Living Together

[zengirl]

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.

 

Sure. Commitment and dedication to the relationship but not necessarily to the concept of marriage.

 

Hey, I want to get married, personally, and I wouldn't live together long-term without it --- because it's a goal I have --- but I've known many couples who do or did and are now married because it just didn't occur to them that it was any different. The stats bear out this idea that younger generations just don't think about it that way----they're not living together without marriage because of phobias as much (though some do, but that's more common %wise among older generations as a reason to live together first/rather than be married) as because it just seems natural to move in together and they haven't yet felt the urge to get married.

 

However, you are right that most of these couples have discussed the permanence of the relationship. Not necessarily a wedding, though.

 

These days, permanence is not necessarily synonymous with marriage in the younger generations, in particular, and not because of fear or blocks or problems, but because marriage is less of a big deal these days. I also have a couple groups of friends who won't get married, in principle, until all people (gay or straight) can share the same rights. That's a small but growing trend these days as well. There are ALL sorts of views, and to get any meaningful look at it, you have to dig deeply into the trends in the statistics.

 

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.

 

I concur, but the trends still interest me from a social perspective.

[Pierre]

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.

 

Yeah, that is why I smoke four packs of cigarettes a day.:laugh: Just because many smokers are at risk of developing lung cancer does not mean I will get cancer. That is one way of looking at it.:confused:

[zengirl]

Yeah, that is why I smoke four packs of cigarettes a day.:laugh: Just because many smokers are at risk of developing lung cancer does not mean I will get cancer. That is one way of looking at it.:confused:

 

Social science statistics and trends are not precisely the same as looking at studies on health sciences. For one thing, the way the body reacts to cigarettes is proven, and we know the reasons why. Social science statistics show us general trends, but the "reasons why" usually come from interpreting the data and are left open and unclear in most cases. Thus: the comparison is inapt.

 

An experiment on gravity, or smoking, or global warming, cannot be truly compared to any sociological experiment, as sociology is a different sort of field. Comparisons to the hard sciences are never good correlations.

[sweetjasmine]

You are right, several years ago studies showed that cohabitation before marriage caused more divorces than no-cohabitation.

 

Not quite. They showed correlation, not causation. The actual causes could be quite different and unrelated to cohabitation.

 

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.

 

Agreed. I live with my partner, and although we're not formally engaged, we've been planning on it for a while and are waiting to have our career and business affairs in order first.

 

At this point, I don't think I could accept a marriage proposal from someone without having lived with them or spent long periods of time in the same place first. Just a personal preference.

[Pierre]

Not quite. They showed correlation, not causation. The actual causes could be quite different and unrelated to cohabitation.

 

 

You are correct and I misquoted myself. Cohabitation in marriage and living together is exactly the same. Cohabitation does not cause a divorce if the couple decides to get married later. IMO, the main difference and may very well be an important factor is the level of commitment to the union of the couple. The commitment is not exclusive of marriage and may be seen in couples living together. However the higher levels of commitment are seeing more often in those that are marriage oriented.

 

I live with my partner, and although we're not formally engaged, we've been planning on it for a while and are waiting to have our career and business affairs in order first.

 

At this point, I don't think I could accept a marriage proposal from someone without having lived with them or spent long periods of time in the same place first. Just a personal preference.

Lets analyze your own words:

 

we've been planning on it for a while and are waiting to have our career and business affairs in order first.

 

This is the question that begs an answer: You are already doing cohabitation. Playing house is identical in marriage and living together. The farts smell the same, the food taste the same, the arguments are similar, the lovemaking is the same, etc.

 

At this time you have stated that you need to wait to put your business and careers in order. I believe that is a good idea before cohabitation, however once you are cohabitating I don't see why you must wait.

 

Why must you complete your education and career before marriage if you are already living together?

 

At this point, I don't think I could accept a marriage proposal from someone without having lived with them or spent long periods of time in the same place first. Just a personal preference.

 

Those that need to test the partner are by definition less committed. Do you agree?

[sweetjasmine]

Cohabitation in marriage and living together is exactly the same.

 

I agree, for the most part.

 

IMO, the main difference and may very well be an important factor is the level of commitment to the union of the couple. The commitment is not exclusive of marriage and may be seen in couples living together. However the higher levels of commitment are seeing more often in those that are marriage oriented.

 

I agree with all of this, too. It's the mindset that's important.

 

Lets analyze your own words:

 

we've been planning on it for a while and are waiting to have our career and business affairs in order first.

 

This is the question that begs an answer: You are already doing cohabitation. Playing house is identical in marriage and living together. The farts smell the same, the food taste the same, the arguments are similar, the lovemaking is the same, etc.

 

At this time you have stated that you need to wait to put your business and careers in order. I believe that is a good idea before cohabitation, however once you are cohabitating I don't see why you must wait.

 

Why must you complete your education and career before marriage if you are already living together?

 

I think you're making some assumptions which are incorrect in our case. It's not that we must wait - it's that we'd rather have some more answers before going through the rigmarole of an official engagement and marriage. We may have to relocate soon, and neither of us feels comfortable making plans for an actual ceremony/reception until we know where we'll be (and I mean that literally - which state, which town, etc.), and we'd rather not have family nagging and prodding about a wedding and a long engagement.

 

As for the engagement itself, he insists on buying a traditional ring, and I don't feel comfortable with him spending the money until we settle the issue of him finding a new job and moving. His current job pays comfortably, but we need to save the money for moving expenses if necessary, and for supporting ourselves if I can't find another job quickly. We're already living together and doing well, so I don't see the point in rushing into an official engagement and marriage ceremony when our immediate financial future is rather uncertain. I don't consider myself less committed nor do I consider our relationship less serious because the intent and attitude are both there.

 

At this point, I don't think I could accept a marriage proposal from someone without having lived with them or spent long periods of time in the same place first. Just a personal preference.

 

Those that need to test the partner are by definition less committed. Do you agree?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, I would consider myself to be less committed if I didn't feel comfortable moving in with someone or didn't feel comfortable spending long periods of time with them in the same place. I wouldn't accept a marriage proposal from someone I wasn't 100% sure I wanted to be with.

[zengirl]

Pierre, couples that WANT a wedding (that I know) will often wait to get engaged for their careers to catch up. Weddings are expensive. Besides, if you know it's going to happen, there really is no rush.

 

My best friend has owned property with her fiance for 4 years and been living with him for 9. (They're 33.) They just got engaged two years ago (BIG, fancy wedding, though she has a wedding fund her parents gave her, so they weren't saving---but it takes forever to book these things apparently). They have 3 cats, they've had joint checking accounts for half a decade, and there really is no difference between their lives and being married, yes. So why didn't they get married? They were busy. And a wedding is time-consuming. They always knew they WOULD get married, but they never want kids so there wasn't any rush.

 

FTR, I would've thought they were a bit crazy when they first moved in if I knew them, as they'd only been dating 3 months. But they knew they wanted to be together forever even then. By the time I knew them, that was evident. Neither one of them is anti-marriage or ever had doubts. And he had said he was going to propose long before he did (and like I said, they bought a house together ages ago, which is more financially committed than marriage in some ways). They just didn't get around to it.

[sweetjasmine]

My best friend has owned property with her fiance for 4 years and been living with him for 9. (They're 33.) They just got engaged two years ago (BIG, fancy wedding, though she has a wedding fund her parents gave her, so they weren't saving---but it takes forever to book these things apparently). They have 3 cats, they've had joint checking accounts for half a decade, and there really is no difference between their lives and being married, yes. So why didn't they get married? They were busy. And a wedding is time-consuming. They always knew they WOULD get married, but they never want kids so there wasn't any rush.

 

FTR, I would've thought they were a bit crazy when they first moved in if I knew them, as they'd only been dating 3 months. But they knew they wanted to be together forever even then. By the time I knew them, that was evident. Neither one of them is anti-marriage or ever had doubts. And he had said he was going to propose long before he did (and like I said, they bought a house together ages ago, which is more financially committed than marriage in some ways). They just didn't get around to it.

 

Sounds a little similar to my situation, though we don't own property or have joint bank accounts. We've adopted two pets and have made other major purchases together. I'm one of the two beneficiaries on his insurance policy. His family members have referred to me as a daughter-in-law/sister-in-law. My family members treat him the same way. We share expenses comfortably without keeping track of who paid how much and "hey you owe me X for this." We both view marriage as a positive thing and have discussed it for at least two years now. We've been ring shopping and have looked at houses, sharing what we each do and don't want when we're in a position to buy our own.

 

So given the variation between cohabitating couples, I don't think living together or not living together tells you much of anything anymore.

[Pierre]

I agree, for the most part.

 

 

 

We may have to relocate soon, and neither of us feels comfortable making plans for an actual ceremony/reception until we know where we'll be (and I mean that literally - which state, which town, etc.), and we'd rather not have family nagging and prodding about a wedding and a long engagement.

 

As for the engagement itself, he insists on buying a traditional ring, and I don't feel comfortable with him spending the money until we settle the issue of him finding a new job and moving. His current job pays comfortably, but we need to save the money for moving expenses if necessary, and for supporting ourselves if I can't find another job quickly.

 

Great, you are living together with the goal of marriage. Nothing wrong with that.:love:

 

I cannot see fault with your plans.

 

The fact that he wants to give you a ring is nothing but a ritual, however this ritual shows that he has a higher level of commitment.

 

Rituals also enrich the human condition.

[Pierre]

Pierre, couples that WANT a wedding (that I know) will often wait to get engaged for their careers to catch up. Weddings are expensive. Besides, if you know it's going to happen, there really is no rush.

 

My best friend has owned property with her fiance for 4 years and been living with him for 9. (They're 33.) They just got engaged two years ago (BIG, fancy wedding, though she has a wedding fund her parents gave her, so they weren't saving---but it takes forever to book these things apparently). They have 3 cats, they've had joint checking accounts for half a decade, and there really is no difference between their lives and being married, yes. So why didn't they get married? They were busy. And a wedding is time-consuming. They always knew they WOULD get married, but they never want kids so there wasn't any rush.

 

FTR, I would've thought they were a bit crazy when they first moved in if I knew them, as they'd only been dating 3 months. But they knew they wanted to be together forever even then. By the time I knew them, that was evident. Neither one of them is anti-marriage or ever had doubts. And he had said he was going to propose long before he did (and like I said, they bought a house together ages ago, which is more financially committed than marriage in some ways). They just didn't get around to it.

 

Despite the above. You know anecdotal evidence is not admissible in research.

 

No disagreement!

[eerie_reverie]

This has become a really interesting thread. Thanks to everyone who has shared their views.

 

With the way I look at cohabitation, all the talk about commitment and marriage is almost a moot point, because in my mind, they AREN'T equivalent or even substitutes.

 

If I were to move in with my BF tomorrow, it would not be to test-drive the relationship, becuase I believe it's a substitute for marriage, or anything like that. It would be because I want to move in - that's all. Of COURSE, as Pierre has mention, the probably of failure will be higher than if we were married - we aren't making a commitment to stay together forever, after all. We're just moving in.

 

But for my personal situation, I don't necessarily see a problem with that. Marriage is not an immediate goal of mine, and I'm not sure I want to marry him - I don't know him well enough to make that commitment righ now. The cohabitation is the end in itself.

 

I'm not saying I am planning to move in just yet, though. As much as I would prefer to live with him over my current roommates and as practical a decision as it woudl be, there is the painful-breakup risk to consider in all of this.

[Janesays]

Unless I'm engaged to the guy and the date is set, we're not living together. Money is not a concern of mine and I like my space and independence, so having our own places is a GOOD thing in my book. The only reason I'd mix my fiances and space is if I were planning on a building a life with a person.

[Pierre]

 

I'm not sure I want to marry him - I don't know him well enough to make that commitment righ now. The cohabitation is the end in itself.

 

I'm not saying I am planning to move in just yet, though. As much as I would prefer to live with him over my current roommates and as practical a decision as it woudl be, there is the painful-breakup risk to consider in all of this.

 

It is OK if you don't believe in marriage or a more permanent union.

 

However, I would never move in with a woman that I don't know well or if I don't see her as a potential mate or soul mate. That is asking for trouble. I don't want to have someone like that in my face 24/7.

 

You might as well move in with a room mate like you are doing now. It seems you have low expectations. Despite not believing in marriage you should move in with someone that you consider much better than this guy.

[eerie_reverie]

It is OK if you don't believe in marriage or a more permanent union.

 

However, I would never move in with a woman that I don't know well or if I don't see her as a potential mate or soul mate. That is asking for trouble. I don't want to have someone like that in my face 24/7.

 

You might as well move in with a room mate like you are doing now. It seems you have low expectations. Despite not believing in marriage you should move in with someone that you consider much better than this guy.

 

What are you talking about? I didn't say I didn't believe in marriage. I said after 2 months, I don't know yet if I want to marry HIM. Learn to read.

[zengirl]

Despite the above. You know anecdotal evidence is not admissible in research.

 

No disagreement!

 

I would never say anecdotal evidence was admissible in research, though technically a lot of social science comes from just observing various people doing stuff (which is what I did there). However, I would need to lay a scientific framework first and establish parameters and all that good stuff I didn't do.

[OliveOyl]

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

 

That's because ironically I think marriage can lead to complacency, which is the opposite of commitment.

 

You know how it is when the guy is courting the girl, (or vice versa) and people are generally on their best behavior during the first few months/year? Ideally saying thank you after dates; telling their loved one they are loved often; making sure to look their best, etc. etc.

 

That can all go by the wayside after one gets married. Maybe not right away, but there's a sense (especially for men) of "phew, I did it, now I don't have to do anything anymore." Bzzzt. Wrong.

 

As well, in my case, I don't really see that there are strong benefits of marriage for myself. I already did the marriage/kids thing and got the social validation part out of my system.

 

Interestingly though I do love the whole ceremony aspect of weddings: the dress, the rings, the diamonds, the flowers, the music, etc. I think weddings are sooo pretty and romantic.

 

Marriage however... I've always thought marriage should have renewable term limits for 5 years. Then people would give more thought to keeping the flame alive if the contract was coming up for renewal the next year....

[zengirl]

That's because ironically I think marriage can lead to complacency, which is the opposite of commitment.

 

Commitment is a promise. Which in no way is an antonym to complacency (experiencing self-satisfaction, usually to an extreme degree and with ignorance). So, I don't get this opposite thing unless you're using these words to mean way different things than they do. . . Of course, commitment can help facilitate complacency, but they're in no way opposites.

 

People do become more real over time, but I've always thought that was a good thing, personally. Whether they become lazy or not is a matter of individual psychology (and usually those who do the whirlwind courtship the most MUST become at least somewhat lazier and, ironically, usually become the laziest of all, in my observation, because some levels of courtship are unsustainable long-term). I don't want a guy who sneaks out of bed to brush his teeth every morning or never snips at me when he's sleepy. . . I want a real person, with faults and all. Otherwise, it all just feels fake to me.

 

That said, of course, both people should always keep TRYING, but they should always keep trying for themselves, not for the other person. And I think the idea that someone has promised to be with you, regardless of injury or sickness or poverty or whatever could happen is powerful. If those renewable terms existed (and they basically do -- it's called divorce), it'd be like a business transaction, constantly looking if you want to keep your stock or sell it for something better. It all sounds very sad to me.

 

I don't want the social validation, personally. I just want someone to love me enough that they'd love me even if we went through hell and back and for him to promise it and really mean it. And I want to love someone that much. Even when he's grumpy, or stubbly, or has morning breath, or ages, or loses his job, or gets cancer, or whatever. That's what being family means, only a husband/wife is the family you get to choose.

[torn_curtain]

I think it's too soon for you to live together. I would wait until your relationship is more serious and you know him better. You've only been together two months.