Living together before marriage?

[Michelle83]

Do you see it as a must?

 

Assume you aren't spending almost every night at one or the others houses (so basically you both typically sleep at your own place).

[soccerrprp]

I didn't, but I do now.

 

At my age, 40s, I need to know if I will be compatible in a number of ways. It's one thing to date, it's a whole other thing to see the day to day responses, habits, etc.

 

I think it's a must.

[Raena]

I wouldn't marry a man that I hadn't lived with first.

[Valen]

I did a search on this topic. According to statistics, couples who live together before marriage has a higher divorces rate than couples who don't. So I guess it's not entirely true that it will help you prepare for marriage. I personally don't care either way, just depends on each couples what they're more comfortable with.

[bear602]

Often men dont see the need to marry you if they already had you true living together or sex with you before marriage.

 

i hate to admit it...but this is absolutely true.

[carhill]

I could see cohabiting as an efficient and valuable experience for young folks but for folks my age, most of whom have been married and have their own homes and have pretty much seen it all in the relationship arena, the 'day to day' is well known and easily discerned with association over time.

 

I personally have no interest in cohabiting with someone I'm not married to. Hence, I live alone. I'm good with that.

[AMusing]

I did a search on this topic. According to statistics, couples who live together before marriage has a higher divorces rate than couples who don't. So I guess it's not entirely true that it will help you prepare for marriage. I personally don't care either way, just depends on each couples what they're more comfortable with.

 

I've heard this finding before, and it really bothers me: people take a statistical correlation and interpret it as causative. There are so many confounding factors here, the statistic is nearly meaningless. For example: deeply religious people are less likely to live together before marriage. They are also more likely to "not believe" in divorce, or be more strongly pressured to stay together than a secular couple. Living together prior to marriage is also associated with lower SES, lower education levels, and younger ages. Guess what? Those factors are also associated with higher divorce rates. It's not a wildly strong association anyway: 60% of couples who didn't live together are still together 15 years later, vs 53% of couples who did live together (reported from the CDC). It's significant, but not ground-breaking.

 

Sure, we can argue that living together beforehand diminishes the strength of commitment and therefore directly leads to increased likelihood of divorce, but I haven't seen any proof of that. I have seen no evidence to think, "If I choose to live with my boyfriend now, once we are married we are much more likely to get divorced than if we decided to live apart until marriage."

 

Personally, living together first isn't a must. In fact, I'd want to be engaged (or have a plan on how we'll be moving towards marriage) before shacking up with someone (again). Moving at my age is too much of pain to do for someone you weren't pretty damn sure was going to be around for life.

[Never Again]

I've heard this finding before, and it really bothers me: people take a statistical correlation and interpret it as causative. There are so many confounding factors here, the statistic is nearly meaningless. For example: deeply religious people are less likely to live together before marriage. They are also more likely to "not believe" in divorce, or be more strongly pressured to stay together than a secular couple. Living together prior to marriage is also associated with lower SES, lower education levels, and younger ages. Guess what? Those factors are also associated with higher divorce rates. It's not a wildly strong association anyway: 60% of couples who didn't live together are still together 15 years later, vs 53% of couples who did live together (reported from the CDC). It's significant, but not ground-breaking.

 

Sure, we can argue that living together beforehand diminishes the strength of commitment and therefore directly leads to increased likelihood of divorce, but I haven't seen any proof of that. I have seen no evidence to think, "If I choose to live with my boyfriend now, once we are married we are much more likely to get divorced than if we decided to live apart until marriage."

 

Personally, living together first isn't a must. In fact, I'd want to be engaged (or have a plan on how we'll be moving towards marriage) before shacking up with someone (again). Moving at my age is too much of pain to do for someone you weren't pretty damn sure was going to be around for life.

 

There is a possible indirect causative reason in this case, however.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/201303/does-cohabitation-lead-more-divorces

 

It's not so much the "living together increases the chance for divorce" as it is the "living together increases the chance that a couple that SHOULDN'T get married will...which will later lead to divorce". Cohabitation can keep a sinking ship afloat long enough to make poor choices, I guess.

[soccerrprp]

I've heard this finding before, and it really bothers me: people take a statistical correlation and interpret it as causative. There are so many confounding factors here, the statistic is nearly meaningless. For example: deeply religious people are less likely to live together before marriage. They are also more likely to "not believe" in divorce, or be more strongly pressured to stay together than a secular couple. Living together prior to marriage is also associated with lower SES, lower education levels, and younger ages. Guess what? Those factors are also associated with higher divorce rates. It's not a wildly strong association anyway: 60% of couples who didn't live together are still together 15 years later, vs 53% of couples who did live together (reported from the CDC). It's significant, but not ground-breaking.

 

Sure, we can argue that living together beforehand diminishes the strength of commitment and therefore directly leads to increased likelihood of divorce, but I haven't seen any proof of that. I have seen no evidence to think, "If I choose to live with my boyfriend now, once we are married we are much more likely to get divorced than if we decided to live apart until marriage."

 

Personally, living together first isn't a must. In fact, I'd want to be engaged (or have a plan on how we'll be moving towards marriage) before shacking up with someone (again). Moving at my age is too much of pain to do for someone you weren't pretty damn sure was going to be around for life.

 

I agree. I remember reading such a study and having numerous questions regarding the findings that it did not address.

 

I believe living with someone is a must, provided, as you suggest, that there is an engagement or serious plans to move in that direction and eventual marriage.

[d0nnivain]

I have lived with 3 men in my life.

 

 

The first we were together for over 10 years & he repeatedly fed me all that BS about who needs a piece of paper.

 

 

The second guy wanted to marry me but I wanted no part of that.

 

 

The third guy is my husband. The only reason we lived together before marriage was that his lease on his apartment ended 3 months before our wedding & there was no point in him getting a short term lease & moving twice.

 

 

I was glad he was all settled in before the wedding so that when got home from the HM we didn't have to deal with moving & decorating etc.

 

 

If you are already planning on getting married / are engaged, it's not a big deal. If you are thinking about living together as a trial run to see if you want to get married, it probably won't have an overall positive impact on the relationship & is no guarantee that your marriage will last.

[nomadic_butterfly]

Often men dont see the need to marry you if they already had you true living together or sex with you before marriage.

 

Precisely. This and my personal moral convictions deter me from taking this route. I still think spending entire weekends/week/vacations together can tell daily habits. One can only put up a facade for so long. If I stay over friday-sunday every month same difference. I will fool around (I need some kind of hanky panky) but no one will dip in my cookie jar before he puts a ring on it. Hanky pank will also let me see if he has erectile dysfunction, if the size is right and if he is a quickie kind of guy. Anyway this means only serious suitors who share my convictions will apply and it makes it a hec of a lot easier to see who is on the same page as me.

[FitChick]

for folks my age, most of whom have been married and have their own homes and have pretty much seen it all in the relationship arena, the 'day to day' is well known and easily discerned with association over time.

If you are spending several nights a week together, taking vacations together, weekend getaways, over a period of a year or more, you don't need to live with someone because you've already discovered their annoying habits and they yours.

[AMusing]

There is a possible indirect causative reason in this case, however.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/201303/does-cohabitation-lead-more-divorces

 

It's not so much the "living together increases the chance for divorce" as it is the "living together increases the chance that a couple that SHOULDN'T get married will...which will later lead to divorce". Cohabitation can keep a sinking ship afloat long enough to make poor choices, I guess.

 

Absolutely, rushing into living with someone is a sure disaster (but I'd argue, still better than rushing into marriage). It's harder to break up with someone if doing so means you'll have to break your lease at the same time. Which is why it's the commitment prior to cohabitation that is more important than a "don't live together before marriage" rule (and studies, including the one you linked, support this belief). This isn't an issue of cohabitation in itself; it's rushing to entangle yourself with someone before you're really sure your partner is the person for you.

 

There was a paper cited in the PT article you linked; it's quite interesting, and they give a nice review of previous literature. Anyway, they report that, after controlling for "selectivity" (i.e. taking into account that folks who cohabit are different than folks who don't) the risk of divorce was, in fact, lower in couples who lived together before marriage than those who didn't.

 

Another cool finding from a different study: prior serial cohabitation may potentially increase the risk for divorce, but cohabiting with JUST your (eventual) spouse prior to marriage does not apparently increase the risk of divorce.

[Woggle]

EVerybody should test living with somebody before they make it official.

[Johnson1]

Do you see it as a must?

 

YES!

 

There's nothing worse than marrying someone before knowing what they're really like in a domesticated setting and finding out the hard way that their querks drive you insane.

 

Although I have an even better idea (and I speak from experience) Don't get married at all!

[MissBee]

Do you see it as a must?

 

Assume you aren't spending almost every night at one or the others houses (so basically you both typically sleep at your own place).

 

I don't see it as a must.

 

In the serious relationships I've had, I often would spend a lot of time sleeping over, staying for a week at a time sometimes etc. so I got the experience of what it is like to wake up with this person, do day to day things, see their habits etc. However, I didn't live with them and I am glad I did not. Mostly because when things ended it was a lot easier when I had my own place to go back to, as well as sometimes I wanted my own space.

 

I am not opposed to living with a boyfriend, but for me, it would probably be that we're engaged before I decide to do that. Having separate places but spending lots of time together works for me when there is no larger commitment there. It also helps when things end, if they do.

[MissBee]

If you are spending several nights a week together, taking vacations together, weekend getaways, over a period of a year or more, you don't need to live with someone because you've already discovered their annoying habits and they yours.

 

Precisely.

 

It is bizarre to me that someone can truly believe that if they've say been together 5 years, vacationed together, had several sleep overs, do lots of things together, hang out with this person's family and friends etc. that they will have NO CLUE who they're marrying until they share one lease. It makes no sense. Also annoying habits are not what relationships should be based on. EVERYONE has annoying habits. What should determine if I'm gonna marry you is are we compatible fundamentally: emotionally, spiritually, what we want out of life, how we think about finances, how we think about the future, do you love me in the way I need to be loved etc. If you leave the toilet seat up or have some weird house habit, it will annoy me, but those things are not fundamental and I can work with that and I'm not gonna all of a sudden break up with you because of it, and it is also unlikely that if we've been together for a while (which frankly, I'm likely not gonna marry anyone I haven't been with for at least 2-3 years) that I don't know these things about you until I move all my stuff to your house.

[carhill]

If you are spending several nights a week together, taking vacations together, weekend getaways, over a period of a year or more, you don't need to live with someone because you've already discovered their annoying habits and they yours.

Yep, by the time my exW and I got married and she moved in to my house, I knew exactly what to expect and there were zero surprises and that remained for the duration of our M, relevant to living together. That area of the M had no complaints from me. We're all different.

 

Of course, for people who have no intention of marrying, cohabiting is or can be their end product. That's another area where clear communication is paramount, so both partners are on the same page. For example, if my exW and I agreed we would never get married but wanted to live together, we would have done that. That's not my style so, if she didn't want to get married, we would have split up due to incompatibility in that area.

 

The only people I know in my social circle who are living together before getting married are some of my friend's children and grandchildren and nearly all of them who are cohabiting are currently engaged. Next year is going to be a busy wedding year for us.

[HokeyReligions]

Often men dont see the need to marry you if they already had you true living together or sex with you before marriage.

 

Or as my mom would say "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free"

 

I agreed with my mom but hubby and I did live together first. In our case we were already engaged and had the date set. We lived together hecause our leases were expiring and it made financial sense. He was still nervous on the wedding day.

[Johnson1]

because he is getting the benefits without the responsibility. I do think in general, men don't care for marriage.

 

Thats the whole point, to test the waters to see how responsible the person is before you make it official. If a man (or a woman) becomes soured to the idea of marriage during the course of living together, it tells you right there that getting married before living together would've been a mistake and would end up in divorce.

 

The smart men don't care for marriage. The ones that have lived thought it. Being single builds character and strength in a person. Marriage destroys it by making people become complacent and reliant on each other.

[Woggle]

Then why do so many men have live in girlfriends they get along with but refuse to make it official?

 

Marriage doesn't do that...lack of commitment and poor character does that. Actually- my whole point of my first post was living together and giving a guy all the benefits without responsibility makes men complacent. They don't want anything else after.

 

I am happily married myself but you sure do make marriage seem fun.

[Johnson1]

Then why do so many men have live in girlfriends they get along with but refuse to make it official.

 

That isn't always the case Tara. My ex and I lived together for 2 years before we got married, and we were married for 26 years. Besides, it can work both ways. It gives the woman the same opportunity to walk away if she decides she doesn't like what she sees.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Vocals5

[TheGuard13]

In my experience, a big part of marriage working is sharing financial and household responsibilities. You can't really learn how well you two do that until you do, in fact, share the bills, expenses, etc.

[Michelle83]

Thanks for all the replies. There's a lot of really good points here and more on the no side than I thought.

 

I can definitely understand the no argument for it may not lead to marriage if you're already living together.

 

What got me initially thinking of all this, the guy I'm seeing, we're doing really well and both hope that marriage will be in our future. At the same time, we're both pretty high maintenance people and like our space (and that isn't an issue since we both are the same like that and totally accept it in each other).

 

We each own our own smaller condos, but have agreed living in one together would feel a bit too cramped.

 

But then at the same time, it'd be far easier for me to just move in than start spending some nights there, some nights here, etc...just because I have a lot of stuff I'd want to constantly be taking with me. Just easier if it's in one place where I sleep.

 

So lately we'll just go to our own homes. I don't have an issue really with it, but wonder if it's bad to continue on this way until we get married.

 

We both have decided we will build a house together once we're engaged so then once that's done, we'd move in together.

 

But that's a long way off... probably 2-3 years from now.

 

I suggested to him renting a duplex together so it's a bit more space and we can live together but he didn't seem too up for that idea. I think to him he's a bit against the idea of renting, which I can see, but kind of puts us stuck where we are.

[d0nnivain]

I suggested to him renting a duplex together so it's a bit more space and we can live together but he didn't seem too up for that idea. I think to him he's a bit against the idea of renting, which I can see, but kind of puts us stuck where we are.

 

 

Do not purchase your primary real estate jointly with somebody you aren't married to without competent legal advice. As ugly as it can be splitting up a marital residence after a divorce, it's 10x worse if you weren't married. Who holds the mortgage? Can you afford to both buy each other out? Will the bank let one of you out? If one of you holds the mortgage & is on the deed, what if anything does the other one get when s/he moves out? The answers to those questions will vary from case to case but you need to address them before you sign on the dotted line.