Living together before marriage

[GracieRuth]

Relm: first off, mazeltov on your recent wedding. May you two have all joy and success and be blessed with children.

Second, this is kind of off topic, but I just found it odd that he was obviously your boyfriend, but you referred to him as a friend. You do realize that relationships in which there is sexual attraction are not considered platonic friendships? Okay so you probably do, and I'm probably totally patronizing you, and sorry if I am. But it was just a little to unusual to let it pass without a request for clarity. Chock it up to my unreasonable desire to reasonably understand an unreasonable world.

 

[barbad0s]

Have you ever lived with someone for an extended period of time?

nope

is asking questions to which you already know the answer a hobby?

I would not marry someone without having first lived with them.

I would not live with a man unless I felt certain that I wanted to be with him.


A bit of a conundrum, no?

lul yus

 

[magister343]

The 50% number was based more on assumptions than data. It is rather hard to get good data on the divorce rate (many of the largest states do not publish their data), but the real numbers seem to be closer to one third than one half. The divorce rate shot upwards during the 1970s, when no fault divorces became legal in most states, but seems to have been decreasing since 1979.


It is estimated that 2000 years ago the divorce rate was over 80%. That may not be a fair comparison though, when you consider that under Roman law the only thing that a divorce required was for one party to declare in writing that the relationship was over. I'm sure our divorce rate would be higher if divorce required only a post-it note written during a highly emotional argument rather than a protracted legal battle. (Their divorce procedures were a lot simpler, because it went without saying that the man would get everything and the wife nothing. Only the Paterfamilias could legally own property, and there was no such thing as alimony. The wife could initiate divorce, but would be stupid to do so unless she had a wealthy father or lover to support her.)

 

[This]

You do realize that relationships in which there is sexual attraction are not considered platonic friendships?

What do you call a relationship in which there is sexual attraction but no commitment or official boundaries? this is a serious question as quite a few of my friends and I share a mutual sexual attraction and tension. A lot of times that understanding leads to more intimate depths within platonic conversations. Keep in mind this by no means insinuates that I have sex with lots of my friends, lol. and in fact I really wouldn't want to as the friendships are often more valuable to me than a relationship would be. Just that there is a tension or attraction there. I'm curious as what to refer to them as if not "friendships"

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If people live together before marriage, it indicates a willingness in the parties to enter into intimate engagement with an uncommitted romantic interest.

This does not bode well for a committed, monogamous marriage, because eventually almost all married people have some sort of romantic attraction to other people.


So, if marriage is a goal, then no.

 

[the]

I may have answered before but I forget...


I think it is better to not live together, if you are religious. But I think the very idea of dating is drastically different for those serious about living in this way.

I think it is inconsequential if you are not religious, but probably more convenient and monetarily efficient.

 

[Relm]

If people live together before marriage, it indicates a willingness in the parties to enter into intimate engagement with an uncommitted romantic interest.

This does not bode well for a committed, monogamous marriage, because eventually almost all married people have some sort of romantic attraction to other people.


So, if marriage is a goal, then no.

Maybe it is just the type of friends I have... but I can think of at least half a dozen couples whom I know personally (besides us!) that were committed pairs before they moved in together and are now happily married.

 

[FindingMyself]

I personally don't feel like I could do it. For me, marriage is a commitment and a very important and spiritual one. While I'm ok with premarital sex within a committed relationship, it seems to me that there should be *something* to make the marriage more "special", if that makes sense. Something should be different between pre- and post-marriage than just the spouse's last name (if they so choose).

 

[jupiterswoon]

Statistically, women are more likely to be phsycially abused if they are cohabiting rather than married. The likelihoode of it leading to marraige is very small, and among cohabiters that DO end up tying the knot, they are FAR more likely to divorce later on. The scientists who have run these studies have intepreted the data to suggest that those who choose to cohabit have two problems:
1. They mistakenly assume that cohabiting will reveal if a relationship will work as a marraige, when in reality people act very differently in a committed marraige than a non-commital living arrangement.
2. Those who choose to cohabit do so primarily out of difficulties with commitment, making them statistically more likely to divorce even if they do eventually marry.

Basically, if a stable marriage is your goal, the last thing you should do is cohabit. If cohabitation is what you really like, then it's probably a good idea not to marry anyhow, as you are not likely to stick around.

I could go into the issues of how this impacts children, but in my experience, people who choose to cohabit don't usually care how they effect their kids.

Yeap, I know my opinion is a strong one, and very counter-cultural. But you knew when you asked the question that there would be these differences of opinion, eh?

Journal artical connecting cohabitatin with domestic violence: http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/kenney_mclanahan.pdf

Journal artical linking cohabitation with higher divorce rate:
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/1/207.short

I went to the article that you linked GracieRuth and it said this:


"Recent evidence from Canada and Sweden indicates that cohabitation prior to marriage significantly increases the risk of subsequent marital dissolution. In this article we present results testing the hypothesis that cohabitation increases marital disruption in the United States. We find that premarital cohabitation increases the risk of subsequent marital instability. However, the effect of cohabitation can be attributed to the fact that cohabitants have spent more time in union than noncohabitants. Once total length of union is accounted for, there is no difference in marital disruption between cohabitants and noncohabitants. We argue that subsequent research comparing cohabitants and noncohabitants with respect to marital behaviors that are duration dependent should account for the total amount of time spent in union."


This means, for the most part that people who cohabitate are together typically just as long as people in marriages. What I also take into account when looking at divorce statistics is that given most people are extraverts and sensors, it makes perfect sense that some unions don't last as long as others. Especially given the fact that most people never seek to truly know themselves or come to terms with reality and expect marriage to solve all of their problems.

 

[JGirl]

Statistically, women are more likely to be phsycially abused if they are cohabiting rather than married. The likelihoode of it leading to marraige is very small, and among cohabiters that DO end up tying the knot, they are FAR more likely to divorce later on. The scientists who have run these studies have intepreted the data to suggest that those who choose to cohabit have two problems:
1. They mistakenly assume that cohabiting will reveal if a relationship will work as a marraige, when in reality people act very differently in a committed marraige than a non-commital living arrangement.
2. Those who choose to cohabit do so primarily out of difficulties with commitment, making them statistically more likely to divorce even if they do eventually marry.

Basically, if a stable marriage is your goal, the last thing you should do is cohabit. If cohabitation is what you really like, then it's probably a good idea not to marry anyhow, as you are not likely to stick around.

I could go into the issues of how this impacts children, but in my experience, people who choose to cohabit don't usually care how they effect their kids.

Yeap, I know my opinion is a strong one, and very counter-cultural. But you knew when you asked the question that there would be these differences of opinion, eh?

Journal artical connecting cohabitatin with domestic violence: http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/kenney_mclanahan.pdf

Journal artical linking cohabitation with higher divorce rate:
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/1/207.short

no offense but i think this theory is nonsense.
research papers aside, i have experience with both marriage and commmon law relationships and the data does not support my findings
in any case here is a quote from the second link you provided
" We find that premarital cohabitation increases the risk of subsequent marital instability. However, the effect of cohabitation can be attributed to the fact that cohabitants have spent more time in union than noncohabitants. Once total length of union is accounted for, there is no difference in marital disruption between cohabitants and noncohabitants."
(my underlining)

 

[Quiet]

Living with someone is the best way to get to know them. I have lived in several different sharehouses and have lived with many different people. I have lived with friends, strangers, family, fellow students, and my 2 previous partners. Living with someone can be hard and you essentialy see people 'naked' or bare. All those things that you can normally hide are revealed and out there when you live with someone. Its a true test of compatability. It tests friendships, I have lost a couple of friendships this way, and strengthened others. Marriage is a big committment that shouldnt be entered into lightly by those that are serious about it. Its not just about love, its about compatiblity, effort, compromise and life direction. Its about two people, as individuals, and as partnership making a serious commitment to each other. It is about living with someone and with yourself for the rest of your lives (hypothetically). Its success has nothing to do with cultural institutions and the expectations of other people. Its about two individuals connecting and growing together, hopefully in a way that is healthy and beneficial for both individuals. This connection can result in the creation of children. You should know someone before you marry them. Its too serious a commitment to take lightly. You life is too precious to enter into life long contracts without informed understanding. Experience and mistakes are the only way to learn. Living together before marriage just makes sense. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain

 

[unpersons]

Yes, absolutely
Yes, but it's not for everyone

And in the irony department... people who voted... "Definitely no"... are probably the same people who don't want me to get married anyways. No marriage, no cohabitation... just outright boned on this one.

 

[Whiskers]

I'm only going to speak for myself on this one, but to me, living with a partner made pragmatic sense.

My current station in life requires me to have a roommate by financial necessity. My choices were my boyfriend of four years, or a stranger, as none of my [very few] local friends were in need of an extra tenant. My logic was that, if I needed to live with somebody, why not the person who I trust the most, as opposed to rolling the dice on someone I don't know whatsoever? Even if we broke up, my boyfriend is the kind of person who's more or less antithetical to drama, relationship-related or otherwise, so I'm relatively confident that we could discuss alternate arrangements in a reasonable way.

I can't say I'm convinced that this decision would be adverse to marriage prospects for us in the future, but I suppose time will tell.

 

[Gaze]

My feeling on this has changed slightly. I do think couples should wait if they can to live together. For example, I'd wait until I knew the person well, and once we're sure that we are life partners (although of course, nothing is ever guaranteed). But if living together before marriage was not an option, at least staying with each other for a month or so to see how we handle living arrangements would be a possibility.

 

[Rferraris]

I think it's crazy to marry without living together first. How else could you know if you'll get along?

 

[Barnabas]

Research done by who? you know more then half of marriages end in divorce right?

I just recent read an article that on a study conducted in 2008, it said divorce rates were closer to 35% then 50%, with variations based on creed, culture and money.


On the idea of cohabitation, I chose "in most cases probably not." I dislike the idea of test driving a relationship like it's a car, I'm a bigger fan of marriage counselling. You get to ask and answer all the questions that come up during cohabitation, with someone who has the experience to point out things and offer solutions to problems you haven't even thought of yet.

 

[Billy]

I just recent read an article that on study conducted in 2008, it said divorce rates were closer to 35% then 50%, with variations based on creed, culture and money.


On the idea of cohabitation, I chose "in most cases probably not." I dislike the idea of test driving a relationship like it's a car, I'm a bigger fan of marriage counselling. You get to ask and answer all the questions that come up during cohabitation, with someone who has the experience to point out things and offer solutions to problems you haven't even thought of yet.

Dont believe everything you read, I only know a handful of happy married couples out of 100s... granted my sampling is small, albeit I believe It is about accurate to what I have seen on a cultural level. Marriage is a joke, a bad joke left over from a time when it was more important. (a time when we didnt have DNA testing for paternity tests) Even so... for me, marriage counselling (no offense but LOL) is like discussing buying fire insurance when your house is on fire.

 

[Barnabas]

Dont believe everything you read, I only know a handful of happy married couples out of 100s... granted my sampling is small, albeit I believe It is about accurate to what I have seen on a cultural level. Marriage is a joke, a bad joke left over from a time when it was more important. (a time when we didnt have DNA testing for paternity tests) Even so... for me, marriage counselling (no offense but LOL) is like discussing buying fire insurance when your house is on fire.

I don't that's why I fished around trying to figure out a more accurate statistic about marriage, a flat 50% never made sense to me.
here check the study yourself.

As for marriage counselling bit your going to need to explain your analogy to me, I think I'm getting it but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Billy]

I don't that's why I fished around trying to figure out a more accurate statistic about marriage, a flat 50% never made sense to me.
here check the study yourself.

As for marriage counselling bit your going to need to explain your analogy to me, I think I'm getting it but I'm not entirely sure.

Not surprisingly BARNA.Org is a faith based group for "research" which is a fucking oxymoron.

As for my analogy, well skipping cohabitation before marriage and instead hoping that counseling will work instead is like considering fire insurance when the house is on fire. The house is ALREADY on fire once the insurance is needed. By the time you get to counseling you are probably a day late and a dollar short in figuring out you are just incompatible.

 

[Barnabas]

Not surprisingly BARNA.Org is a faith based group for "research" which is a fucking oxymoron.

As for my analogy, well skipping cohabitation before marriage and instead hoping that counseling will work instead is like considering fire insurance when the house is on fire. The house is ALREADY on fire once the insurance is needed. By the time you get to counseling you are probably a day late and a dollar short in figuring out you are just incompatible.

I think we might be talking about different things, as for the research, it seems to be ignorant to just dismiss them because they are a faith based organization, di you even read the article?
I'm not sure were talking about the same kind of counselling