How did you live without me? Live the same way.' At some point, I felt very exploited. I thought someone had put their burden on me. Many times, the issues are opaque, meaning you neither have the expectations and clarity that exist in many formal lives nor do you want your independence to become a more serious commitment, and at the same time, you feel that you are being exploited and your life is not taken seriously." This feeling of exploitation has arisen in Farangis's mind despite having previously gone through a formal marriage. She discusses financial agreements with her ex-husband: "In general, it was my ex-husband's responsibility to cover the main household expenses, including rent. But when he had no money, it was obvious that I had to pay the rent because that check was our joint check and that house was our shared home; I would pay. Even though I was not responsible for covering the costs, I was considered his support. This feature does not exist in other relationships." But why, despite the absence of any laws, regulations, and restrictions of formal and legal marriage, do issues and problems still arise that resemble legal marriages? Hossein Ghazian, a sociologist residing in the United States, believes: "One of the most important foundations of the family institution is adherence to three essential principles. These principles state that two people, usually of different genders, must meet each other's needs forever at all levels. In cohabitation, that 'forever' may have changed. Of course, there is no guarantee for this type of marriage either. Because there, too, the assumption is that a family exists, but no contract is signed. However, the non-contractual elements of the contract still exist. The reality is that two strangers cannot meet all human needs at all levels, and in addition, the gender differences that exist in the division of labor in society and in the traditional family will also come into play here. That is, signing that marriage contract does not fundamentally affect the sexual division of labor in the home and does not guarantee its difference. Similarly, the expectations that exist for women and men and other points are brought from within the traditional family to this new institution, and not signing that contract does not prevent the entry of these elements. The same elements that cause conflicts and problems there also exist here." The absence of family involvement is the most significant freedom in white marriage. However, aside from financial issues, according to Farangis, the most important difference between what she considers a free life and life within the framework of formal marriage is the distance of families from the core relationship between the two individuals. Farangis states: "A part of family socializing is eliminated. This elimination is the best part of the matter. Because the individual is not a legal spouse, they do not bring their partner to family gatherings, obligatory relationships, and, for example, family weddings, which prevents many issues, conflicts, and judgments. However, on the other hand, there is always an excuse to shirk responsibility. For example, if one party is hospitalized due to severe illness, the other may withdraw from the care section because all your family does not know who I am." According to Farangis, although this relationship does not have the societal acceptance of formality, it still provides a sense of security for the close family of the daughter: "My parents are neither very traditional nor very enlightened to cope with these new events and types of relationships. In practice, my partner never came to my parents' house as an official person. My parents were only aware of this relationship. I think my mother was very satisfied with this situation because she felt someone was with her daughter, taking care of her, and her daughter was not alone. My father never said anything. He treated it with great respect. He knew but never talked about him. But when I went to their house and when I returned home, he would ask if so-and-so was coming to pick me up." According to Hossein Ghazian, reliance on the female cohabitant, even if there is no formal contract between them, is a sign of the persistence of patriarchal thinking in society. Hossein Ghazian states: "In any case, in a society like ours, the patriarchal culture and structure have been strong and powerful, and despite all the changes that have occurred, its remnants still exist in society to some extent due to modernization. These two elements, the patriarchal structure and the patriarchal culture that exist in this structure, are present in the spiritual, psychological, and even physical existence. In previous generations, this was even more pronounced. Therefore, the expectations of this patriarchal context and structure in our lives are high. Part of that is the role of men as supporters, guardians, protectors, and the elder of the woman. Men sometimes define themselves in this way to take the woman under their protection. Others also expect men to do this. In previous generations, where the patriarchal structure and culture were stronger, this expectation was naturally stronger, and the new generation faces this perspective and even views white marriage from this angle as if someone has gained a male protector. This is the same role that in family relationships is expected of a husband for a woman." Is white marriage a trial phase for permanent marriage? Some analysts believe that white marriage is a trial phase for entering legal marriage, and many of these experiences may eventually lead to formal registration. However, Farangis has a different experience: "Once, towards the end of that shared life, my partner proposed marriage, but I felt that he was not responsible in this life at all and did not fulfill his commitments well. Therefore, I thought I could not rely on him for a longer-term life." After experiencing six years of shared life in a formal marriage, Farangis now claims to have experienced a successful relationship that has come to an end. Farangis says: "The only good thing about it is that it is like a room with an open door. Whenever you want, you can leave. But when everything is right in that room, it has good light, and its warmth is good, why would you want to leave? The important thing is that you know you are not in a closed room. Marriage gives you more of that closed feeling because when you decide to open the door, you have to decide about the key. Who has the key? They may not give you that key. If they don't, what will you do?"