zengirl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 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. Marriage is VERY different! That's where we disagree. The idea that it has any similarity to a dynamic where one person is buying and the other is selling is weird to me. Instead, both people are investing together. You're becoming partners, not completing a transaction! Thus, one person isn't required to show the other they are serious by putting down a deposit (or shouldn't be these days, which is why I'll never understand the two-months-salary ring, though, heck, many people I know combined finances before they even got engaged). I'm with you on the testing being a bad idea thing, though. Testing is never good. Whether it's done by living together or by holding off as some kind of tactic to make the other person more into marriage than they would be otherwise. Instead, sharing, communication, and moving towards goals together is preferred.
OliveOyl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) 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: I think actually living together can mean a higher commitment level than being married. People tend to take each other and the relationship for granted once you get married because it's "so hard to leave." Taking each other for granted though, is often the death knell to the relationship. I really am not sure whether I want to get married again or not. But I do think I would probably want to live with a partner again, even though I know it's not always easy. Sometimes it's damn hard. (I have a feeling though if I ended up living with my current BF, he would want to get married eventually. He's just that type.) I only have one data point, and that's my ex... we lived together before marriage and it was no problem. Just felt like a natural transition. Edited August 30, 2011 by OliveOyl
Cee Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 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.) I don't understand the utility of marriage except to provide stability and legal status to children. There are some financial benefits that spouses receive, but it's not enough to persuade me to walk down the aisle again. I have never found weddings to be romantic. They are too expensive and fussy for me. If I were to get married, I'd have an internet ordained minister do a simple ceremony by the ocean or a stream. Or go to the justice of the peace. But I can't say that I would never get married again. Many of my nevers have happened, so I can't truly predict the future.
denise_xo Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 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. I fully agree with everything in here. While I am married, I've never had marriage as an objective (I also don't want children). We married for social/cultural reasons (a requirement in my H's country), but if it wasn't for that I'd be perfectly happy just co-habitating. We lived together for a few months before we married. I also lived with my ex partner for a few years (we were never married). I have no regrets in either case. Living together is a nice step up of intimacy, of sharing, of forming yourselves as a couple. I think there are two ways of looking at co-habitation, one is a step towards marriage (which I think is smart for the reasons that tman outline), another is as a frame around your relationship. I have several friends who are in serious, committed, long term relationships (with and without children) who are living together but not married. They don't consider themselves less committed than those who are married, and I've never heard a female friend complain that their male partner is running away from commitment (or vice versa). They just don't think that going through a marriage ceremony will change the nature of their relationship (they have set up legal arrangements so that their legal status is equal to that of a married couple). As for the 'getting the milk for free' sentiment, I've honestly never encountered it outside of LS, so it's not something I'd ever think about. To the OP: I don't know how long you've been with your bf, but if it's been more than six months, you're both serious about keeping the relationship going and you're ready to 'play house', I don't see why you shouldn't. My only concern would be if you're decision is predominantly practical (rather than really wanting to take that step for your relationship).
AHardDaysNight Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I suppose, if I end up liking someone enough, I'd be fine with moving in together. However, we'd have to be dating at least a year before I would even put it on the table. Or even consider it.
P&R Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 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. It was found that those who lived together before marriage had higher divorce rates then those who decided forgo living with each other before marriage. What you are saying sounds logical but there is some evidence that says that it is not the best idea. I know that correlation does not imply causation, however it does imply a relationship does exist between living together before marriage, and divorce rates. Another interesting tid-bit of information is people of a Christian background have a higher divorce rate.
zengirl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I don't understand the utility of marriage except to provide stability and legal status to children. There are some financial benefits that spouses receive, but it's not enough to persuade me to walk down the aisle again. I have never found weddings to be romantic. They are too expensive and fussy for me. If I were to get married, I'd have an internet ordained minister do a simple ceremony by the ocean or a stream. Or go to the justice of the peace. But I can't say that I would never get married again. Many of my nevers have happened, so I can't truly predict the future. I hate weddings, personally, so I feel you there! Anyway, I certainly understand it not being for you, but I think there's a lot more to marriage than having kids. Having kids is not a "must" for me, but getting married is something I really want---the idea of having a partner forever, someone who has committed to that totally and in writing appeals to me, personally, and some others I know who don't want children. It's just the desire to be the full version of a "team" for me, to share the same last name, to really be a family. And I do think two people CAN be a family if they choose. I guess that was my point: Childless couples can still be families. It was found that those who lived together before marriage had higher divorce rates then those who decided forgo living with each other before marriage. What you are saying sounds logical but there is some evidence that says that it is not the best idea. I know that correlation does not imply causation, however it does imply a relationship does exist between living together before marriage, and divorce rates. These are the same old statistics (the living together ones) Pierre referenced. There is statistical evidence the tide on that trend has turned. Though it may be generational, as well. I'm not sure if the older generations still show the old trends. This was likely true because of the subset of people who were more likely to live together first back in the day, when there was more stigma attached to it still and it was an outlier. Nowadays, it's so ridiculously commonplace most people don't even notice.
Cee Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I don't fault anyone for wanting to get married. There is something about the ritual that is appealing in that a couple invites their family and friends to witness a commitment. But when I eloped, my mom insisted that we have a reception party. I thought it was a nice idea, but when I saw the final bill, I nearly had a heart attack. I had a simple reception and I did the invitations myself, but the whole thing cost over 8K. I can't imagine what a full blown wedding would have cost. I have gotten practical (cheap?) in my old age.
zengirl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I don't fault anyone for wanting to get married. There is something about the ritual that is appealing in that a couple invites their family and friends to witness a commitment. But when I eloped, my mom insisted that we have a reception party. I thought it was a nice idea, but when I saw the final bill, I nearly had a heart attack. I had a simple reception and I did the invitations myself, but the whole thing cost over 8K. I can't imagine what a full blown wedding would have cost. I have gotten practical (cheap?) in my old age. Yeah. I mean, I've promised my best friend and my Mom they can be at the court house when I ever get married, but a big expensive ceremony? No way, Jose. I do want a honeymoon, but traveling/taking trips is one of my primary hobbies anyway, so that's no surprise. I want to travel with my honey regularly and wouldn't marry a guy who wasn't into trips. My Mom is funny --- I never knew it, but apparently I have a wedding fund. (It's not very big, probably, compared to what a wedding actually costs.) She was worried with the stock market doing poorly, about it, and I said to her, "Oh, I'm never having a ceremony." She was thrilled! Haha. She said, "Good, then I can just give you the money when you get married. But you better get married soon while I still have money!"
sunshinegirl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 These are the same old statistics (the living together ones) Pierre referenced. There is statistical evidence the tide on that trend has turned. Though it may be generational, as well. I'm not sure if the older generations still show the old trends. This was likely true because of the subset of people who were more likely to live together first back in the day, when there was more stigma attached to it still and it was an outlier. Nowadays, it's so ridiculously commonplace most people don't even notice. Could you provide a source for the new stats? I'm aware of the old ones-- they come from The National Marriage Project.
Eternal Sunshine Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I would totally live with someone. I am not big on marriage (and kids - am not good with babies and am not fussed either way). Not living with someone because you want to keep some mystery or because he won't "buy a cow" is silly and sounds a lot like game playing. I don't get people that want to marry someone yet are opposed to living together prior to marriage (unless they have strict religious beliefs or something). Huge weddings also make me ill I would rather elope and then travel together with the money.
grkBoy Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I think that when two people decide to move in together, they should have the talk on where they see things going and where they want them to go. I think if one or both sides want to get married, then they should say it. Doesn't mean they have to propose right there, but both sides should fully have it on the table where things are going. I don't have any issues with "living in sin" as the old folks called it. I just think if one moves in with another, and that someone is hoping to pop the question or to have the question popped at some point down the road...then it should be out there so the other side knows their SO will not settle for just cohabitation. Likewise, if the marriage-minded person finds out his/her partner isn't into marriage, then he/she should seriously reconsider it all, even the relationship. Decide if you want to take this longer or end it all and find a like-minded person. BTW...I was getting the milk for free, but I still proposed. I don't even know if we'll have kids in our life (I'm on the fence), but I still believe in marriage. We have been living together now for a few years. I think the true secret is more knowing where the other person stands on things, but also the two people have to be willing to share their lives and know about understanding and compromise. Too many couples simply come into it all as two individuals...despite that they call themselves a couple. They still fight for independence when they should embrace the relationship.
Eternal Sunshine Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Eh, I don't see a point in having a specific talk on "where is this going". By moving in together stage, both should know where the other stands on marriage in general (which doesn't mean they want to marry each other necessarily). Also, if a guy is 100% that the girl is who he wants to marry, he should propose right at that moment. Anything else, including saying "I want to marry you in X months, years, one day" means that right at that moment, he is not 100% (for whatever reason). So having that kind of talk is pointless.
zengirl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Could you provide a source for the new stats? I'm aware of the old ones-- they come from The National Marriage Project. I will try to remember later today when I'm able to do more research type stuff (right now, I'm returning calls, which I can do while posting here, but not while doing harcore research). I will say, that there was a huge report* that found (recently) that couples who moved in together in a natural progression, specifically those that were in my generation, showed no difference. Ironically, people will use that report to reinforce the old statistics. The report overall demonstrated those who lived together prior to marriage had a higher divorce rate, but if you looked at the actual data, it had huge generation gaps and included those who had been married before (a lot of older people who live together before marriage are people who've been divorced before, and previous divorces are a HUGE risk factor for future divorce, statistically---so it's likely more a reflection of that than other things). If you look at the greater trends, even in the studies done by The National Marriage Project, you can see the generational differences. And, of course, The Marriage Project has a vested interest in a certain position on marriage. I'm pro-marriage, but I read an article on Slate not long ago that was common-sense: The only reason cohabitation, rather than marriage, is any different for kids is because people think it is. It's all very ironic. *The scientist's name was Stanley, I think.
zengirl Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Eh, I don't see a point in having a specific talk on "where is this going". By moving in together stage, both should know where the other stands on marriage in general (which doesn't mean they want to marry each other necessarily). Also, if a guy is 100% that the girl is who he wants to marry, he should propose right at that moment. Anything else, including saying "I want to marry you in X months, years, one day" means that right at that moment, he is not 100% (for whatever reason). So having that kind of talk is pointless. Marriage isn't just some weird percentage crawl. It's a contract between BOTH people and thus requires a lot of communication. The way I see proposals go these days is a lot less of the "Surprise! Marry me!" crap of the past (you do get surprise proposals, in terms of he planned something special and surprised her with that particular moment, which is nice and all just as a romantic gesture, but it's an "everyone knew they'd someday get engaged" type of thing where the couple has already discussed their future and they know they have one) and a lot more of people hammering out their futures together, as a team. It seems to me like the marriages that are going to last are going to be the latter---where everyone went in with strong communication and the same goals. Marrying someone is, sadly, about a lot more than love. I don't think you have to talk about the love to make it work, but I do think anyone who just gets engaged without really discussing what they want from their relationship together is going to be in for a bumpy ride!
Pierre Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I really am not sure whether I want to get married again or not. But I do think I would probably want to live with a partner again, even though I know it's not always easy. Sometimes it's damn hard. (I have a feeling though if I ended up living with my current BF, he would want to get married eventually. He's just that type.) I only have one data point, and that's my ex... we lived together before marriage and it was no problem. Just felt like a natural transition. The difference between those that seek marriage and those that rather live together is the degree of commitment. This statement confirms a certain lack of commitment: I really am not sure whether I want to get married again or not. But I do think I would probably want to live with a partner again, even though I know it's not always easy. Sometimes it's damn hard. Note the words I really am not sure
Pierre Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I have several friends who are in serious, committed, long term relationships (with and without children) who are living together but not married. They don't consider themselves less committed than those who are married, and I've never heard a female friend complain that their male partner is running away from commitment (or vice versa). They just don't think that going through a marriage ceremony will change the nature of their relationship (they have set up legal arrangements so that their legal status is equal to that of a married couple). If they are so highly committed? Why do they have phobia for a piece of paper that says they are legally united? It would be interesting to see why they do not get married if they claim to be as committed as those that are married.
denise_xo Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 If they are so highly committed? Why do they have phobia for a piece of paper that says they are legally united? It would be interesting to see why they do not get married if they claim to be as committed as those that are married. No phobias involved. They don't see any reason for the ceremony. It's not more complex than that.
Pierre Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Could you provide a source for the new stats? I'm aware of the old ones-- they come from The National Marriage Project. The divorce rate for those that lived together before marriage improved when the new generation started to live together after they had already planned a wedding. That is what the new studies show. IN other words those that were committed to marriage from the get go started to live together because they had planned a wedding. If you removed those folks from the equation you still see that cohabitation before marriage has a negative impact of the health of the marriage. Furthermore, if you compare the failure rate of couples that never get married to couples that get married the difference is abysmal. Couples that never married have a much higher rate of failure. In the end it is all about commitment and dedication.
Pierre Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 No phobias involved. They don't see any reason for the ceremony. It's not more complex than that. :confused::confused:A ceremony??????????????????????:confused: Why not marriage? There must be something they do not like? They could still get married without a ceremony. I don't think is the ceremony. Many folks that are not legally married still do ceremonies. What is the real reason they do not get married?
denise_xo Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 :confused::confused:A ceremony??????????????????????:confused: Why not marriage? There must be something they do not like? They could still get married without a ceremony. I don't think is the ceremony. Many folks that are not legally married still do ceremonies. What is the real reason they do not get married? They don't see that it (whether it here is the legal certificate, the legal ceremony, or the social ceremony) adds any value to what they already have. If you don't perceive it as adding value, there's no point in doing it.
Pierre Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 They don't see that it (whether it here is the legal certificate, the legal ceremony, or the social ceremony) adds any value to what they already have. If you don't perceive it as adding value, there's no point in doing it. The marriage papers cannot improve full commitment and a couple that is not married can be as committed and those that are married. Maybe they are at that point in time. However, when you look at large numbers (not a single couple) you see a trend and those that never get married fail more often that married couples.
denise_xo Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 The marriage papers cannot improve full commitment and a couple that is not married can be as committed and those that are married. Maybe they are at that point in time. However, when you look at large numbers (not a single couple) you see a trend and those that never get married fail more often that married couples. Yes, that is exactly where they are. There is nothing that indicates to me that they don't have well functioning relationships, and their children appear very healthy and well adjusted. That's what matters in the end, in my book. It's about what a couple invests into a relationship, on all levels (emotionally, financially, practically). Zengirl summed it up well The only reason cohabitation, rather than marriage, is any different for kids is because people think it is It's perfectly possible for a couple to put full commitment into a relationship without the frame of a marriage, if they choose to do so. But you have to make that choice, just like you need to do so within the frame of a marriage. I've lived in countries where divorce rates are extremely low, but people might still be totally miserable because one or more parties to a marriage are no longer putting in the investment and commitment it needs. They stay because it's not socially acceptable to divorce. In those cases, the fact that they are married isn't a undivided positive value in itself. I haven't looked at the research that people are referring to here, and I don't know if it would apply to my context (I don't live in the US and I haven't looked into such studies for my own national context). I also get the impression from the posts above that these studies talk about correlation and not causation/impact. I suspect that the real dynamics are more complex than a linear cohabitation/divorce rate relationship. That's speculation on my part, but statistical correlations of these types, although very useful, are often just the first layer in the discovery of complex and multidimensional relationships.
Pierre Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I also get the impression from the posts above that these studies talk about correlation and not causation/impact. I suspect that the real dynamics are more complex than a linear cohabitation/divorce rate relationship. That's speculation on my part, but statistical correlations of these types, although very useful, are often just the first layer in the discovery of complex and multidimensional relationships. Cohabitation while living together and being married is identical. The shyte smells the same and arguments are also similar. Marriage does not change the quality of cohabitation. Cohabitation before marriage is not a big deal. The big deal is the mind set of those that prefer cohabitation. There are many examples of that mind set in this thread.
tman666 Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 LOL @ throwing around marriage statistics. Two adults can make these highly individual decisions for themselves based on their highly individual relationships and life situations. Live and let live, I say.
Recommended Posts