Cohabitation. Should we do it?

[rawesomerio]

Alex and I have been together for over a year and we've thought about moving in together, what do you think?
I'm currently finishing up my last year at college and he's already graduated and works full time.
I live with a roommate that I just don't get along with/can't stand and the only other person that I would consider living with is Alex. He pretty much already lives with me.
The thing is I need to make a decision soon because my lease ends at the end of this month and I move into my new place at the beginning of June. I don't want to live with the roommate I have again.
What should I do? I need to make a decision by the end of this week.
This is something that I've thought about for a while before and I'm still not sure.
I'm 20 and he's 23.

[aguacate]

Yeah, my girlfried and I both decided not to live together before marriage. But on the weekends it feels like I'm living with her anyway. Then again, we're getting married in June. And really, spending the night over on weekends isn't anything at all like living together.

I think what attracts me most about waiting until we're married is the idea of starting a new life together. The marriage would symbolize the beginning of sharing literally everything and starting new with your mate. As has been pointed out on another thread here, you don't have to live with someone to get a good idea of what their cleaning habits and such are.

How serious are you with Alex? Have you thought about or talked about getting married? If that's the case I would be more inclined to wait. If not, I'm not really sure what to say.

[dtbmnec]

Not until you're both financially secure and have jobs...

Megan

[vegasgirls702]

I think it's a good idea to live with someone before marriage, I tell you it's not the same as staying over at each others places. Its completely different. Me and my husband dated for over a year before we moved in, and the first year was really rough, you learn alot more about the person when you live together. But for us we stuck it out and it paid off :) I am more in love with him today then I was 1 year ago. I think as the years pass we grow closer to each other.
I do think you should at least be engaged.

[erinwithane]

I don’t know. According to the statistics people who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate, but at the same time for me it would just be weird to living with somebody before you marry them.

I mean you should get to know the person as much as possible before you marry them and living with somebody is the best way to get to know a person. It would be irresponsible to not live together first……

Im conflicted.………

[rawesomerio]

I don’t know. According to the statistics people who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate, but at the same time for me it would just be weird to living with somebody before you marry them.

I mean you should get to know the person as much as possible before you marry them and living with somebody is the best way to get to know a person. It would be irresponsible to not live together first……

Im conflicted.………


That's exactly how I feel about the situation.

We have talked about marriage and life together 5, 10, 40 years from now and we're both in it for the long journey.

I'm leaning towards doing it... Though the divorce rate for those that cohabit are high and the stats for those who don't end up at the altar after cohabitation are also high, I think if we want this to work it will. Right?

He spends the night and pretty much lives here 5 days out of the week...

I just need to talk about this situation more.

I know that I want a formal agreement on rules and stuff that go on while we're living together... ie - chore day once a week, separate groceries, personal time, etc...

... Hmmm I think I answered my own question lol Thanks everyone!

[BabyDiva]

Given that stats are already against marriages lasting (over half fail) and that the rates of failure for those who cohabitated before marriage are higher than that (if they get married at all), I think it's foolish to believe you'd be the ONE couple who doesn't fall victim to that.

Marriage itself is hard enough, why would you want to invite in the idea of cohabitation prior to marriage which drops the chances of marital survival? To me, that is irresponsible. There is very little that you cannot learn about a person given open, honest communication. If you're observant in the dating stages, you should be fine. Afterall, 99% of our parents and grandparents, and great-grandparents did not live together, and (for most of us) the older they are, the longer and happier their marriage was. I think they had it right.

It seems more logical to me that you, perhaps, just find a single room or effenciency apartment and live on your own rather than move in with someone. Then you have no one to deal with, no clashes, no problems with breaking up and then having to face that person day in and day out, when you have a fight - you have a place to retreat to, a nest of your own. That seems like the best situation of all.

[aguacate]

^
|
|

That reminded me: after you have moved in together - you get comfortable living with each other. Will he still want to get married? Will you? Are you cool with it if not?

something else to consider

[paperdoll]

It isn't necessarily just about learning about the other person, however. It's about dealing with finances, with sharing space when you can't go back to your own apartment after an argument. Honestly, statistics aside, I think cohabitation before marriage is a GOOD idea. If it leads you to get divorced down the road, then clearly you weren't meant to be together in the first place.

My mom and stepdad lived together before they got married and they've got a great marriage. My mom and dad didn't live together before they got married and their marriage imploded fairly quickly. Statistics only indicate a probable outcome, they don't predict what is going to happen with one hundred percent accuracy.

[Barefoot Matt]

Based on your initial post, I think you should go for it. You've been together for a while, you're already "basically living together", and you need a place to live. Why not with him? My girlfriend and I lived together for 3 years before we went long-distance, and I don't regret it for a minute. If you're both mature and you love each other, you'll do just fine.

Disclaimer: while marriage is an option for us at some point in the future, we have no particular plans to get married, nor is it a particularly important concept for either of us. We plan to be together a long time (the plan is forever), but marriage may or may not be a part of that. To us, it's the relationship itself that's important, not the titles and the ceremonies. If you're concerned that you will no longer want to get married after living together for a while, you may want to take my advice with a grain of salt.

After reading some of the other posts, I have to make one more point. Some people argue that you'll want your own space to retreat to after a fight. Maybe my relationship is unique, but I can't remember ever leaving an argument (at least not for more than a few minutes) without resolving the issue first. If you want your relationship to be healthy, you have to learn to work things out; you can't always just retreat until you both cool down and forget about it, because eventually all those "forgotten" arguments will meld into a simmering resentment. Just my humble opinion.

[SweetiePie]

I think the reason the divorce rates are highger (and only slightly, if I'm not mistaken) for people who lived together before marraige is...guess what, they're doing what married couples are, but for longer! By the time they get married they have already dealt with the issues that arise when you live together and therfore have probably had more fights and arguements than those couples who don't live together will have in their newlywed phases.

Personally I also don't know what I'd do in this situation. I think a year is still pretty new, if you're talking about spending a lifetime together, and you should probably wait until you have your post-graduation job lined up and have started working. Finances are a big part of moving in together and I think you will be better off if you take some time so that you're not leaning on him for rent money (not that you would do that necessarily) and that you have time to adjust to a new lifestyle. In Jan i went from student full time to working full time and its def an adjustment, maybe wait until you're more settled into your career before you two move in.

I always said I'd never marry anyone I hadn't lived with, I'm influenced by parents who moved in together after 6 months of dating and are the happiest couple and still madly in love 25 years later, but I think if two people are together long enough before marraige that it may not be an issue. I don't like the idea that "once you're married, you're commited so people are more likely to work things out instead of breaking up because theyre not compatible to live together." Personally that sounds to me like 'i dont want to risk that my partner doesnt like living with me so I'm waiting until we're legally binded to take that chance." Then again, there's also something kind of idyllic about moving in together after you've taken your vows. So I am really for whatever makes you happy, I know I'd have a hard time making the decision to move in with a guy or not. Its a big step!

[BabyDiva]

SweetiePie (It feels weird calling someone that!),

The reason a bit more logical than that is because someone who sees their relationship as temporary or as a "trial basis" which is what the vast majority of those who are living together are doing (seeing if they could actually live together and function as a couple without the idea of "marriage") have a higher chance of viewing marriage as equally temporary IF they make it to that stage or not (since many who cohabitate take the "we're basically married anyway" mindset).

It is also statistically proven that those who involve themselves with pre-marital counseling with a licensed counselor or psychologist have MUCH higher success rates than those who don't. However, very few people will invest in it, even though it could potentially SAVE their marriage before it even starts.

Sort of odd, we'll justify what could destroy it yet not invest in what would save it. BTW - few psychologists would back up any reasons for living together in counseling considering the fact of mental anguish it causes if (when) the relationship ends and one of the two have to find arrangements immediately so as not to have to see them anymore, finances are mingled which could then create problems with a breakup, etc.

There is a huge difference between calling yourself in a "committed relationship" and being married. I'm engaged. I'll get married in less than 7 months. I consider my fiance and I very much committed, yet I would not move in with him and he wouldn't ask me to. 1) What if we discover through counseling mandated by our church that there is a problem? 2) Why run the risk of something that would dramatically reduce our chances of survival to and past the 5th year of marriage?

You can pull out all the examples you want. My sister and her husband lived together before they were married. They're going on 12 years. Does NOT mean they are the rule. It means they beat the odds. I believe it's bad form to believe you're the exception to the rule. Have dreams, sure. But don't be foolish enough to trust that if you go out on Daytona Beach (lightning capital of the US according to what I undertand) with a lightning rod in August that you won't get hit by lightning. The chances may be 40/60 that you won't get hit...but would you really take that chance?

[SweetiePie]

As I said, I see both sides. I think its completely personal and there is no right or wrong answer here. While statistics are nice, its a relationship, not a stock investment, and I think in the end you just have to go with what feels right.

[BabyDiva]

And sadly...that mentality ("do what feels right") is what lands many in divorce court. People are often looking for what "feels right" as opposed to what IS right in terms of relationships and marriage (and when it gets hard, it no longer "feels right" or it "loses it's magic" and divorce happens).

[Tootsie Pop]

Well, then who can judge what IS right if it doesnt feel right? As far as I know, no one has yet discovered a perfect equation for a perfect relationship. If it doesnt feel right, what more can you go on?

[paperdoll]

Not to mention, divorce isn't the end of the world. Does it suck? Yes, absolutely. Is it horrible? Yes, absolutely. But it's better than staying in an unhealthy relationship.

[SweetiePie]

Yeah, the way I see it is half of all marraiges end in divorce. You can plan and plot and strategize everything to try and ensure you won't be one of those, but in the end, theres still a 50/50 chance you will be. So you might as well follow your gut and do what will make you happy, because there are no gurantees.

[JHXMT]

It seems more logical to me that you, perhaps, just find a single room or effenciency apartment and live on your own rather than move in with someone. Then you have no one to deal with, no clashes, no problems with breaking up and then having to face that person day in and day out, when you have a fight - you have a place to retreat to, a nest of your own. That seems like the best situation of all.

And then people get married and then face all these potential problems then?

As others have said, there's no definitively right or wrong answer to this question, but why (hypothetically) is it better to avoid (rather than deal with) potential personality clashes until marriage?

I'm rather concerned that the response is going to be along the lines that 'the fact of being married will cause both partners to work harder at the relationship'. That logic, to me, smacks of using marriage too much as a motivator in its own right, rather than something that two already-motivated people should share.

If that makes sense. I dunno, it's late and I'm on the wine again. Everything I say at the moment should be taken with a couple of salt shakers. ;)

[BabyDiva]

My theory - it doesn't all of a sudden turn into an unhealthy relationship...it always was. There are certain patterns. It is exceptionally rare for someone to just wake up one day and decide to act a way that will drive their partner away. Most of these things are clashes that started LONG before marriage.

And I do believe there is a moral right and wrong. Speaking from my perspective as a Christian, I can make that sort of call because in my belief system I don't allow shades of grey, especially with something as sacred as marriage. I believe EVERYTHING can be worked out. May it take some time of separation? Possibly. Separating in order to seek help for an abuser is one thing, divorce is another.

Even in the cases of abuse and infidelity - warning signs are there. I nearly married one who could have been involved with both. He only got to the emotionally abusive phase (AFTER we were engaged) prior to that there were signs I ignored since I was "in love" (controlling, demanding, guilt tripping, not looking for mutual best interest only selfish gain, etc). Living with him would have magnified everything and could have put me in a dangerous situation.

Those things can all be seen before marriage if you're willing to open your eyes and look at someone honestly for who they are.

With my fiance and I, we already agreed that divorce is not in our vocab. No argument, no difficulty, nothing will cause us to divorce. Again, doesn't mean there's a guarantee he won't cheat or anything.

And it's not so much those married are more committed, but if you look at the difficulty involved in getting out of a marriage and the difficulty of leaving a dating relationship are totally different. One is MUCH easier to get out of legally. One has MANY more escape routes. The other one carries a stigma of it ending and the attempt of two mature people entering a marriage would be to avoid divorcing and preserving their love because it is special. Cohabitation was brought about as a way to "test the water" beforehand and see if you like it - if you don't, you're out. It wasn't even created to have the same level of stability.

Do SOME make it work? Yeah. I still think it's a REALLY bad idea.

[Tootsie Pop]

The reason why the the "statistics" say that more divorces occur when people live together prior to marriage is because the majority of people now-a-days DO in fact live together before marriage.

If the majority of accidents on the road are from blue cars, is it because people who drive blue cars are poor drivers? OR is it because the majority of cars on the road are blue? Dont believe every little number you see.

Do what is right FOR YOU. You are an individual - not a statistic. In my oppinion, a lot of problems in relationships occur when you take everyone elses' oppinions too seriously and ignore your gut.

[Barefoot Matt]

Tootsie - I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm skeptical of the statistics too, but I think you've interpreted them wrong. I haven't actually seen the stats myself, but there's no reason anyone would simply count the number of divorces that occur with and without cohabitation before marriage... like you said, that "statistic" would be meaningless without controlling for the prevalence of premarital cohabitation. What would make sense, and what I expect they did, would be to compare the divorce rate (i.e. percent) between couples that did cohabitate and couples that didn't - so you'd end up with, for example, divorces in 70% of all marriages that were preceded by cohabitation, compared to divorces in 50% of all marriages without prior cohabitation. I don't know the numbers, but you get the idea; this method controls for the numbers of couples in each group, and it's how any decent statistician would do it.

[/nerd]

[Tootsie Pop]

BUT... do we know that this is how they did it? No. In fact, I have yet to even see a source of these "stats." I put statistics is quotes because most of them are bull anyway. Although it is to a different caliber, I feel arguing about living together would be the same as someone warning me that my blue car is more prone to accidents because the "statistics" say it is. So my argument is to do what is right for you. No one should be researching to find out how their marriage will turn out if they do A and B rather than C. I Mean, if we are hell bent on following the stats, WHO CARES whether or not they live together. They have a 60% chance of winding up divorced anyway. ::shrug::

[Shocka]

Most relationships fail.

Most marriages fail.

Most psychology research is BS, created to find the results desired by those who fund it.

Most people cannot be reduced to statistics.

Most arguments against cohabitation are by religious nutjobs from the early 1900's in which it was trampy to move in before marriage.

You can never ever know everything about another person or how well a relationship will work with them, in the short or long term. Everybody lies, all the time.

I think cohabitation is really the next move for couples who want to see more of each other, who want to live together and be closer, and it can be a good test to see if marriage will work. Alternatively, without the "permanent" bond of marriage, people will lie and write things off moreso in order to get to that "permanent" stage.

Ultimately, if you like the idea of living with someone, why not try moving in? More morning snuggle time!

[aguacate]

If the majority of accidents on the road are from blue cars, is it because people who drive blue cars are poor drivers? OR is it because the majority of cars on the road are blue? Dont believe every little number you see.


But the majority of cars on the road aren't blue...

[JHXMT]

And it's not so much those married are more committed, but if you look at the difficulty involved in getting out of a marriage and the difficulty of leaving a dating relationship are totally different. One is MUCH easier to get out of legally. One has MANY more escape routes. The other one carries a stigma of it ending and the attempt of two mature people entering a marriage would be to avoid divorcing and preserving their love because it is special. Cohabitation was brought about as a way to "test the water" beforehand and see if you like it - if you don't, you're out. It wasn't even created to have the same level of stability.

Do SOME make it work? Yeah. I still think it's a REALLY bad idea.

(As a side note, I actually agree or at least don't disagree with the vast majority of your last post, BD. I'm just going to use your last paragraph as a jumping-off point, as it were.)

I agree that cohabitation is far less stigmatised as regards 'getting out' of a relationship goes, and that marriage is (in the majority of cases, though not all) seen as a more binding commitment.

Why, however, is that a point against cohabitation?

I think it would be a bad suggestion that, "Everybody who is certain they want to get married should live together first". If you're absolutely certain you want to get married, great, do so.

I do, however, believe that there is substantial middle ground where people are uncertain as to whether they want to commit fully to marriage (which implies cohabitation but, as you stated, more binding) without having discovered if, bluntly, they can put up with living with the other person first.

It's all very well to say "well, you shouldn't even think about getting married without knowing this first", but for most people (again, not all, and I appreciate that you're saying you're not one of this group) it is nigh on impossible to properly grow accustomed to living with somebody without actually cohabiting.

Cohabitation, basically, forms a kind of acclimatisation period, so that people don't go straight from dating to married-and-living-together. Most people would presumably be nervous about this sudden jump, and many people would prefer to cohabit* first just so that the adjustment is a little less jarring.

I think. Salt shakers again, I'm afraid.


* Heh, I wanted to write 'cohabitate' there, but my hindbrain wouldn't let me type it.

[Mooch]

If the majority of accidents on the road are from blue cars, is it because people who drive blue cars are poor drivers? OR is it because the majority of cars on the road are blue? Dont believe every little number you see.

Even if it were the case that people who drive blue cars are worse drivers, choosing not to buy a blue car because you're more likely to get in an accident would be pointless. The blue-car-driving-bad-drivers were just as bad before they started driving a blue car. The car didn't make them drive worse.

Similarly, you can't say (based on the statistics) that cohabitation causes divorce. It could be that the people that don't co-habit are less likely to get divorced for other reasons (i.e. religious etc). If that is the case, simply not cohabiting beforehand will improve help your odds of having a successful marriage.

Also, I agree with what Shocka said. :)

[BabyDiva]

1) If you, after dating for a significant amount of time, cannot tell if you would want to live with someone or that you aren't sure you can live with their habits - stop dating. You're not dating right. Dating should be a time to test the waters and LOOK at who they are. A couple who are "marriable" (marriage material) will be open and honest, will look without rose colored glasses and see the faults and the beauty of the other person. If you cannot date without putting up a fake front and you cannot make someone comfortable enough to drop their defenses, something is wrong.

2) According to the CDC (study focused on women 15-44)
21% of cohabitations were "disrupted" (ended or otherwise not living together) after 1 year (39% after 3; 49% after 5; up to 69% after 15)

Compared to the 3%, 12%, 20%, 43% (respectively) for marriages.

For those who were cohabitating, the probability of getting married is:
30% for those living together at least one year, 58% for at least 3 years, 70% after 5 years, 89% after 15 years (which astonished me, to say the least, since that is opposite to what I'd heard).

"Among the findings in the report: unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations."

The study was based of the 1995 data - released in 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf



BTW - the car analogy doesn't work out. It assumes the majority of couples cohabitate (or in that case majority of cars are blue). That may or may not be true. However, on the same token, insurance companies notice a higher chance of certain age groups getting in an accident or those driving certain types and makes of cars. Thus, they charge the client more for their choice. Is it the age/type/make of the car that causes accidents? No. Is it that there are more (whatevers) on the road? Nope (teens pay higher rates and they don't make up the bulk of drivers to my knowledge). It's called a trend. It makes it more likely. If you don't want to pay the cost, don't take that option. If you have anti-lock brakes or an airbag, you get a lower rate. If we do the same thing with CARS, why not the same weighing of options with marriage? Is marriage less imporant than the car you drive?

It's like going to pre-marital counseling. It decreases your chances of divorce (hence why most areas give you a cost reduction for your marriage license).

I still maintain that sticking with the method that has been proven over the years to work (REALISTIC dating where it's not on "impressing" someone, it's on getting to know the real person you're with for the intention of checking if they are a person you'd be interesting in knowing more about once you're of the mindset that you're now out for "right now" you're out for the right one) we'd all be much better off. Too many people are too busy looking for the next thrill and don't understand why they find themselves breaking up with someone every few years. When they're ready to settle down, they don't know how. So, they try living together. Then they can "live with" the person only to realize a few years later they can't be married to them because marriage is NOT about "living together" (if you swallow your pride and focus on someone else's needs rather than your own whims everyone would get along better anyway). People who could "live together" only have a small part of what it really means to be married...and usually find out AFTER rings are on that sharing a home doesn't equate sharing a life.

One last thing - just because cohabitation does not CAUSE divorce doesn't mean that it should be advocated. Smoking does not CAUSE cancer but it makes developing cancer more likely. Studying doesn't CAUSE an A, but it makes it more likely. Flicking a cop off does not CAUSE an arrest, but it makes one more likely. DUIs dont CAUSE death, but they make them more likely. Higher chances = cannot be taken lightly. I'm not one for playing Russian Roulet with a major life decision.

[aguacate]

1) If you, after dating for a significant amount of time, cannot tell if you would want to live with someone or that you aren't sure you can live with their habits - stop dating. You're not dating right. Dating should be a time to test the waters and LOOK at who they are. A couple who are "marriable" (marriage material) will be open and honest, will look without rose colored glasses and see the faults and the beauty of the other person. If you cannot date without putting up a fake front and you cannot make someone comfortable enough to drop their defenses, something is wrong.

2) According to the CDC (study focused on women 15-44)
21% of cohabitations were "disrupted" (ended or otherwise not living together) after 1 year (39% after 3; 49% after 5; up to 69% after 15)

Compared to the 3%, 12%, 20%, 43% (respectively) for marriages.

For those who were cohabitating, the probability of getting married is:
30% for those living together at least one year, 58% for at least 3 years, 70% after 5 years, 89% after 15 years (which astonished me, to say the least, since that is opposite to what I'd heard).

"Among the findings in the report: unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations."

...

One last thing - just because cohabitation does not CAUSE divorce doesn't mean that it should be advocated. Smoking does not CAUSE cancer but it makes developing cancer more likely. Studying doesn't CAUSE an A, but it makes it more likely. Flicking a cop off does not CAUSE an arrest, but it makes one more likely. DUIs dont CAUSE death, but they make them more likely. Higher chances = cannot be taken lightly. I'm not one for playing Russian Roulet with a major life decision.

43% failure is not very good odds. If you really want to avoid getting divorced, you'd be crazy to get married, statistically speaking. 43% is worse than 1 in 3 and very close to 1 in 2.

If you are really concerned with statistics, you're probably better off not getting into a relationship at all, because if you think about it, most of your relationships (all but the current one) have failed so, statistically, when you're getting into a relationship you're asking for a breakup.

As far as relationship decisions go, I think it's good to have a balance between 1) passionate and gut feelings, and 2) rational thought. Rationally, the statistics all say blah blah blah so we'd better not do it - living life like that has no meaning, the way I see it. Then again if you aren't aware of the things that can happen you're going to wake up to a reality check, and it's probably going to hurt.

On the other hand, I'm all for doing what you can before marriage to prevent divorce before it even starts. And I don't think cohabitation is a good idea (if you want to get married later).

[JHXMT]

1) If you, after dating for a significant amount of time, cannot tell if you would want to live with someone or that you aren't sure you can live with their habits - stop dating. You're not dating right. Dating should be a time to test the waters and LOOK at who they are. A couple who are "marriable" (marriage material) will be open and honest, will look without rose colored glasses and see the faults and the beauty of the other person. If you cannot date without putting up a fake front and you cannot make someone comfortable enough to drop their defenses, something is wrong.

Cohabitation should also be a time to test the waters and look at who the other person is. "You're not dating right" is not a supportable statement - dating right, by your definition, is effectively a trial period for marriage. How is this different from stating that cohabitation is a trial period of marriage?

2) According to the CDC (study focused on women 15-44)
21% of cohabitations were "disrupted" (ended or otherwise not living together) after 1 year (39% after 3; 49% after 5; up to 69% after 15)

Compared to the 3%, 12%, 20%, 43% (respectively) for marriages.

For those who were cohabitating, the probability of getting married is:
30% for those living together at least one year, 58% for at least 3 years, 70% after 5 years, 89% after 15 years (which astonished me, to say the least, since that is opposite to what I'd heard).

"Among the findings in the report: unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations."

The study was based of the 1995 data - released in 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

I'm not hot on my statistics, but (to me) the only thing that those statistics actually show is that more cohabiting couples break up than married couples. It says nothing regarding the stability of married couples who previously cohabited (unless I've misread, in which case I apologise). Can anybody verify that for me? I've been staring at numbers all day and can't take in any more. ;)

(...rebuttal of car analogy...) If we do the same thing with CARS, why not the same weighing of options with marriage? Is marriage less imporant than the car you drive?

Again, this seems a little sideways. Insurance companies judge trends, it's true, but their judgements err on the side of, "The majority of under-25 males drive blue cars, and under-25 males typically have a higher risk factor. Therefore, we will increase the premiums for...under-25 males. Not all blue cars."

The three-liter racing car doesn't have higher insurance premiums because under-25's prefer it. It has higher insurance premiums because it's a three-liter racing car.

Likewise, more cohabitations fail than marriages because the people who cohabit are those who are less committed (in general) than those who marry - not because cohabitation itself causes breakups. If those broken cohabiting couples had gotten married, the vast majority of them would still have broken up.


It's like going to pre-marital counseling. It decreases your chances of divorce (hence why most areas give you a cost reduction for your marriage license).

It decreases your chance of divorce because it allows the couple to get to know each other better. Much like cohabitation.

People who could "live together" only have a small part of what it really means to be married...and usually find out AFTER rings are on that sharing a home doesn't equate sharing a life.

And neither does dating. This logic can support or destroy either camp in this argument.

One last thing - just because cohabitation does not CAUSE divorce doesn't mean that it should be advocated. Smoking does not CAUSE cancer but it makes developing cancer more likely. Studying doesn't CAUSE an A, but it makes it more likely. Flicking a cop off does not CAUSE an arrest, but it makes one more likely. DUIs dont CAUSE death, but they make them more likely. Higher chances = cannot be taken lightly. I'm not one for playing Russian Roulet with a major life decision.

Cohabiting does not make breaking up more likely. That's surely the whole crux of this debate?

Smoking makes cancer more likely, that's a given (pretty much). If you were able to clone somebody and make one clone smoke while the other didn't, the smoking clone would be more likely to develop cancer. Fine.

If you cloned somebody and made one clone cohabit with their partner while the other clone married their partner, given the same level of intimacy in both cases...is the argument that the cohabiting couple would be more likely to break up? Based solely on the fact that they are cohabiting, not on the strength of the initial relationship?


For those who wanted to skip the above: does cohabiting, in and of itself, make any given relationship more likely to fail than if the people in that same relationship were to get married?

[BabyDiva]

Those facts said clearly that there is a higher chance of a cohabitating couple break-up than of a first marriage break-up (meaning that cohabitation is more unstable).

How big of a leap is that to understand?

"The three-liter racing car doesn't have higher insurance premiums because under-25's prefer it. It has higher insurance premiums because it's a three-liter racing car."

^ That WAS my point. You have the choice to take the higher premium or not KNOWING that the insurance is higher because the likelihood (statistically) of getting into an accident with that car is higher based on the fact that they are involved in it.

However, age does play a factor in premiums as REGARDLESS of car chosen, those under 25 pay higher premiums (for something they cannot control).

In the same boat, those who marry when the woman is under X years have X higher percent of getting divorced. If they can track a higher divorce rate to the AGE of the person, it makes most of us think that we should wait until we're more stable, more mature. However, when the SAME stats printed say there's an X number of breakups BEFORE marriage of cohabitating couples and that only X number of couples make it to the altar within a given number of years...that stat is ignored because "we'll make it".

Again, individuals can be different, but we have a tendancy to NOT be the odd occurrances.

Your cloning argument is exactly what I'm talking about. Those who cohabitate do NOT by statistics show the same stability of those who date/court and marry. Mostly because they are choosing to do something that requires less commitment as a "safety net" rather than making their decision and sticking by it. In that mentality, they're typically looking for the convenience and perks of marriage and outside of a marital commitment of "I am in this for the rest of my life. I am going to be with you, support you, love you, fight with you, make up with you, cry with you, cry for you, etc. etc. etc. until one of us DIES" (and they actually MEAN that commitment - not in the vast majority of "starter marriages"). When you make that level of a commitment to someone, without thoughts of "how am I going to get out of this" or "what if...." then you have the same level of intimacy and realness of marriage. Anything before that level of intense commitment is really just playing around until you see a reason to leave and go for someone else in my opinion.

Marriage isn't for the faint of heart, and it isn't a trite commitment on a piece of paper. It's the true mingling of two people in the level of commitment and love that it takes DEATH (not a circumstance) to break. People who have that level of commitment and are more concerned over what they're giving into the relationship than getting from it...there's a rock solid marriage that lasts through the hard times and shines in the good.

[aguacate]

Just to be devil's advocate here - what about the statistics for 1st dates that lead to eventual break-up? I'm not sure if anyone has run statistics on that before, because it seems kind of silly, but you can get a good idea for yourself by comparing how many people you've gone out with in your life with how many of them you are still in a relationship with.

Wait, a failure rate of 95%? 98%? 99%? Does that mean you shouldn't go on first dates with people you are interested in because first dates lead to unstable relationships?

[Barefoot Matt]

Those facts said clearly that there is a higher chance of a cohabitating couple break-up than of a first marriage break-up (meaning that cohabitation is more unstable).

How big of a leap is that to understand?
You're missing a step there. Yes, cohabiting unmarried couples are more likely to break up than married couples, and I've never said they weren't. However, these scenarios aren't as mutually exclusive as you seem to think; some proportion of married couples cohabited first, and that's where the contention arises. Consider the following.

Couples who live together generally follow one of the following relationship pathways:

1. Dating -> Cohabitation

2. Dating -> Cohabitation -> Marriage

3. Dating -> Marriage

Now, you've described two statistics on break-up rates. The higher rates occur among unmarried cohabiting couples; those are the ones that have followed pathway 1. The lower rates occur among married couples, which includes BOTH couples who did and did not live together before marriage; i.e. those that have followed EITHER pathway 2 or pathway 3. So, what your statistics demonstrate is that couples are more likely to break up if they have only cohabited without marriage than if they are married, regardless of whether they lived together before marriage or not. This seems obvious to me, as people who are unmarried are, on average, less committed than people who are. I don't think anyone is disputing this.

The REAL question here is what the difference in divorce rate is between groups 2 and 3; that is, whether couples are more likely to end a marriage if they lived together before getting married. This is the point on which we have always disagreed, and the statistics you've presented don't provide any evidence to me that your position is correct.

[paperdoll]

This basically sums up the way I think about it-- that it's not cohabitation that ruins relationships or marriages, but that sometimes the people who cohabitate have different value systems than people who don't (especially religious values systems) that work to keep them together. As someone who's not conservative in terms of religion, there are a lot of things that would lead me to leave a relationship-- even a marriage-- if it was bad. Infidelity, abuse, addiction... it's better to leave an unhealthy relationship than it is to stay together for moral reasons, in my own opinion.

[BabyDiva]

"there are a lot of things that would lead me to leave a relationship-- even a marriage-- if it was bad. Infidelity, abuse, addiction... it's better to leave an unhealthy relationship than it is to stay together for moral reasons, in my own opinion."

^ Except that in the vows you promise in good times and bad, in sickness and health. It doesn't mean that there aren't periods where one must separate for the good (as in abuse) until the other changes. However, the other two can be overcome through time and counseling. If one or both people are so hung up on "I deserve faithfulness" rather than being faithful (basically on what "your rights" are as opposed to fulfilling your own promises) then selfishness creeps in.

At the core of ALL divorces is selfishness. Infidelity, money, addictions, abuse - it all boils down to one's own selfishness. Cohabitation also boils down to a selfish reason. No one has ever said to me "we're living together to see if s/he can live with ME" it's always the other way around ("to see if I can live with them"). I have NEVER seen someone move in with another person in a life-long commitment. It's always a "testing waters" which means you always have an escape clause as opposed to being firm in the decision.

Personally, I would be offended if someone asked me to move in with them THEN asked me to marry them. It's like telling someone you don't trust that they are being honest and genuine, so as a result you are going to tell me after X years of dating plus X time living together that I've finally jumped through all the hoops and have proven myself to their standards. Doesn't that seem stupid?

As far as your stats that you're looking for. They're there. It just takes a few moments of searching.

http://www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cohabitation.html#Do (Has analysis from several studies about the likelihood of divorce among couples who cohabitated prior to marriage (with each other AND with others). There are other numerous studies cited that would be worth locating and when I have more time I'd be more than happy to do that (I'm trying to get finals done for my classes).

From the one I did find by Smock, published in 2004 in a sociology journal
"Cohabitations in general are of short duration with many ending as
marriages (roughly 50%) and others dissolving without marriage. Moreover,
over 50% of cohabiting unions in the U.S., whether or not they are eventually
legalized by marriage, end by separation within five years compared to
roughly 20% for marriages (Bumpass & Lu 2000; Bumpass & Sweet 1989).
In addition, research suggests that marriages that begin as cohabitations,
a growing proportion of marriages, are more likely to dissolve than those
that do not (Axinn & Thornton 1992; Bennett, Blanc & Bloom 1988; Booth
& Johnson 1988; DeMaris & MacDonald 1993; DeMaris & Rao 1992;
Lillard, Brien & Waite 1995; Rao & Trussell 1989; Schoen 1992; Teachman
& Polonko 1990; Teachman, Thomas & Paasch 1991; Thomson & Colella
1992; but see Teachman 2003)."

http://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/cohabitation/lead_papers/law_and_policy.pdf

Basically, the research (at that time) gave cohabitation a near 50/50 shot of ending in marriage. Those who DO make it to marry each other have a 50/50 shot (aproximately) of getting divorced.

So, take 100 cohabitating couples. Chances are that only half of them will end up getting married (50). Once married, chances are that half of them would get divorced by our current marriage stats (which from the census don't account for the premarital status). That would mean that 25 couples, by probability, of our original 100 would end up remaining married over 5 years. 1/4 is a pretty low probability of success.


And don't compare this to first date failure rates. You also stand a high chance of being killed when you get into a car or when you take certain medication. Life is full of risks. If you want to marry, you typically have to have a first date (unless you're having a mail-order bride or an arranged marriage). However you do NOT have to live together in order to get married. The situations don't even compare.

[paperdoll]

Just because you live together doesn't necessarily mean that you're looking to get married, though. I've known couples who've lived together out of financial or location convenience. Sometimes people only plan on living together for a short time before they each find their own places.

And as far as marriage goes-- not everyone makes the same vows. That's why a lot of people write their own. Because it's ridiculous for one person to concentrate on being faithful when the other repeatedly refuses to be. Sometimes you DO need to look out for number one.

I come from divorced parents and I can honestly, truthfully, with 100% confidence say that I am GLAD my parents aren't together anymore, because if they were still together, I would have had a HORRIBLE example set for me as to what constitutes a healthy relationship, because no matter how hard my mom tried-- going to counseling by herself, quitting school for what she really wanted to do, catering to my dad's whims-- my dad was still unfaithful and still controlling. So SHE filed for divorce and it was the best possible decision, because now BOTH my parents are in healthy, loving relationships.

My dad changed COMPLETELY after my mom married him, and they never lived together before marriage. She even asked him once, "You were never like this when we were dating, what happened to you?" and he answered, "If I'd been like this, you wouldn't have married me."

I don't want to get myself into that kind of situation. I've lived with my current boyfriend before. I don't live with him now. I'm moving in with him again in a few weeks. I know I want to marry him. And I know that when I do, it will be forever, because I know him well. I know what he's like in the morning. I know that he is horrible at saving money. I know that he wants me to scratch his back every night before he goes to bed, I know that he plays really bloody loud music when he's in the shower, I know that he doesn't leave the light on for me when he's upset with me and since I've learned how to read him so well, I've learned how to confront issues with him.

And I know that I wouldn't know any of this if I had never lived with him.

[BabyDiva]

"My dad changed COMPLETELY after my mom married him, and they never lived together before marriage. She even asked him once, "You were never like this when we were dating, what happened to you?" and he answered, "If I'd been like this, you wouldn't have married me."

I don't want to get myself into that kind of situation. I've lived with my current boyfriend before. I don't live with him now. I'm moving in with him again in a few weeks. I know I want to marry him. And I know that when I do, it will be forever, because I know him well. I know what he's like in the morning. I know that he is horrible at saving money. I know that he wants me to scratch his back every night before he goes to bed, I know that he plays really bloody loud music when he's in the shower, I know that he doesn't leave the light on for me when he's upset with me and since I've learned how to read him so well, I've learned how to confront issues with him."


1) That is why pre-marital counseling and HONEST DATING is what is necessary for two mature people to enter a marriage ready for the long haul. If either goes in expecting to revert back to old behavior - they are asking for trouble as well as being liars. That can be avoided. People can keep that up for a few months, but there are always warning signs because you cannot keep up the act 100% for a year or so.


2) You know him well...and what if that is an act, too, my dear? Do you not think he could change as well?

I know what my fiance is like in the morning, too. He's a morning person. You do not have to live with someone to figure that out. I know he's a great saver of money - never stayed overnight to figure that out either. The back-scratching thing could be figured out without living in the same house. And the music thing could be figured out without living together as well since both of us have had to get cleaned up at each other's places before since we do a lot of outdoor activities. The leaving the light on thing - - - come on - - - would that actually cause a marital PROBLEM once you are married? No. BTW - that's a little childish of him to do.

Bottom line, you could have figured it all out from opening your eyes without living together.

I know my fiance so well I can tell by the look on his face if he's had a bad day, even when he's faking a smile. I can tell by the way he sits at his desk when I go by the office if he feels like he's accomplished something or if he's ready to kill someone. The vocal intonation he has reveals a lot about if he's not saying everything that happened or if he's trying not to burden me.

I even know the breathing pattern he has before he says something, that he oversleeps and needs several alarms (like me), that when he's upset he'd rather run first, calm down and then talk, the first thing he does when he gets home from work is take time to unwind before he does basically anything else, he cleans his car because he finds it relaxing, he often does not go barefoot in his own apartment, he bleaches counterspace when people are coming over, he doesn't like to let dishes soak in the sink, he can fall asleep within SECONDS of sitting or laying down, when he sleeps he doesn't snore but his mouth does flop open slightly, he tremors in his sleep (especially arms), he finds it difficult to sit for extended periods of time, he likes to spread out and study on the couch with CNN or the weather channel in the background, breakfast is a must daily to wake up, coffee makes him wake up at 3 AM, etc.

Don't tell me you have to live with someone in order to figure out their quirks.

[Enani]

ignore the christians, they're just sexually repressed.

I am all for cohabitation before marriage. You get to know the person better before deciding if you actually want to get married.

And no, there's nothing wrong with living with someone and not marrying them.
Not everyone must have YOUR values. Get over yourselves.

[paperdoll]

My parents got married back before pre-marital counseling was a thing, so that wasn't an option. Not to mention some people refuse to go to any sort of counseling for various reasons.

And I know my boyfriend isn't putting on an act because of the amount of time I've spent living in the same space as him. We've also lived together with his parents and there's no way he could have kept up an act with them. I've known the kid for almost six years now and we've been together for two. I can read him like a book, and I graduated with honors in English, so that's saying something.

[water nymph]

Enani, your first comment was uncalled for. So far this has been a relatively level headed and intellectual debate, there is no need to start mud slinging at this point.

Carry on, guys, this is a good thread.

[JHXMT]

Don't tell me you have to live with someone in order to figure out their quirks.

Then don't tell everybody else that living with someone is a road to certain ruin.

As BarefootMatt said, the statistics and evidence presented so far only indicate that more breakups occur during cohabitation than during marriage. They do not indicate that more breakups occur in marriages that were previously cohabitations than in marriages that were not.

All else, at this point, is mere conjecture.

Those who cohabitate do NOT by statistics show the same stability of those who date/court and marry. Mostly because they are choosing to do something that requires less commitment as a "safety net" rather than making their decision and sticking by it. In that mentality, they're typically looking for the convenience and perks of marriage and outside of a marital commitment of "I am in this for the rest of my life. I am going to be with you, support you, love you, fight with you, make up with you, cry with you, cry for you, etc. etc. etc. until one of us DIES" (and they actually MEAN that commitment - not in the vast majority of "starter marriages"). When you make that level of a commitment to someone, without thoughts of "how am I going to get out of this" or "what if...." then you have the same level of intimacy and realness of marriage. Anything before that level of intense commitment is really just playing around until you see a reason to leave and go for someone else in my opinion.

YES. LIKE DATING.

This is the whole crux of the argument (well, my part of it, anyway): I am not saying that cohabitation is a replacement of marriage. I am saying that cohabitation is a stage between dating and marriage.

Please, tell me, why is cohabitation worse than dating? That's my question. Not why is it worse than marriage, that's been covered umpteen times in this thread. I'm not asking that. I'm asking why is it a bad thing to have a cohabitation stage between dating and marriage?

Bear in mind that most relationships do appear to progress on a sliding scale of commitment (from "let's meet for coffee" to "let's go to dinner" to "let's date" to "let's move in" to "let's get married" to "let's have kids", for example), so saying that cohabitation is bad and dangerous because it weakens the value of commitment is a little disingenuous.


Edit: in fact, just to throw something out there, I'd like to quote from a Wiki (no, I'm not treating it as a reliable source, I'm using it as a talking point):

...many proponents of arranged marriages attribute near zero percent divorce rates (to somewhere around 4% suspected) to couple that have had arranged marriages (in contrast to a 50% divorce rate for their Western counterparts)...

So arranged marriages - marriages, in effect, where there were no dates - have the lowest rate of failure of all.

Surely, therefore, we should remove dating from the ideal relationship progression, too. The statistics point towards that being the best pathway towards a successful marriage. Correct? Incorrect?

[Barefoot Matt]

As BarefootMatt said, the statistics and evidence presented so far only indicate that more breakups occur during cohabitation than during marriage. They do not indicate that more breakups occur in marriages that were previously cohabitations than in marriages that were not.

All else, at this point, is mere conjecture.
I agree with the rest of your post whole-heartedly, but I will point out here that Heather did in fact respond to my post by posting the missing research:
"In addition, research suggests that marriages that begin as cohabitations, a growing proportion of marriages, are more likely to dissolve than those that do not (Axinn & Thornton 1992; Bennett, Blanc & Bloom 1988; Booth & Johnson 1988; DeMaris & MacDonald 1993; DeMaris & Rao 1992; Lillard, Brien & Waite 1995; Rao & Trussell 1989; Schoen 1992; Teachman & Polonko 1990; Teachman, Thomas & Paasch 1991; Thomson & Colella 1992; but see Teachman 2003)."

[JHXMT]

Oops, my apologies to Heather, I must have missed that paragraph. I'll retract that part of my argument, then!

[BabyDiva]

JHXMT - so noticed :) Moving on to your other part...

"This is the whole crux of the argument (well, my part of it, anyway): I am not saying that cohabitation is a replacement of marriage. I am saying that cohabitation is a stage between dating and marriage.

Please, tell me, why is cohabitation worse than dating? That's my question. Not why is it worse than marriage, that's been covered umpteen times in this thread. I'm not asking that. I'm asking why is it a bad thing to have a cohabitation stage between dating and marriage?"


Bear in mind, that according to things I've already stated, the likelihood of moving on a slide from cohabitation into marriage has already been proven to have a lower success rate of actually making it TO marriage. If you're wanting a relationship to progress, and you have about a 50/50 shot of ruining your relationship by moving in together as a supposed trial, why would you want to run the risk? If you are dating honestly, that stage is not necessary. There is no need to blend money or lives until both are stable and ready to make a commitment. If you aren't ready to commit 100%, then why do you want a 50% commitment? Most of us wouldn't take a job or wouldn't expect to hire someone for a job if they said "I'm just going to test the water for a year or two and see what happens" would we? Worse yet, "I'm not sure I really like this job, but I'll try to live with it anyway and see where it leads." No one is interested in investing time and energy into training a person who is only half-committed to their job. Why would you want to invest in a life with someone who is only partially committed?

I don't think it's unjust to say those who decide to live together are less committed. If they were just as committed as a couple who are getting married - why aren't they getting married? If you have doubts as to whether or not you can live with someone, why would you put your emotions and money into trying to establish a home before you're certain or at least committed into making it work?

The stage in-between dating and marriage is called engagement. It's a time when you begin to see how each person handles intense stress, it's a time to discuss finances, how you're going to blend finances, how you're going to run your household, how you're going to divide chores, what you need from your daily routine that must stay the same, what can change from the norm, expectations of a husband and a wife in marriage, what you expect to happen when someone is sick, how you're going to divide holidays (if at all), etc.. Those are the very things that people attempt to "figure out" in living together. However, they jump into living together and expect they are going to work it out. Doesn't that seem less responsible that talking outside of that situation and beginning to work together as a true couple and making decisions ahead of time so the adjustments can start to be made (for example, I'm starting to go to bed earlier to prep for the fact that in 6 months - - - WHOA!! ONLY 6 MONTHS!! WHOOT! - - - I'll be married to THE morning person. I adjust easier than he does, so I'm the one making the change). It appears to me that it's the more mature of the methods than leaping in blindly to sharing living quarters without having discussed those things (most dating couples do not discuss those things).

Aside from that, most couples who "live together" rather than just dating then marrying claim they keep finances separate. How does that mimick a marriage in preparation for that step? In marriage, the money is typically shared between the couple and they pay together. But wait, we would never allow non-married people to mix finances. If they break up, then someone's going to have a problem with money being tied up in someone else's control. With a marriage, you don't or shouldn't worry about a breakup. You expect that you'll remain together. In essence, you're roommates who are having sex (or at minimum sleeping together) rather than operating as a married couple who are actually sharing lives (financially, physically, emotionally, etc.).


And regarding your other comment about arranged marriages. First, you forgot an important part of that (...) "Though this factor has been under-researched".

Arranged marriages (99% of the time) occur through particular religions. Those religions typicaly do not provide an allowance for divorce (otherwise the people would either be shunned or potentially killed). Also, in some areas where it is quite normal to have an arranged marriage, it is for reasons to where it's in the best interest of the couple to just stick it out based on economics (ex. some of those countries frown upon women working outside the home, not to mention an intense stigma of divorce). Here in the US, divorce is no longer "bad." It's seen as practically normal in relationships. That's not a good thing. There are FAR to many "no-faults" where the people basically put in writing that they just don't want to put the effort into marriage that is needed, they don't "want marriage anymore" or they "fell out of love". Typically speaking, it means they are weak, uncommitted and fickle - which means that if they'd been honest in the beginning, the divorce would have probably been avoided since the marriage would have probably been avoided.

[erinwithane]

Baby Diva is right about the Stats, The divorce rate is higher among couples who cohabitate than it is among those who do not.

I wonder however, if the increased divorce rates are because of the cohabitating or because if something else. I just don’t see how living with somebody before you marry them makes you more likely to end up in divorce court.

I can tell you that my Ex husband and I cohabitated, but we did so for financial reasons, it just wasn’t possible for either of us to support ourselves and our son unless we pooled our resources. Money was very tight; both of us were very young and did not make much money. We fought about money all the time. Almost everyday. There were a lot of reasons why the marriage ended, but financial strain for the first 4 years of our marriage is what really did us in, not living together before we tied to knot.

Financially stable individuals don’t really need to cohabitate so they usually don’t. Most people choose to live together out of necessity. Maybe that why their marriages have lower divorce rates. Maybe it’s not because they put off living together, maybe it’s because they don’t fight about money. After all money has been cited as a major reason why marriages don’t work out.


I am getting married in a year. I don’t need to live with my fiancé, but I am considering it. Reason being is because I don’t want another divorce. I want to know that we can live together, work together as a team, and share a life together without driving each other crazy and going to bed irritated with each other every night. I know him pretty well, but come on, no matter how much you know somebody, you discover many new things about them after you live with them both good and bad. As the old saying goes, “you don’t really know somebody until you have lived with them.”

If we cant live together in peace, then I would not marry him. I don’t want to marry him just to find out that we cant live together in peace and be stuck in a marriage where I am not happy that will eventually end in divorce..

So like I said earlier im conflicted. I just like the Poster don’t really know what to do.

[BabyDiva]

Peace is a created environment. You have to work for it. Harmony in marriage doesn't just happen. Happy marriages don't just happen. It takes hard work and sacrifice on the part of both people, mutually looking to outdo each other in kindness and consideration.

It sounds like you and your ex had these problems before you cohabitated. As you said you were young...that basically triples your chances for divorce. You entered under stressful situations...baby and financial strain. You said: "Money was very tight; both of us were very young and did not make much money. We fought about money all the time. Almost everyday." < Had you not moved in together, there would have been no pooling of resources. No pooling = no arguing because you're each responsible for your own money and the use thereof.

These same arguments can be made against premarital sex. There is reportedly a higher sexual dissatisfaction in marriages where they engaged in premarital sex. The highest level of satisfaction reportedly comes from who many see as "prudes" during the work hours (those who are strictly conservative). I don't have my book with those stats (nor the mental energy) to post those figures now. I'll do it later on when I'm less - - - blah. It's been a long day.

If you do not know NOW if you can live in peace with someone in all the time you've spent together before getting engaged, better figure it out before you get to the altar WITHOUT putting your child through having to move in and the potentially out again.

" I want to know that we can live together, work together as a team, and share a life together without driving each other crazy and going to bed irritated with each other every night."
^ Again, working together as a team and knowing whether or not you will drive each other crazy does not require living together. If you're questioning whether or not you'll go to bed irritated - you will. Every married couple does. Do not go in expecting perfection - it won't happen. I cannot count the times I've consoled my sisters and friends who are financially stable, secure, usually late 20s or 30s, independent people - half of whom did not live together before marriage - all because they had a fight with their husbands. Fights will happen, and sometimes you will have daily fights. The thing is HOW do you fight and learning to communicate in spite of not agreeing. That does not require sharing the same space to sleep at night. That requires opening up and seeing what is really there.

Sleeping in the same house as someone else doesn't show anything. If you're with them a lot during the day, that's what counts. My fiance and I are together sometimes 10-16 hours a day. I do not need to know the side of the bed he sleeps on in order to know if I can live with him. You do not need to have to turn out the light to sleep in the same room with someone else in order to discover if you can work together as a team and not drive each other insane. That is discovered in the waking hours - the same hours you would share together if you were living in separate locations.

[aguacate]

Sleeping in the same house as someone else doesn't show anything. If you're with them a lot during the day, that's what counts.

I strongly disagree with you, and I suggest you revise the structure of the arguments you are making. There are (among others) two points that have been brought up on this thread

1 - Cohabitation is bad for marriage (or relationships).
2 - Cohabitation doesn't offer anything that being wise as to who you're dating doesn't.

Before we go further let's take a moment to remember that everyone has different values and motivations. Some things are really important to some people, while other people completely disregard them. It's really no ones place to say one person or another is wrong for having different values.

OK, that said, I tend to agree with point #1 (Cohabitation is bad for marriage).

I find it incredible that anyone would be willing to argue in favor of point #2. The biggest thing that changes with cohabitation is not the sleeping arrangements nor the amount of time you spend together nor the money you share, it's the shift in your relationship and commitment. OK, maybe people who cohabitate aren't as committed as people who marry, but they are a lot more committed than people who are dating. This shift is not something you can emulate or even predict, really. It's like having a box with something inside that you don't know what it is. You can weigh the box, you can shake it, you can stare at it, you can even take x-rays, but you will never get the same experience until you open it and look upon what was inside with your own eyes, feel it with your hands, etc. Part of this comes back to the whole values thing too - some people are content to have a few facts about their investigation, other people need hands-on experience to feel satisfied.

So don't get me wrong, it's not bad to take x-rays. In fact, we start make predictions and analyzing from the moment we meet someone. It continues to happen until we feel like we've reached a certain level of commitment and familiarity with that someone. Normal process of relationships. It's really the only way to do it if you think about it.

It is very dangerous to mistake x-rays with the real deal, however. There are always things you don't take into account no matter how careful you are. We're only human after all. This is especially true when you are IN the relationship, blinded by your emotions and such.

An appropriate argument to make might be as follows: given marriage as an ultimate goal, cohabitation isn't necessary to know someone to the point that you can decide on committing your life to them. This does not imply that cohabitation provides no extra information or no extra experience, or knowledge or what have you, only that the extra information it provides is not necessary for this goal.

Let us not be fooled by false duality: X overall is bad in a certain context, therefore X is completely bad, therefore X has nothing good to offer.

If I missed this earlier I apologize, but I am curious as to whether BabyDiva has had any experience cohabitating with anyone. If so, it would be interesting to see how her personal experience shaped her opinion on what cohabitation does and doesn't do.

[BabyDiva]

1) I do not have experience cohabitating. I don't need to play with fire to know it burns. I can learn vicariously through others and the world around me. There are some things you don't do because once you do it, it cannot be undone. My virginity is one of those things. I don't need to speak from personal experience to know the value it has because I gave it up once. Not everything requires direct tangible experience. To believe so is a bit immature logically. You cannot live long enough to make every mistake yourself, so learn from the mistakes of others.

2)"OK, maybe people who cohabitate aren't as committed as people who marry, but they are a lot more committed than people who are dating."
^Not true. Two people who are committed to keeping the integrity and best interest of the other person at heart when it comes to keeping them from having togo through severe emotional pain of tearing a life apart, having financial difficulties of having to suddenly support yourself, not to mention the need to find a new home IFa break up occurs (which it is apparently statistically VERY likely for it to be the case).

People who are committed look out for each other's best interest and know that mixing things together without any security is not advisable. In many ways, even the legal system views it as outright stupidity given the HIGH failure rate of cohabitations overall. Then when they try to sue for recovery or recoup losses, they can't since there was no legal, binding commitment.

Your theory (that cohabitating couples are more committed than dating, but less committed than married, couples) is incorrect based on the facts before, the high failure rate of cohabitating couples within the first year (same rate as a divorce within about 5 years by most figures), and the idea that somehow sharing living quarters indicates a shift in a relationship and commitment level. I dated someone for 5 years, are you telling me that simply because we didn't live together in those 5 years that we were less committed to each other? I dated my fiance for a year. We didn't live together and won't live together until after our wedding. So, are we less committed (until we're married) than a cohabitating couple? There is often very little about "commitment" given the failure rate, and the shift in the relationship appears to be tied to a negative trend. Perhaps that alone should be reason enough that if you truly love someone you wouldn't want to create an environment that would cause intentional pain.

"This does not imply that cohabitation provides no extra information or no extra experience, or knowledge or what have you, only that the extra information it provides is not necessary for this goal."

^ It is not cohabitation that provides any extra information that cannot be gained at any other point. Any information can be gathered without living together. The only "experience" you gain from living together is how to pick up the pieces of a life broken by a failed relationship and how to fight to separate finances. Those don't seem like very worthwhile lessons unless you enjoy pain.

If there is no desire for marriage (as in your conjecture), why bother living together? Cohabitation is playing house, getting the benefits of a marriage without the commitment level. I don't think anyone should see themselves as unworthy of such a commitment. There doesn't seem to be anything valuable in it except for heartbreak and financial instability as well as setting yourself up for in inevitable - a broken relationship and pieces to pick up.

It does not seem to me that there is much in terms of "commitment" above dating. I think you're making a wrong conjecture based off an ideal, not off the norm. The norm, people live together because they don't want to get married (usually YET) so they take a test drive. The thought process behind sharing living quarters, mingling finances, etc. often doesn't factor in until after the fact, which means it usually comes as a surprise. There really doesn't seem to be any real benefit. Some may claim financial, but if the relationship breaks up you will be WORSE off financially. If they lose their job, you're stuck paying the bills for someone who you are more likely than not to break up with. Then you're stuck holding the bill continually since the law is not on your side the majority of the time.

[Barefoot Matt]

Financially stable individuals don’t really need to cohabitate so they usually don’t. Most people choose to live together out of necessity.
I have to disagree here, and I think that's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint to take. I lived with my girlfriend because I wanted to. We could have just lived with other roommates in college, but we couldn't see any reason to do so. In fact, of all the people I've ever met IRL who live with their partners, I don't think I've ever known one who did it out of necessity. Maybe my friends are unusually well off, but I don't think so. Perhaps people around here are just less prone to marriage than they are there, so they're more likely to cohabitate without marriage. Actually, I think that's probably the case, because I don't know anyone around my age who has gotten married without cohabitating first. It's just seen as the logical progression of things.

It seems to me that most cohabitations sprung from necessity are doomed to fail from the get-go. That kind of step needs to be driven by love, not money. If the love isn't sufficient, there's no way it's going to work.

[aguacate]

"Not everything requires direct tangible experience."

Of course not. The argument is not that it's necessary, it's that it's irreplaceable.

Well, assuming committment can be measured by breakup rates as you suggest, let me prove that people who cohabitate are more committed than people who date. Oh, and I suppose I should have qualified this with on average or something of the sort, since it's obviously not true for everyone in every case. Also, to clarify, I did not mean people who date and then get married, or people who are engaged, I meant people who are dating right now compared to people who are cohabitating right now.

Let us look at the average person. How many people does the average person date? How many people does the average person cohabitate with? Now assuming this person finally settles down with one out of all the people in these categories, for either dating or cohabitating to carry more committment, there need to be less breakups in that category. We can assume that in the end, all relationships end except one, since the person has settled down with only one out of everyone. Therefore if one group is bigger than the other by two, it is guaranteed to carry less committment, because no matter what category the final relationship develops from (subtract one from that category) one will always be bigger by 1. This represents the breakups - there are more breakups by at least 1.

Are you saying that the average person in a lifetime cohabitates with more people than they date by 2? I don't even think looking up statistics are necessary to answer this one... I hope not, but we can I suppose.

"If there is no desire for marriage (as in your conjecture), why bother living together?"

This is a very pertinent question. It goes back to the whole values thing. Everyone has different values. Sometimes we don't understand other people's values, but they are there. If you don't understand the reason why, maybe you shouldn't be ripping it apart.

"It is not cohabitation that provides any extra information that cannot be gained at any other point. Any information can be gathered without living together. The only "experience" you gain from living together is how to pick up the pieces of a life broken by a failed relationship and how to fight to separate finances. Those don't seem like very worthwhile lessons unless you enjoy pain."

I know a lot of people who enjoy pain, actually, but that's a different topic. Have you ever had a roomate before? Even of the same sex? It changes things a lot when you are living with someone. Umm, like I said, for some people, maybe even a lot of people, it might be enough to analyze and take a chance. Other people feel like they need something else. It's still a chance, really, but maybe it makes them feel better.

[erinwithane]

It sounds like you and your ex had these problems before you cohabitated. As you said you were young...that basically triples your chances for divorce. You entered under stressful situations...baby and financial strain. You said: "Money was very tight; both of us were very young and did not make much money. We fought about money all the time. Almost everyday." < Had you not moved in together, there would have been no pooling of resources. No pooling = no arguing because you're each responsible for your own money and the use thereof.

We did have problems before we moved in together and like i said there was a lot of reasons why the marriage ended, but now is totally different. For one thing im not 17, im educated, and im financially secure. I have made quite a nice life for myself and my son, and I think im ready to share that life with somebody else who is in the same place as I am.

I still just dont see how the act of living together spells doom for a marriage. There has to be other reasons why people who cohabitate have higher failure rates. Correlation isnt always causation.

Also i was discussing this with my fiance last night, and he said that he just read something that said that the divorce rate is lower than it has been since the 1970's. and Some of the reasons cited were that more and more couples are co habitating, more couples are putting off marriage until later in life, and more people are simply choosing to never marry.

I of course being the devils advocate that i am argued that there are like 5 times the number of Hispanics living in this country then there were in the 70's and divorce rates among hispanics are very low.

I dont know, and im serious wen i say that i really just dont know.
Maybe the higher overall divorce rate has more to do with the fact that divorce no longer carrrys the stigma it use to, and now women are far less dependent on men in general. Men are no longer womens lively hood. It sure makes it a lot easier to leave somebody if you dont depend on them for everything that you need.

[BabyDiva]

The main reason divorce is so high is that there is nothing easier than that. It takes nothing more than a quick trip to the courthouse if you really want to get divorced and it takes nothing more than a quick drive to get married to someone new.

When there is no longer a feeling of failure or a feeling of disapproval, people are less likely to even try to work things out. It's easier to be stubborn, want your own way, and just get out and find someone else. Easy come, easy go. We don't date for a purpose (to find someone to spend the rest of our lives with), we date to get a piece or to get some sort of personal satisfaction, to have some sort of recreation. So, the next steps that people take usually involve what they can get out of a relationship, what it has to offer them, and when that is gone - - - they usually are, too. The sad thing is that people go into a marriage the same way...leading to casual divorces. (There's a distinct reason why 2nd, 3rd, etc. marriages have MUCH higher divorce rates.)

And, btw, as far as "ripping" someone's values goes. I'm not ripping them, I'm giving you facts. When there is no logic behind something, there's no reason to do it. That's not ripping someone's values - that's being logical. I cannot prevent people from doing it, but I can say it's not right. That's my belief, and I am entitled to it. When people are doing things that are unnecessary, ill-advised by most standards in the US (secular world) and immoral (in the religious world), shouldn't someone have the guts to stand up and tell them that it isn't the wisest thing in the world?

You cannot equate those who casually date to those who date for a purpose and those who cohabitate without one. My teenage students casually date, and none of them live with their significant others. You'd be tossing them into the pot of those stats and skewing your results to fit your purpose. If you're talking about COMMITTED relationships, then you'd be looking at those who date for the purpose of finding a spouse vs. those who cohabitate without the perceived necessity of marriage.
Otherwise you'd be trying to compare two very different demographics with far too many outlying factors.

In those relationships - those who are dating with the purpose of marrying are committed to finding a person to spend the rest of their lives with. As a result, they are more serious about the dating with open reality as their friend. ALL relationships would start out this way. Those who are dating in a committed fashion usually head towards marraige. Their rate of divorce hovers around 50% within the first 5 years. Those who decide to cohabitate (REGARDLESS of marital intentions) have a survival rate of 50% within the first year or so.

It is in very poor form to try and compare people who are dating without any sort of purpose and intention or commitment (the whole purpose of modern dating, sadly) to those who are living together rather than those who are committed to heading towards marriage. It's like comparing apples to carrots - they are not in the same area as each other.

At any rate, the thread is about whether or not two people who are looking at marriage should live together or not. The answer is that if they want to have a better chance at a strong, mutually beneficial relationship - no. I feel we should always take the course that has been proven overall to be most beneficial and go with it. There is no harm that would come to a strong couple by not cohabitating. They have NOTHING to lose by not doing it. However, by cohabitating as a test drive, they find that several things go wrong. Financially they will either mingle and find themselves arguing over petty things or they will keep them separate and pay bills indepdently. Either way - it does not mimick marriage since the first case means they could easily decide to do the second OR decide to get out since the other person is controlling. However, once married the vast majority of couples pool resources and understand that it's shared stuff. When arguing they will always have the option of breaking up without any massive problems or legal issues, less reason to work it out. Marriage, at least requires someone to consider working things out before beginning the legal process of divorce. Aside from that, people rarely marry now for financial stability, although they do move in together for that. It fosters a dangerous situation when used for that reason since it doesn't always foster an environment that encourages people to be able to go out and become financially stable. Instead it allows the behavior to continue and the anger to grow. Worse of all would be if it made one person dependent on another fostering more resentment than could be believed.

Again, seems like those who are considering marriage should not entertain the idea since it holds more negative aspects than positive. Could you come out unscathed? Possibly. I could also drive my car into a brick wall at 30 mph and have a chance of coming out with nothing, or perhaps only a bruise here or there. However, we all know the likelihood of there being more problems there are high. Cohabitation appears to be the brick wall in a relationship. It's the 50/50 coin toss of whether your relationship will last at ALL (not go into marriage...make it into years of living together). If you truly care about someone, wouldn't you want to do more to make that relationship last and not make it rely on a coin toss?

[SweetiePie]

edit: my mistake, I was quoting something but didnt read the whole thing. feel free to delete this post.

[erinwithane]

I think Maturity, Financial Stability, and level of education are better indicators on whether or not a couple's marriage will last.....

Thats my opinion

[dtbmnec]

I lived with my (then) boyfriend for this past year and we'd been together for a year previous to that. I was ready and willing to marry him (at some point). I was happy.

Our finances were as intermingled as we could (without paying for a joint account). We told ourselves and each other that we would go 50/50. We said that we would share house chores. We said many things.

The first six months all was good. The house was kept clean(ish). The bills got paid (50/50..alright so we were a few cents off sometimes :p). All was peachy.

Then I told Arron to quit his job to keep his sanity. He'd been coming home every night pissed beyond belief and so completely frustrated with his job that it was starting to affect me. They did some stuff to him that they shouldn't have (for a number of reasons) and he felt he had no other option but to stick with it. So he quit.

(Please note this part is all one sided and not meant in malice.)

The relationship and everything else went to hell in a handbasket. His part of finances disappeared, the house kept getting messier and messier, he wasn't searching for a job hard enough. *I* became the sole supporter and not only did I have to support him but a friend of ours as well.

*I* wouldn't have known that he was going to take so long to find a job. If I wasn't living with him, if I wasn't partially dependent on his paychecks, I never would have known. If he didn't have money (and we were living apart) I wouldn't really have chalked it up to taking forever to find a job. I would have chalked it up to something else (likely the piece of shit cars he was forced tod drive).

*I* didn't know that he would resent having to do all the chores around the house (instead of me who was already going to school full time and working part time for 30 hours a week attempting to make ends meet). Yeah I saw his room at his parent's place but I didn't know HOW he lived. I didn't see that he would be too lazy to change the garbage unless someone nagged him to do it.

We "practically lived together" for a few months before this and everytime I had asked him to do something (take out trash, etc) he DID IT. How would I have been able to tell that he'd change as soon as we lived together? There were no warning signs. I asked and he did it. We moved in, I asked and he'd put it off and put it off and put it off until I did it or got pissed at him.

He was irresponsible and didn't show it. (Not that I was always the best either but no one's perfect). We had communication issues throughout our entire relationship (ahhh hindsight) and I didn't notice until I lived with him. We had many other issues that we should have dealt with previous to living together (or maybe even BEING together) but they didn't come to light until we lived together.

Having said all that I don't hate him or despise him or anything. Our relationship ended on rather good terms. We're still friends. In a year we'll see how things are and figure out whether we want to make another attempt.

I would much rather find out about all these issues BEFORE getting married than after. I would rather have found out that Arron was a little lazy about getting a job NOW rather than having a family to support. Two people are easier to support than one. Do I regret living with him for a year? No. At worst case it was a learning experience; at best it showed that we were probably not ready for living together.

Would I do this all again? Would I go through the whole "let's live together" thing? YES. Sometimes it shows you what you cannot learn without experience. I think that it was good to see him "at his worst."

I also think that in about 20 years we should compare statistics on divorce rates and all that other crap. Why? Because this whole "let's cohabitate" thing is new (relatively). Because many people are divorce happy at the moment (Oh I broke a nail. Let's get divorced.) because its suddenly no longer QUITE as stigmatised as before. Its more of a "oh you're divorced? That sucks" rather than a "YOU DID WHAT!?"

As to seperation and lots of counselling solving abuse issues....well I sure as hell don't think so. There's a reason why people fear child abusers (as an example) and its because they are pathological! No amount of counselling is going to help them especially if the temptation is there everyday.

Megan

[HeaVeN-ly]

I so can relate to the above post. Here's my experience.

I was with my ex for 3 years plus when we decided to move in together. Marriage was always what we had in mind, and we were both just waiting for me to complete my Degree. We didn't really thought much about the whole moving in process, it all just felt natural because we were practically sleeping over at each others' places anyway. Boy, it was a mistake, we should have discussed (and PREPARED) ourselves to all the things that came afterwards.

Over the course of 6 months, there were small little things that surfaced, like petty arguments involving how we were going about with groceries, utilities, what tv show to watch, who gets to prepare meals, etc etc. But the most shocking thing I have discovered that the potential man I was "planning" to marry had a serious drinking problem AND had countless number of "girl" friends. I'm unsure whether this slipped unnoticed while we were dating, but if it wasnt for us moving in together I wouldn't have found out.

I found out also that before, we were so great at resolving conflicts, but after living together, NO WAY! It seems that all the bits and pieces (that he might have been trying so hard to keep away from me?) that I found out were putting our relationship on an all time low. He bottled up even more and having to sleep in the same place did not mend anything at all. So yeah, we both started feeling "strangled" (or him at least) that all the dirty secrets are out. He would not come home some nights just to irritate me, and I started to become all confused figuring out what went wrong. The only thing going well, was erm, the sex.

So yeah, just after 6 months, I found a HUGE deal that I would never have found out if we didn't live together. We were sincerely in love with each other. Maybe too much, that we would hide all the bad things from the ones we love just to keep them with us. I got to see his true colours, and I'm so glad that I did not end up marrying such a person. If not, we'd end up in divorce anyway.

If you'd ask me whether I'd live together with someone again? I really wouldnt know the exact answer. It's a yes and a no. But I'd prepare myself for one hella experience.

[BabyDiva]

Both cases above do not promote a case FOR living together. They promote cases for honestly looking at the partner you are with.

I'm exceptionally surpirsed someone after being sure you wanted to marry someone would discover a drinking problem and infidelity. That sounds more like not spending ample time discussing and excusing problems that surfaced. Living with him didn't reveal it, being to the level of honesty is what revealed it. He had no way to hide it. If someone is truly dating with the intention of marrying someone you'd be asking the tough questions, looking at the total person, and they should be dropping their guard around you so that you can see them. Dropping in unexpectedly is also a good tool, because someone can put on a facade at home for a while, but catching them off guard shows a true reality.

"Over the course of 6 months, there were small little things that surfaced, like petty arguments involving how we were going about with groceries, utilities, what tv show to watch, who gets to prepare meals, etc etc."

Come on. Marriages don't and shouldn't break up over stuff like that. Like you said, it's petty. A strong relationship and a comitted one means that people will yield now and then to each other (TV shows, meals) and there would be no question on utilities since the bills are paid from the same pot; no need to split hairs over not paying a share for something.

As far as claiming you wouldn't know anything about his finances and job seeking had you not been living together. Think about it. If he didn't have you to rely on, his butt would have been in gear to find a new job. He didn't find the need to because you would support him through it; you already were. If you couldn't tell while living apart the financial strain quitting a job would have or that he resented chores (and looking at home is NOT a good barometer...I'm not the cleanest here, but when I was living on my own before my dad got ill I was a literal neat-freak). What would have helped would be having a discussion of potential "what-ifs" as well as making sure that one move that impacts another person (as it would in a marriage) is thought about fully and planned for.

Storms happen. In most live-in relationships, it causes an almost instant break-up because both people are more concerned about their rights. When you realize that the relationship is not ABOUT what you get but about what you can give, it might make a difference. Do you get burned out? Yes. Marriage is tough. A marital relationship is not for the faint of heart and it isn't for those who cut their losses when the going gets tough (like when getting laid off from work, quitting a job, or even developing a disease). To play like you're ready without being willing to commit is like playing a game but missing half the pieces. Would you "test the water" of a pool without taking your shoes off? Living together is still "dating" but wanting all the marital benefits. You're missing the commitment level and you're missing the desire to stay with someone come any storm or flood into your life. You aren't experiencing fully what would be there if the additional commitment of "I am going to make this work at any and every cost." Knowing that both people are comitted 100% to making the relationship work out to stay together would change 99% of the situations dramatically.

"As to seperation and lots of counselling solving abuse issues....well I sure as hell don't think so. There's a reason why people fear child abusers (as an example) and its because they are pathological! No amount of counselling is going to help them especially if the temptation is there everyday."

I didn't mention child abuse. However, there is no proof that they are pathological. Pedophiles do have mental imbalances. Some parents though just do not know how to manage stress and anger, but can change.

Keep in mind that the abuse I was referring to was more in terms of spousal...and that is usually also seen in the dating and engagement phases of a relationship. Rarely does that surface only after the ring, although it has been known to happen. Actual abuse is one of the few situations where I could justify a divorce, but even I would rather go through intense anger management counseling or emotional/psychological counseling before I would get to a divorce. The guy who verbally/emotionally abused me is now a happily married man. His wife couldn't be happier. No hint of anything wrong, even in his personality when I run into him. He changed over time, matured.

At any rate...all the issues brought up could still have been seen through dating without having to live together. Also, most of the issues brought up are so menial (like chores or cleanliness) that really should not break the deal. There were things going on besides being messy and a little lazy about chores. It sounds like the much deeper issues would be the infidelity and addiction in one case and immaturity/irresponsibility in the other. All of those things should have been pretty evident or had warning signs (ex. missed dates, lack of viable excuses, unexplained nights out or unanswered phone calls, lack of connection, phone calls that were out of character or conducted in secret, change in moods/temperments, wanting to get out of going certain placed or doing certain things, needing to be reminded about events or special occasions, depending on you to pay for a lot of dates, etc. - - - these were just things I picked up on in my own personal experience that clued me in to something wrong in a relationship.

Again, if you're dating someone and you're at the level where you think you want to marry them and decided to "test the waters" - think about what you're really testing. You're trying to see if you can live with someone's quirks? What sort of quirks are deal breakers? Socks on the floor? Lack of taking out the trash? The fact that they bleach down counters? Come on, if you are in love you would want to do what is best for both people. Relationships are not always 50/50. That would be ideal, but at different points each person will have to pick up the slack for the other. In love, you make adjustments. In dating, you usually get out. Learning how to deal with finances? Talk about them. Does your partner have a lot of debt? Are they making payments? Do they have a plan? These are things you can figure out without needing to mingle finances. I would never turn any portion of my money over to someone who had proven to be untrustworthy with their own. That sort of thing you should be able to realize if you're watching them in the stores together, when you talk about your days, etc. and purchases come up. Ex. I didn't know how stable my fiance was until we actually discussed the debt he has from college (private university) but he had to get a newer car. He was able to pay cash for it because he has debt that is being managed and a great savings account. Plus, as we were getting ready to start planning the wedding, we discussed how much we were willing to put into it.

Overall, I still don't believe I've heard any real reason why it is worth risking the relationship terminating prematurely (50/50) before marriage (which leaves you in a legal bind most of the time). Also, if considering living together and realizing that you truly love the person and want to be with them, and your chances of failure within the first 5 years of living together/being married are around 75%, I'd rather increase those chances by waiting it out until marriage while dating someone with eyes WIDE open.

Dating isn't a spectator sport. You have to be aware constantly.

[Shocka]

Heather, can you come up with any good reasons against cohabitation?

[Mooch]

Does this thread really need to be any longer? :p

[HeaVeN-ly]

Maybe you should try living together to see how it really feels like. Then you could share all your findings with us here, BabyDiva. See what it really feels like hands on. Go on, give it a try (if you dare, after hearing all the "horror" stories here).

Honest relationship, yes. But how honest can a person actually be? I have always had an honest relationship, and yeah, shit happens. Sometimes a person do have their own secrets and they would do anything to cover them up, and I call these people selfish, selfish people. And heck, I found out only after I lived with him, I had to deal with it and move on. Do you really think you can know everything about a person by dating? I don't believe so. That's why people say, don't be in love too much, you will have to reserve some for later, this being AFTER being married (or living together it's more or less the same anyway, minus the certificate), because you WILL eventually discover lots of new things about that person the pleasant, ugly, irritating, charming, disgusting, adorable, distasteful, etc and there is absolutely no way but to deal with it, or divorce (if things get really bad). At least if you lived together first, you still have time to back out. A person dating and a person married, thay can (but not in all cases) be really different individuals altogether.

And so I was LUCKY that it all happened before we ever got married, because we can't survive either way. At least we didn't have to settle all the divorce settlements, kids, dealing with family, friends, relatives. I'm thankful because it could be far FAR worse than this.

[BabyDiva]

Heavenly - 1) Why would someone who finds it illogical put a good relationship through torment to prove it happens? 2) I don't find it relationally or morally correct to do that. Do I need to go have premarital sex in order to make my points valid that it rips out the heart and plays on emotions in ways not healthy or that it opens the door to more problems than it does help people in a relationship? Come now.

"Do you really think you can know everything about a person by dating? I don't believe so. That's why people say, don't be in love too much, you will have to reserve some for later, this being AFTER being married (or living together it's more or less the same anyway, minus the certificate), because you WILL eventually discover lots of new things about that person the pleasant, ugly, irritating, charming, disgusting, adorable, distasteful, etc and there is absolutely no way but to deal with it, or divorce (if things get really bad). At least if you lived together first, you still have time to back out. A person dating and a person married, thay can (but not in all cases) be really different individuals altogether."

^ By that same logic, even living with a person doesn't reveal everything because all those secrets they will do anything to hide could remain hidden even if living in the same room together. After all, they wait until the "have you" by the logic you just gave. I have never heard to not be too much in love. A person in love who is acting out of love would not RUN out of love. You don't just run out of love. It ebbs and swells overtime, but you should continually find yourself loving the other person deeper. Quirks should never be large enough to end in divorce and they should also never be SO small that they remain hidden.

How much can I know by dating? How about knowing their cleaning habits, their methods of relaxing, their style of studying, what they do to prepare for a test, how they deal with stress, how they eat their food, how they twitch in their sleep or snore (didn't need to sleep with him to figure that out either. Movie dates on a couch when he's tired allowed that), how to know when they want to be next to you or when they need space, that they have a hard time waking up in the morning but enjoy it, that they buy cereal and raisins rather than purchase it together, exactly when their mind is elsewhere by the simple look on their face, how they breathe when they are about to speak...

Found it out in 1 year of dating plus a ton more that I can't write because I have a girl's night out I must leave for. Point being, you can find out as much as you want to find out about someone. It's all a matter of what you are willing to investigate and open your eyes up to. When you date each person with the idea that "this could be it" rather than "until the next best thing crops up" (may not be your case, but it is the vast majority's belief on dating...that it's for recreation and if something more happens, then great), then you go in evaluating everything about them.

[erinwithane]

Do I need to go have premarital sex in order to make my points valid that it rips out the heart and plays on emotions in ways not healthy or that it opens the door to more problems than it does help people in a relationship? Come one now.


I have had pleanty of sex both inside and outside of marriage and I have never expierenced any of that......

[SweetiePie]

Yeah, thats a whooooole nother story.

[Tootsie Pop]

I have had pleanty of sex both inside and outside of marriage and I have never expierenced any of that......

I agree! I cant imagine who you would have to talk to in order to get an oppinion like that about sex. yeesh. If it is THAT unhealthy outside of marriage, I cant see how marriage (rather than therepy) will make it right.

[BabyDiva]

I've talked to couples who waited until marriage - MOST are enjoying sex life (there are a few who aren't...but there are other contributing factors)

I've talked to couples who did not wait then got married - most enjoying some intimacy issues or who are having other issues in the marriage

I've plenty of friends who are involved in premarital sex who have either ended up pregnant (4 of them currently single with no intention of marrying the guy/girl), most of whom broke up with the person and can never get that part of their heart back so when they get in another relationship they can only give all of what is left of it to the next person, and about 3 of them are couples who decided to get married before the child was born to "do the right thing" (not that I agree with that- mind you).

I have rarely heard anyone (religious or not) say that giving that intimate part of themselves to someone else without knowing if that person would be there or not the next day...how can that not affect a person. I have still heard VERY rarely from anyone after a break-up say "Gee...I'm glad s/he knows every intimate detail about me even though we aren't together anymore." It would seem sort of irrational to want people to be running around with that sort of knowledge of me.

[Tootsie Pop]

I have rarely heard anyone (religious or not) say that giving that intimate part of themselves to someone else without knowing if that person would be there or not the next day...how can that not affect a person.

Well, I have never had a one night stand, but I have had intimate relationships. Breaking up was never an easy choice, it was usually gradual and in the end I had to decide what was right for me. You may never be HAPPY that someone knows "every intimate detail," but it certainly didnt break my heart or put me in an unhealthy state. It would have been far more unhealthy if I were to hold on for the sake of keeping my number of partners down. If you are an adult who can accept the conciquences of your actions, you should be able to accept sex and the emotional risk you run with it. I can do that. I have done that. Though I havent been with many people, there arent any that I look back on and then cry over. Yes... some people can not handle it. However, it would be very bold to say that all people experience trauma from premarital sex. If they are experiencing such trauma, then perhaps living together was the absolute wrong choice seeing they werent mature enough to understand what they were doing. I hope that makes sense.
Im sorry that I brought this off topic for the time being. But my point is that if you can not handle the emotional consiquence of ANYTHING... sex, living together, or even marriage - they should be put wayyy on hold. I know several people who apply to that. I also know several people who are ready to handle it. Although this debate has been interesting to read, in the end, I feel that everything depends on the independant person's maturity, ideals, and compatibility.
For myself, I can not imagine NOT living with someone before marrying them. I am a creature of my environment. I simply would not want to go through the significant change of marriage and THEN ALSO have to adjust my living arrangement. I would much prefer an adjustment buffer. But that's just me. I would have to be engaged first, though.
I just always find it very hard to believe that the entire population can fit into one ideal... one mould.

[HeaVeN-ly]

How much can I know by dating? How about knowing their cleaning habits, their methods of relaxing, their style of studying, what they do to prepare for a test, how they deal with stress, how they eat their food, how they twitch in their sleep or snore (didn't need to sleep with him to figure that out either. Movie dates on a couch when he's tired allowed that), how to know when they want to be next to you or when they need space, that they have a hard time waking up in the morning but enjoy it, that they buy cereal and raisins rather than purchase it together, exactly when their mind is elsewhere by the simple look on their face, how they breathe when they are about to speak...

Found it out in 1 year of dating plus a ton more that I can't write because I have a girl's night out I must leave for.

Sheesh, maybe it's just my opinion, but I totally disagree with that. How MUCH can you really know about a person after just one year? Maybe others who have been in longer relationships couldn't agree more with me. All the stuff that you said, they're all just beneath the surface, stuff that I know too about my ex, even more so that we had been together for 4 years. That list can totally be done without, it just shows that you are trying too hard to prove yourself. It's good for you that you believe you know your partner so well after being together for one year. I do wish you all the best for the future for you and your fiancee, but just a little thing, be prepared to know more, because trust me, you don't know so much more about him. As for me, I'm still sticking to, once you start living with a person (ie cohabitate or marry), then you'd really know that person inside out. No other way. So it's either you choose, to know before or after marriage. And yes, living together is a testing ground to that.

And also know for a fact that people do change, after 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. They might not be the same person you knew before. SO, hence, I don't think it's fair to say that you can know so much about a person just by dating.

[water nymph]

In Heather's (BabyDiva) defense, you can't infer that she doesn't actually know her fiance because they haven't been together for an extended period of time. To begin with, we don't know the nature of her relationship for all that she has been very good about revealing some details; some relationships have more revelation over one year than others have over their entire span. Furthermore, the evidence that Heather gave was used to illustrate the point that you can learn about your partner's quirks without living with them first. It was not pertinent to the argument for her to tell his about her fiance's personality, secrets, and skeletons in the closet, nor would we ask her to reveal such intimate details.

I am under the impression that Heather knows exactly what she is entering into and that she is equipped with the tools her religion and world view consider nescessary to maintain a marriage. While I may not agree with her views on cohabitation and marriage, I accept that this is how she plans on having her marriage go and have no intention of trying to talk her out of it.

[paperdoll]

I really think that this is something people need to agree to disagree on, honestly. You don't think cohabitation is for you? Don't do it. You think it's a good idea? Go ahead.

I don't think this thread is going to change anyone's minds. It's just making people angry and defensive.

[Shocka]

Yeeeeeeeeah!

[JHXMT]

I don't think this thread is going to change anyone's minds. It's just making people angry and defensive.

And so the Internet lives on! ;)

[paperdoll]

And so the Internet lives on! ;)

Haha, yeah, I know. It's really that it was getting too long and I'm tired of reading it but I can't stop.

I do want to add that I am now moved in with my boyfriend and things are going swimmingly. Even though I know I'll be moving out at the end of August. Waaa.

[water nymph]

This thread has actually been very civil and has been more of a debate than an argument. We know that no one's mind is going to be changed but discussing the pros and cons from each side is a perfectly legit thread. I'm impressed with everyone who has participated and I will probably archive this one, unless anyone has a differnet opinion.