Star Gazer Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 It's annoying how you take every possible opportunity to insult LB's relationship I'm not insulting it, I'm using it as an example. They'll get married for sure (apparently, they're engaged). But we all know that LB's torment and insecurities won't end there, and I do believe that the "testing the waters" status of their relationship (mainly created by her BF, not LB's fault) is largely to blame. *shrug* However I do think it's odd to see people my age (25) moving in with every person they have a relationship with. You mean like LB? See my point? *shrug again* Like I said, it's all about intent. If you move in together because you want to be with this person, and know you have that long-term permanent commitment in mind (whether that's marriage or co-habitating for infinity, then you're all good. But if you move in to "test the waters," such that the other person has to prove to you that they're "good enough," well then... you'll forever be on the fence, and can easily be knocked off said fence into the land of divorce. My 2 cents, anyway.
Lauriebell82 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Both partners def. do need to come to an understanding that they want a long term committment. I think the statistics are very misleading because they don't take into account a lot of factors (quality of marriage, religious values, ect.) Just because a couple stays married doesn't mean they are happy.
mental_traveller Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 The statistics show that if one or both people in the relationship moves in together as a "test," that the couple is in fact much more likely to get divorced. Also, a lot of people live together who aren't ready for marriage, then they just get married a few years later out of inertia, they think "we've been living together a few years, now a kid's on the way, might as well tie the knot". Basically a lot of people see living together as a kind of halfway house to getting married. Whereas if you are going to get married before living together, you have to be pretty darn convinced it's going to work before you take that risk. So IMO couples that have a stronger relationship are more likely to get married first, whereas couples with weaker relationships are more likely to go half way and live together. I don't think it's living together in itself that causes the higher divorce stats, it's that the people who live together first are likely to be less committed - almost by definition - than those who marry first. Less committed couples are obviously more likely to be unhappy and break up eventually.
mental_traveller Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Statistics don't lie. Living together prior to marriage means you're more likely to divorcethan couples who didn't live together prior to marriage. That's not strictly true, you need to be careful what inferences you draw from statistics. All statistics show are correlations, they do not show causation. The higher divorce rate amongst couples that cohabit first could be caused by either i) cohabiting first making divorce more likely; OR ii) intrinsically divorce-pron couples being more likely to cohabit first rather than marry first. The statistical correlation cited in this thread cannot tell you whether i) or ii) is true. It could be either explanation, or a bit of both. As a comparison, consider that people who get degrees tend to score higher on IQ tests than those who leave school at 18. Does this mean that doing a degree increases your IQ score? Or does it mean that people who have higher IQs are generally more likely to try and succeed in getting a degree?
mr.dream merchant Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 According to statistics, the rate of divorce for couples who live together first before marriage vs couples who get married before cohabitation is 50% higher. A main theory is that living together before marriage brings lower commitment into the marriage. What do you all think? I think you need to stop letting statistics influence what you want to do. Do you love your SO? Does that SO love you? Do you both want to move in together because you want to take your relationship to new levels? If one or more of those answers are yes, then move in together. **** a statistic. So many people make living and loving so difficult with lame ass statistics. The **** happened to loving the person because YOU want to and just for the sake of loving. "Oh I'm quite comfortable with this relationship because statistics say I'm in the green!" **** statistics. Just live your life.
normal Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Good. Don't marry someone unless you know you can stand living with them. Living with people will change your opinion of them. Doesn't matter if it's your best friend, bf or gf. Try living together BEFORE vowing to live together for the rest of your life. Otherwise you could be in for a rude awakening. PS. the divorce rate of our country's general population is 51%.
Lauriebell82 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Good. Don't marry someone unless you know you can stand living with them. Living with people will change your opinion of them. Doesn't matter if it's your best friend, bf or gf. Try living together BEFORE vowing to live together for the rest of your life. Otherwise you could be in for a rude awakening. PS. the divorce rate of our country's general population is 51%. Yep. I think couples divorce because they can't along or just stop trying. I have no problems living together before marriage, statistics or not. And NO I don't think it has anything to do with why you moved in together in the first place. It's your relationship and whether or not you can make it work regardless of your proximity prior to marriage. My ex and I were on the same page moving in and the relationship deteriorated even before marriage. Good thing I didn't marry him first.
fishtaco Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Agree with mental_traveller - Correlation is not causation. Brings to mind an internet meme, although a bit less relevant now with the recent pirate attacks: There's a chart with the number of pirates on one axis, and global warming on the other. The chart clearly shows that global warming increased steadily over the years as the number of pirates declined. Therefore pirates must be the key to global warming. Maybe Somalia is just trying to help prevent global warming. Although it's obviously a joke, it shows how statistics can be manipulated to show anything you want. My theory is that people that do not cohabit before marriage tend to be traditionalists. Traditionalists tend to stay in a marriage even if they're miserable.
Touche Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 To answer the original question of: "Living together before committing to marriage good or bad" Great question! At one time in my life I would have said no WAY would I have agreed to be married (or even engaged) before living together...but now that I've tried it both ways, I must say I'm convinced that living together before you're committed to marriage is a crappy idea. Never worked for me anyway. My H and I did live together for a few months before we got married but the difference is that we were engaged and had a wedding date BEFORE we moved in together. Not sure if there's a correlation there but it's proven to be the best relationship I've ever had. Our 14th anniversary is this June!
Star Gazer Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 So IMO couples that have a stronger relationship are more likely to get married first, whereas couples with weaker relationships are more likely to go half way and live together. Agreed. I don't think it's living together in itself that causes the higher divorce stats, it's that the people who live together first are likely to be less committed - almost by definition - than those who marry first. Less committed couples are obviously more likely to be unhappy and break up eventually. That was precisely my point. I don't think living together CAUSES divorce down the road. I think the people who live together prior to marriage without the intent to be together forever are more likely to divorce than those who do have that level of commitment. It's about the people involved, and more specifically, WHY they are moving in together. I also think more couples do move in together to "test the waters" or out of inertia, which is the wrong reason to move in together. Those couples are the ones who tend to divorce. You could know each other 2 weeks, or 3 months, and if you move in together with that commitment, I honestly think you have a better chance of long-term success than a couple that moves in together after 2 years of dating out of inertia (as you stated) to "test the waters."
Star Gazer Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I must say I'm convinced that living together before you're committed to marriage is a crappy idea. Never worked for me anyway. My H and I did live together for a few months before we got married but the difference is that we were engaged and had a wedding date BEFORE we moved in together. Not sure if there's a correlation there but it's proven to be the best relationship I've ever had. Our 14th anniversary is this June! Yup. See... and how likely is it that you will divorce? Much more unlikely than a situation where you had moved in to "test the waters." Moving in together should be a HUGE commitment. Not a "test."
manugeorge Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 This is an interesting theory, one that's never crossed my mind. If you're "testing the waters", there's already uncertainty whether one or both parties, are who you want to consider spending your life with. This is a different mindset, than people who don't believe in marriage but cohabitate. In testing the waters, you in essence hold the other person hostage for good behaviour, "or else I can't marry you". Wow, that's pretty insightful and nuanced. Dating in general is testing the waters, living together is just an extension of that for those who do it to guage compatibility. We always hold our lovers hostage for good behavior. It is implied from the very first date. I don't think anyone will marry someone they don't think is a good person. The extent of the good behavior is the only thing that differs in the sense that everyone's tolerance level for varies. People who divorce are the people who think divorce is an option, cohabitating has zilch to do with it. If anything, I would say that couples that cohabitate are less likely to get married at all, not more likely to divorce.
EnigmaXOXO Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 This is an interesting theory, one that's never crossed my mind. If you're "testing the waters", there's already uncertainty whether one or both parties, are who you want to consider spending your life with. This is a different mindset, than people who don't believe in marriage but cohabitate. In testing the waters, you in essence hold the other person hostage for good behaviour, "or else I can't marry you". Wow, that's pretty insightful and nuanced. Bingo! http://people.bu.edu/charris/marriage.html
Lauriebell82 Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 If you move in together you are "testing the waters" because if you weren't you'd just get married first. Marriage doesn't mean a committment either, it just means it's harder to get out of then cohabitation. A couple moves in together after being married but are unhappy because they dont want to divorce. A couple who lives together prior to marriage are just as committed to each other and might end up getting married because they want to be together, not because they HAVE to be together. As someone else said, the real issue is that couples who live together are more liberal, therefore more likely to divorce then couples who are more traditional. It doesn't take into account quality of marriage, children, compatibility. Despite what others say, you DO have committment when moving in together. You are on a lease, you plan to spend your time together, you want to be together..sounds like committment to me. Don't need a ring on your finger to be committed.
Star Gazer Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 If you move in together you are "testing the waters" because if you weren't you'd just get married first. Marriage doesn't mean a committment either, it just means it's harder to get out of then cohabitation. Sounds like someone who doesn't place a high value on marriage, and thus, more likely to divorice. Also sounds like someone who moved in with their SO to "test the waters." My point has been proven. *shrug*
Lauriebell82 Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 The facts are (not in all cases though) marriage does not ALWAYS mean committment. The section on marriage and the section on infedelity kind of hits that on the nose. Oh this was generalized, not specific to any certain situation.
Lauriebell82 Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 If you do want my personal opinion though, I do not think that marriage doesn't symbolize committment. I will never get a divorce, whether I live with someone or not. That's irrevelant. Picking the right person to marry is important living together or not. Doesn't make any difference what your living arrangment is in my opinion.
Recommended Posts