Living Together

[eerie_reverie]

I wanted to start a hypothetical thread on the topic of living together.

 

It seems like attitudes about this are all across the board.

 

Some people (none that I know) still wait for marriage.

 

Some wait until they're engaged.

 

Others won't get engaged until they try it out.

 

Yet others believe that a man will not propose if he is "getting the milk for free".

 

What is your stance? What are your requirements for living with someone?

 

Have you ever lived with an SO? What did you learn, did you have any regrets, were there any surprises?

 

I've lived in 10 apartments since I was 18 with 15+ different roommates as well as alone, but I've never lived with a bf.

 

None of my relationships have ever been serious or involved enough to warrant the consideration.

 

But my current one is making me think about my stance (in general - it is too early for me to consider moving in anytime soon).

 

My thoughts so far are:

 

We already "practically" live together, so it would be practical.

 

I woudln't have to keep making trips back to my place to change, and we could afford a nicer place if we split the rent.

 

Of course, if it didn't work out, one of us would be homeless - but I am so used to moving, that this is not a huge concern for me. I mean, it is not that much different from moving out (of my current place that I share with 2 girls) at the end of my lease.

 

I recognize the difference between "playing house" and actually being married, but I'm not ready to tie the knot yet; I just want to play house. And to me, it seems like the game offers lots of great perks, and not a whole lot of cons....

 

Thoughts?

Edited August 29, 2011 by eerie_reverie

[tman666]

I would never personally marry someone without first living with them for an extended period of time (over a year). Living with a person means that you truly take the good with the bad. You learn if your lifestyle is compatible with the other person and vice versa. You also learn how the other person reacts when "cornered". If you have a big fight, you can't just go home and stew. You'll get to see if they are the type of person that runs away from problems or the type of person that tries to put aside their anger and tackles issues head on in the interest of fixing things as a team.

 

That being said, while it's a good test of the relationship, it's not something to be rushed into. Both people need to be a points in their lives and in the relationship that they can jump in with both feet.

[Zaphod B]

I agree with Tman completely.

 

I actually moved in with my one of my girlfriends after dating her for a year. Seems like a good thing both econonically and because we wanted to take our relationship a step further. It was a very good thing I did this because I found her impossible to live with and she had anger problems too. There was no where for me to go when she went nutso. So it was ridiculous.

 

In the end I moved out. If I had married her first before moving in I would never have found out how impossible she was to live with and I would have had to go through the whole marriage and divorce thing as well. Glad I never had to. It meant I could cut all ties with her without all the added hassles.

 

As for sex, it was good, and it was most definitely never an issue to whether I would marry her or not. I would probably have married her if she hadn't been such a psycho. Anyone who says "Why buy the cow when the milk for free" has a lousy attitude towards women and relationships and will probably never have a successful relationship.

[CarrieT]

I'm with TMan as well.

 

I was married at 20 and divorced at 25. I have since lived with three different men; two each for almost three years and one for a little more than a decade.

 

I never felt strongly enough about any one of them to want to marry them but appreciate the time we had together.

 

I would not marry someone without living with them first; you learn a lot about a person and how you get along with those "little things" that come up with that much intimacy.

[Cee]

Marriage is not a priority for me because I plan to never have children. Therefore, living with a person is my marriage. I am debating about moving in with my boyfriend. We have had many discussions, but it's nebulous. What is a life time commitment supposed to be for a childless couple? There are very few models for that. I'm not worried though. I can take care of myself emotionally and financially so whatever happens, I'll be okay.

[zengirl]

Some people (none that I know) still wait for marriage.

 

Some wait until they're engaged.

 

I think I'll wait till I'm engaged this time, but I'm not entirely sure. I definitely won't move in with anyone again until I believe I will likely marry him and have discussed the possibility at length. But I don't need a formal proposal first, probably.

 

Others won't get engaged until they try it out.

 

I'm not a fan of the trial marriage attitude, personally. However, I do think it's a natural progression in some ways. Depends on how it's approached.

 

Yet others believe that a man will not propose if he is "getting the milk for free".

 

I think this is bull****. Most of the people I know who are married lived together first, and it didn't delay proposals one bit.

 

What is your stance? What are your requirements for living with someone?

 

Feeling pretty damn sure I'll never want to move out and leave him. Been there, done that, and it sucks.

 

Have you ever lived with an SO? What did you learn, did you have any regrets, were there any surprises?

 

Yes. The thing I regret was letting him think I'd marry him (I wasn't lying; I really just had no idea how I felt about marriage in general, let alone marrying him, and honestly, this was before I'd traveled enough --- I wasn't ready to marry anyone and stay put). I didn't say it, but when we moved in, he assumed it. It's bad not to talk about those things! Other than that, living with him was lovely. He was one of the best companions I ever had, a great boyfriend and a great person to live with, and I was very happy living there. We had a great time together. I learned more of his habits and such, but no huge surprises. Living together was not what broke us up, but it did make it more complicated when breakup time came.

 

My thoughts so far are:

 

We already "practically" live together, so it would be practical.

 

I woudln't have to keep making trips back to my place to change, and we could afford a nicer place if we split the rent.

 

Of course, if it didn't work out, one of us would be homeless - but I am so used to moving, that this is not a huge concern for me. I mean, it is not that much different from moving out (of my current place that I share with 2 girls) at the end of my lease.

 

It's a lot different. At least in my experience. I've got nothing against moving, and I've done it time and time again, but a breakup + moving. Goodness, it's rough in ways I can't explain. That was the hardest move I ever made, and I was the one who broke up with him PLUS I was moving to another country (which softened the blow for me---as it was a big dream of mine). If he'd broken up with me, and I'd had to move out or even stay in the apartment alone . . . oh, goodness, I can't imagine it. And he had a harder time than I did for that reason. Don't minimize how hard that'd be, is my advice, and don't move in until you're really ready for something 100% serious, committed, and potentially forever.

 

The practical reasons are terrible ideas to move in with anyone. Never ever move in with someone over monetary things, I say. At any rate, you can always bring plenty of your things over, if you're making too many trips.

 

I recognize the difference between "playing house" and actually being married, but I'm not ready to tie the knot yet; I just want to play house. And to me, it seems like the game offers lots of great perks, and not a whole lot of cons....

 

I'd never recommend playing house. Sure, it's fun at times, but it's playing with live ammunition. If you want to play house, then keep your apartment and really play. Just stay over with regularity, exchange keys, and the like. Living together really isn't much different. I have tons of stuff at my BFs and could spend 3-4 days there at a time without going home. I can play house anytime I want, but I would never move in with him unless I knew I wanted to stay with him for a good long time and maybe forever. That's just me, though.

[zengirl]

Marriage is not a priority for me because I plan to never have children. Therefore, living with a person is my marriage. I am debating about moving in with my boyfriend. We have had many discussions, but it's nebulous. What is a life time commitment supposed to be for a childless couple? There are very few models for that. I'm not worried though. I can take care of myself emotionally and financially so whatever happens, I'll be okay.

 

May I ask, and I don't mean this rudely, what does marriage have to do with having children?

 

My best friend is getting married in January, and she doesn't want to have children. People act like she's crazypants for not wanting children when she has such a great partner, but neither of them wants kids. They still desperately want to get married! Why can't lifetime commitment be the same for a childless couple? I know several married couples who don't want kids.

 

(This is not saying you must get married, Cee, as I think a variety of choices are good, but I don't get the tie in to the no-kids thing.)

[Queen Zenobia]

I wanted to start a hypothetical thread on the topic of living together.

 

 

What is your stance? What are your requirements for living with someone?

 

Have you ever lived with an SO? What did you learn, did you have any regrets, were there any surprises?

 

I think people should do generally what they feel is best for them.

 

I live with my fiance, moved in with him a little over a year ago, back when he was still my boyfriend rather than my fiance. What I learned was that it's a lot different than merely staying over for a few nights or going on vacation together and staying in the same hotel room. I also learned that it's one of the few things that could actually make my parents upset and distraught (they're fine with it now though so no worries).

 

I'm still not 100% ok with being in the house by myself for an extended period of time though. So that's still one kink I'm still trying to work out.

 

My thoughts so far are:

 

We already "practically" live together, so it would be practical.

 

I woudln't have to keep making trips back to my place to change, and we could afford a nicer place if we split the rent.

 

Of course, if it didn't work out, one of us would be homeless - but I am so used to moving, that this is not a huge concern for me. I mean, it is not that much different from moving out (of my current place that I share with 2 girls) at the end of my lease.

 

I recognize the difference between "playing house" and actually being married, but I'm not ready to tie the knot yet; I just want to play house. And to me, it seems like the game offers lots of great perks, and not a whole lot of cons....

 

Thoughts?

 

I would not recommend living together until quite far along in the relationship. I didn't do it until two years in. Sure it's practical (was for me too) but, you really have to put yourself in a good frame of mind in order for it to work out.

[veggirl]

I lived with an ex. I will never live with a man again unless we are engaged with a wedding date set. I don't care how serious the relationship is, if we are just dating with no set marriage date, it's not happening. I do not for one second buy that you learn sooo many things about your SO by living together that you can't / don't learn via seriously dating but living apart. I am confident I can weed out any dealbreakers without living together pre-engagement/marriage

 

"Playing house" is a terrible way to look at it. The biggest con is that if you break up while you live together, it makes the break up about a million times more difficult. And you should definitely NOT get a place that one of you could not afford on their own. Again- in case you break up, one of you will be stuck with the rent on their own.

[Pierre]

I would never personally marry someone without first living with them for an extended period of time (over a year). Living with a person means that you truly take the good with the bad. You learn if your lifestyle is compatible with the other person and vice versa. You also learn how the other person reacts when "cornered". If you have a big fight, you can't just go home and stew. You'll get to see if they are the type of person that runs away from problems or the type of person that tries to put aside their anger and tackles issues head on in the interest of fixing things as a team.

 

That being said, while it's a good test of the relationship, it's not something to be rushed into. Both people need to be a points in their lives and in the relationship that they can jump in with both feet.

 

Nevertheless, living together before marriage does not improve the odds of a good marriage; the rate of divorce is as high or even higher. In fact, not until long ago those that lived together 1st did much worse.

 

The odds are only good for those that are engaged before living together.

[veggirl]

You'll get to see if they are the type of person that runs away from problems or the type of person that tries to put aside their anger and tackles issues head on in the interest of fixing things as a team.

 

How does that require living together? you find this out the first time you have a serious argument with someone, regardless of living arrangements. ex: do they stay to talk it out or do they take off and not call for 3 days.

[Pierre]

I agree with Tman completely.

 

I actually moved in with my one of my girlfriends after dating her for a year. Seems like a good thing both econonically and because we wanted to take our relationship a step further. It was a very good thing I did this because I found her impossible to live with and she had anger problems too. There was no where for me to go when she went nutso. So it was ridiculous.

 

In the end I moved out. If I had married her first before moving in I would never have found out how impossible she was to live with and I would have had to go through the whole marriage and divorce thing as well. Glad I never had to. It meant I could cut all ties with her without all the added hassles.

 

As for sex, it was good, and it was most definitely never an issue to whether I would marry her or not. I would probably have married her if she hadn't been such a psycho. Anyone who says "Why buy the cow when the milk for free" has a lousy attitude towards women and relationships and will probably never have a successful relationship.

 

You did not she had anger problems after dating for a year? In any event there is no point in living together or getting married if you do not know your mate for at least two years.

[carhill]

What is your stance? What are your requirements for living with someone?

 

Most women my age own one or more homes, so my historical preference of living together once married will remain in force. It will then become a decision as to which home will be our domicile (one of existing or new) and how to arrange it. For me, home is where my spouse is. The physical 'stuff' is just stuff and transient.

[Pierre]

I'm with TMan as well.

 

 

I never felt strongly enough about any one of them to want to marry them but appreciate the time we had together.

 

I would not marry someone without living with them first; you learn a lot about a person and how you get along with those "little things" that come up with that much intimacy.

 

 

This is a great post and show why folks that live together fail the relationship so frequently. Some studies show that only 10% of couples that live together are together 5 years later. The marriage rate of failure is high, but not that high!

 

The main reason folks that live together fail more often is as she said: "I never felt strongly enough about any one of them to want to marry them but appreciate the time we had together". Many people that live together are not as committed as those that seek marriage. In long term relationships commitment is everything. Marriage implies a high level of commitment that is lacking in those that favor cohabitation.

 

Among those that get married commitment is even higher among those that never lived together.

 

Commitment levels are (from high to low):

 

1. Marriage without cohabitation.

2. Marriage with cohabitation only after engagement and a wedding date

3. Marriage after cohabitation because a partner (usually the woman) pressed for a wedding date after waiting a long time.

4. Living together after a lot of planning, but fully pretending it is a marriage.

5. Living together to save rent money, save gas, have available sex 24/7, etc.

6. Living together because one partner is testing the other partner. The one foot in the door arrangement, the most common one and the one with the least commitment.

7. I never felt strongly enough about any one of them to want to marry them but appreciate the time we had together. WHY DID YOU LIVE TOGETHER??????????????????:sick:

[zengirl]

Pierre, you're using those outdated stats again!

 

Really, in my generation and younger (lower Xs, Ys, and millenials), the stats show no difference between living together first or not (marriages do still do better than those that never marry, but that's likely the selection bias at work since most that never marry aren't intending a terminal arrangement; that doesn't really bear on those who explicitly do and just forego the paper, if we separate those who intend forever and discuss it from those who don't---one study I saw suggests those folks seem to do just as well as marrieds, though the studies are likely limited; I've only seen the one).

 

I agree with you on the one-foot-in testing thing, FTR, but that's honestly not what I see a lot of in my generation. It's more "talk about marriage, move in together, sometimes buy a place together with both names on it (hey, you might as well be married), propose, get married, have kid" in most of the instances of my married friends. They almost all (the married ones) lived together before being engaged BUT they almost all discussed getting married before moving in. I think engagements are simply less of a big deal these days, and less "surprising," thank goodness.

 

How does that require living together? you find this out the first time you have a serious argument with someone, regardless of living arrangements. ex: do they stay to talk it out or do they take off and not call for 3 days.

 

I agree with you there. I really don't see much data I couldn't collect without living with someone entirely. Without spending a lot of time with them and at their place/them at mine? Well, yes, that'd be difficult, but proximity doesn't have to mean a shared address. And that example given is definitely something you learn way sooner!

 

Most women my age own one or more homes, so my historical preference of living together once married will remain in force. It will then become a decision as to which home will be our domicile (one of existing or new) and how to arrange it. For me, home is where my spouse is. The physical 'stuff' is just stuff and transient.

 

That makes sense to me, whether you own the place or not. Making those decisions together, and with a marked eye towards a concrete future, seems the most sound for both people involved.

[Zaphod B]

You did not she had anger problems after dating for a year? In any event there is no point in living together or getting married if you do not know your mate for at least two years.

 

I did see it some times but not to that extent. It wasn't until we lived together that I saw just how out of hand it could become. I could not just return home because I already was home and buggered if I'm gonna go off and drive somewhere and stay away for hours because of it. That's just not practical, especially when kids are involved. But I'll admit I didn't read the warning signs very well. But then often people don't until it's too late.

 

I don't think you can create a rule of thumb when it comes to time. My ex wife... we were enaged after two months and ten months later we married. Only then did we move into a place together, mainly because she was 18 and her father was very domineering and controlling. We were together for 11 years. That may not be as long as some married couples, but I don't really think you can say it was a disaster. We were lucky that we were quite compatible and neither of us were impossible to live with.

[carhill]

That makes sense to me, whether you own the place or not. Making those decisions together, and with a marked eye towards a concrete future, seems the most sound for both people involved.

 

I mentioned homes because this issue was a bone of contention for my exW, in that my home became 'our' home after marriage, simply because my exW didn't own a home (was renting) and I operate my business here and it requires land and industrial space to do. Her perspective was, though not in the beginning, that we should buy something 'together' and live closer to town. I tried that, buying a home in town and planning to commute, after placing my mother in professional care, but at that point she was determined to divorce so 'our' home became 'her' home in the divorce. Good life lessons.

 

Perhaps people who are more transient and who don't require certain living/working conditions have the flexibiity to make a wide variety of choices, with living together being amongst them. I think, if the couple feels positive about their choice, it's healthy for them.

 

As an example, one of my tenants, a couple with two young children together, have been living together and renting for a number of years. I recently learned they will be marrying in November and have bought a home, so will be moving out late this year. That choice appears to work good for them. Many potentials.

[eerie_reverie]

Really, in my generation and younger (lower Xs, Ys, and millenials), the stats show no difference between living together first or not (marriages do still do better than those that never marry, but that's likely the selection bias at work since most that never marry aren't intending a terminal arrangement; that doesn't really bear on those who explicitly do and just forego the paper, if we separate those who intend forever and discuss it from those who don't---one study I saw suggests those folks seem to do just as well as marrieds, though the studies are likely limited; I've only seen the one).

.

 

 

I'm about the same age as you, and I am seeing the same thing too. I live in the midwest, but still, everyone I know lived together before getting married (usually before getting engaged).

[eerie_reverie]

I'd never recommend playing house. Sure, it's fun at times, but it's playing with live ammunition. If you want to play house, then keep your apartment and really play. Just stay over with regularity, exchange keys, and the like. Living together really isn't much different. I have tons of stuff at my BFs and could spend 3-4 days there at a time without going home. I can play house anytime I want, but I would never move in with him unless I knew I wanted to stay with him for a good long time and maybe forever. That's just me, though.

 

You bring up a good point I hadn't really considered - how much harder a breakup would be if I lived with someone, especially if I was the one getting dumped. My relationship is going so well it's hard to imagine it ending - even if I am not ready to make a lifetime commitment just yet.

 

I guess it's just another way to invest too much too fast, exposing yourself to a high risk of getting hurt badly.

[AHardDaysNight]

I can say this: I have trouble living with people. I am a lone wolf, and therefore would not deal well with having to share my space with anyone.

 

I realize that this will mean that I'll never get married. But I'd rather have my own space, than having people intruding on my privacy.

 

Just a perspective.

[carhill]

People can have healthy and productive intimate relationships without living together, though it's somewhat rare for younger people. Older widows and widowers and other older single people, often 'comfortable' in their respective spaces, have relationships without cohabiting, by design. Marriage doesn't have to require cohabiting, but generally it's an important indicator of intent and does have legal bearing in some jurisdictions. I could envision this type of relationship even though I have no prohibitions about sharing my living space, should it be more comfortable for a potential partner. No one else need know nor be concerned about the particulars of what we agree upon.

[Pierre]

I'm about the same age as you, and I am seeing the same thing too. I live in the midwest, but still, everyone I know lived together before getting married (usually before getting engaged).

 

If you live together with the idea of marriage as a goal then it is probably OK. Smart women that have been burned often demand engagement and a wedding date before living together.

[zengirl]

If you live together with the idea of marriage as a goal then it is probably OK. Smart women that have been burned often demand engagement and a wedding date before living together.

 

If you need to demand anything out of fear, I'd say you aren't starting out well!

 

I don't think of an "engagement/marriage" as something I have to finagle out of a man, personally. I only want to get married to someone who's absolutely desperate to marry me (and who I feel the same about) because he just can't get enough of me.

 

That said, I totally don't endorse moving in without laying all your goals out on the table, including discussing marriage, as I said. But I don't think women should be worried about losing leverage or demanding engagements or whatnot.

[Pierre]

Pierre, you're using those outdated stats again!

 

Really, in my generation and younger (lower Xs, Ys, and millenials), the stats show no difference between living together first or not (marriages do still do better than those that never marry, but that's likely the selection bias at work since most that never marry aren't intending a terminal arrangement; that doesn't really bear on those who explicitly do and just forego the paper, if we separate those who intend forever and discuss it from those who don't---one study I saw suggests those folks seem to do just as well as marrieds, though the studies are likely limited; I've only seen the one).

 

 

You are right, several years ago studies showed that cohabitation before marriage caused more divorces than no-cohabitation. However, the numbers have improved because many people that intend to get married move in together before the wedding. However, this does not change the basic cause why living together is often a bad idea for those that lack commitment.

 

I know it sounds counter intuitive to accept that testing a partner before marriage actually has worse results than those that do not test the partner. However, the bad results are simply related to a low level of initial commitment to the relationship.

 

If I really want a house I sign a purchase contract and make a non-refundable deposit to show I am serious. This shows the seller that I am committed to buy the house. The seller would never sell the house without a contract because the buyer could change his mind before closing. If one puts a deposit down the likelihood of walking away from the house is quite low. It is not rocket science!!

 

Marriage is no different.

[AHardDaysNight]

Enough relationships last, and marriages fail, that I don't think it matters whether or not someone is "living together."

 

Love is enough.