Living together before marriage

[Pandora II]

I have lived with 3 ex-bf''s and FI.

With the first - we were at college and it made financial sense. Full stop - no other motives. Ditto for 2 & 3.

With FI, I moved in after 3 months - we already knew this was a forever relationship. There has never been any trial element about it.

We may as well be married already - the only difference marriage is going to make is we will have tied things up legally, had a really great holiday and have significant dents in our bank balances because we are throwing a big party! It also means that I would be happy to go ahead and have a child - I won''t do that without being officially and legally married.

FI and I have now lived together for over 3 years and every day is exciting, everyday I still get butterflies when I hear his key in the lock. I know I am spending my life with a man I am hugely comfortable and compatible with.

As far as I am concerned, my parents likes and dislikes are their problem and my life decisions are mine to make as I see fit. My parents actually feel that you MUST live together before marriage and are very happy about it, as are FI''s parents.

The only one who disapproves is FFIL''s wife, who has 2 failed marriages behind her and who we all dislike intensely. I told her it was actually none of her business what FI and I did.

I''m 35, so that may influence my feelings on the subject considerably.

 

[sandia_rose]

Date: 3/10/2008 11:50:12 AM
Author: KCCutie
Funny, E and I were just talking about this the other day.

Early in our relationship we discussed that neither of us had any desire to live with an SO before at least being engaged, which is great b/c we''re at least on the same page. The main reason for this is we both have either seen or been in a relationship where the couple moved in together for the sake of convenience more than any other factor and then became very co-dependent and ended up staying in a bad relationship b/c they couldn''t even afford to leave. Neither of us wanted that and while I don''t think that would happen to us we''re just not going there. When we talk about living together we call it ''Bizzaro World'' b/c we know it won''t happen for us until we are engaged. Having said that we have gone through times when we really were living togeter, spending every day/night together at one place or the other and I''m confidant that we will be able to live together happily when the time comes. When we talk about ''Bizzaro World'' it is sometimes tempting to move in together b/c we like the idea of living together and it would certainly save us lots of money, but we don''t want money to be why decide to move to that step in our relationship. After the engagement if we decide to move in together to save money for the wedding...that''s something totally different.

I know a very extreme case of this - for the sake of discussion. And when I told another friend about this, she said, "Oh, that''s not so weird. That actually happens a lot."

1) Couple gets married, buys house, has three kids.
2) Husband develops serious drinking problem; is caught cheating
3) Wife decides to file for divorce....until she realizes that:
a) Neither can afford to live separately with the real estate costs in this state
b) Neither can afford to keep the house without the other''s income
c) Moving to something affordable would uproot the kids fromtheir school/friends
d) Divorce would cause them serious tax problems and loss of deduction

So, the husband moves into the finished basement. Wife continues to live with the children in the main part of the house. Husband doesn''t enter main part of the house except to use the bathroom and cook meals. Children are prevented from having any contact with him if he''s been drinking. Wife also has a boyfriend that stays overnight, etc. He and the husband are fully aware of each other''s presence and the situation and basically ignore each other. Wife lives life as if she were "divorced," except for that she and the husband file taxes and share expenses like they did when married.

To me, THAT is Bizarro World. My living situation took a huge nosedive when I got divorced (went from a 2500 sq/ft house to a 2 room apartment). But there is NO WAY IN H*LL I could stay married to my ex for tax or other financial reasons. I could afford a larger/nicer apartment if I had a roommate, but I''m not moving in with someone else just for that reason.

Bridget in Connecticut.

 

[KCCutie]

LOL Sandia!

Okay that truly would be a "Bizzaro World"!

I know that''s just for the sake of discussion but I would never live so co-dependently married or otherwise it''s just so unhealthy. That''s why if money and convenience were #1 and 2 on the list of reasons for moving in I wouldn''t do it before the wedding but you never know whats going to happen and I would hope that if that happened to me I would have the strength to leave no matter what it took.

 

[Sha]

Date: 3/9/2008 10:27:59 PM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 3/9/2008 8:43:25 PM

Author: Anna0499

Date: 3/9/2008 7:27:35 PM


Author: FrekeChild

I just thought of a big plus, while talking to my friend, of living together before marriage. Not having to deal with the move right after/during wedding planning. Maybe it''s just me, but I would hate hate hate to have to deal with that while going through the stress of planning it as well. Double the stress-yuck. I''ve always been told that moving is one of the most stressful things a couple can do together, and I know it wasn''t fun for us to move from our respective places to our condo that we live in now. Not fun.


And even though you didn''t intend it Anna, I really think your first post came off as being a bit judgmental.

Please tell me how my post was judgmental but everyone else who posts that they would ''never'' get married without living with their SO first because of various reasons are not? I just gave my own reasons for my beliefs just like everyone who is pro-cohabitation gave theirs and I don''t really see a difference. I assume original poster wanted perspectives from both sides of the argument and, because most of the posts were pro-cohabitation, I decided to give my different viewpoint on the subject. Most of my friends who have waited until they are married to move in together have had the house bought/apartment lease signed/etc. so that they didn''t have to really deal with a lot of stress when they got back from the honeymoon. All they had to do was simply move their things in and arrange the furniture. Like I have said in my previous posts, this is my opinion and I did not say anything derogatory about those who do choose to live together so I apologize if my opinions offended you or anyone else here who are currently or soon will be cohabitating.

Defensive much? I was just letting you know that I thought your first post came off as a bit judgmental, and you finished it by saying ''None of this is meant to sound judgmental, so I apologize if it does. This is just the reason for my beliefs and I respect other people''s rights to make their own decisions in their lives.'' So I just thought I should let you know that my opinion is that you came off as being a little bit judgmental and did not take any offense to what you said. Sorry that you took offense to my offhand comment.


I have to say after moving several times myself that signing the papers is the least stressful part of moving. You start talking logistics, furniture placement, mishandling of personal items, not being able to find certain things, being able to find sheets and make a bed at the end of the day while being absolutely exhausted- that is where stress comes in. When BF moved into the condo with me, his favorite chair got scratched, and the marble on his coffee table split in two and he was in a funk about it the rest of the day, which made moving a lot harder and not fun at all. And *I* had moved in months prior.


BF and I had a discussion when we first started talking about marriage and I told him that I wanted a ring on my finger before I lived with him or anyone for that matter. When it came down to it though we ended moving in together because it was easier financially on him, and we were already essentially living together at his place while mine (now ours) was being renovated. I already knew what living with him would be like, not only that but what living with him and caring for him while he was incapacitated would be like. I didn''t need to physically live in the same place with him to know that I love him unconditionally and will marry him-but that time hasn''t come yet, because we are both students and aren''t set financially in any way.


To me, the biggest change when it comes down to getting married will be my name, the mixing of our finances, my family really embracing him as part of our family and knowing that where he goes-I go. I''ll have enough stress to deal with when we end up moving all of our stuff from our condo to whatever state we end up in once we''re both out of school.


I think that when it comes down to it, the divorce statistics have nothing to do with cohabiting or not, rather they have to do with the compatibility of the couple and the commitment they have for the relationship. I think the higher divorce rate (which is more like 40%-instead of the 50% that everyone seems to think- and going down because people are choosing to not get married instead of getting married and then divorced) comes from people just not willing to make their relationships work, and not sticking to their vows that they promised to each other on their wedding day.


Regardless ANY statistics in the vein should be taken with a grain of salt, because it''s a very hard thing to measure, and while the Census does it''s best, it''s just not a simple ''yes'' or ''no'' type of question and shouldn''t be treated as such. This has been gathered from the info BF and my dad have given me (sociological statistician and divorce attorney) and I''d say they''re pretty legitimate sources.

I didn''t find Anna''s post to be judgemental at all. She clearly stated throughout the post that it was HER personal views and that she was not trying to cast aspersions on those who had chosen differently. Even if she made general assumptions and used "should''ve''s" and "shouldn''t haves" - it''s still HER opinion, which everybody is entitled to, right?

I find that sometimes people hear a judgemental tone when it is not intended, especially in discussions of a moral nature. People always get defensive because they feel the other person is ''judging'' their life choices, even when it''s not the case. I think Anna was clear in avoiding that.

About the stress of moving in before/after marriage - I can''t comment on moving in before the wedding but my DH and I moved in after our honeymoon. It was definitely stressful but VERY exciting at the same time. It was like a ''good'' type of stress, you know? Arranging furniture, sorting out the bathroom, putting up artwork ...it was fun and exciting to see everything come together. So moving wasn''t a pain for us, it was actually the Next Big Exciting Event to look forward to after the wedding!

 

[Independent Gal]

For me, personally, I would never move in with someone I hadn''t made a serious commitment with - partly because I LOVED living by myself. At the same time, juuuuuust in case I wanted to live with FI for a bit before we were actually married. So for us, the right time to start living together was after engagement. IF I had found out things i couldn''t live with (which seemed unlikely) it''s easier to break off an engagement than a marriage. But I personally was not interested in finding out things I couldn''t live with with someone I had no intention of living with indefinitely. If you see what I mean.

Totally a personal decision.

I think the only time it''s really bad is if the couple are not clear with each other on their motives. Sometimes, women see moving in together as a sign of commitment, a step toward marriage, while their men see it as lots of free milk, more spending money, and a cleaner house.

Of course that''s not always the case, but when it is, it leads to disaster. IF a woman sees moving in together as a step toward marriage, it''s important that she be clear and find out if he sees it that way as well.

90% of interpersonal misery in the world grows out of simple misunderstanding.

 

[gwendolyn]

This topic makes me wonder how things would go with J and I if we weren''t in the situation we''re in. If we were living in the same area and seeing each other regularly all the time, I probably wouldn''t care too much one way or another if we lived together first. But because we''ve been long distance the whooooole tiiiiime, all the time we''ve had together has always been ''special'' so I don''t feel like it gives me a good enough idea how we''ll be when just living together normally (if there is such a thing). So in our situation, living together is mandatory for me, but in another situation, I''d probably be way more chill about it.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 3/10/2008 1:29:29 PM
Author: Sha

Date: 3/9/2008 10:27:59 PM

Author: FrekeChild

Date: 3/9/2008 8:43:25 PM


Author: Anna0499

Date: 3/9/2008 7:27:35 PM



Author: FrekeChild


I just thought of a big plus, while talking to my friend, of living together before marriage. Not having to deal with the move right after/during wedding planning. Maybe it's just me, but I would hate hate hate to have to deal with that while going through the stress of planning it as well. Double the stress-yuck. I've always been told that moving is one of the most stressful things a couple can do together, and I know it wasn't fun for us to move from our respective places to our condo that we live in now. Not fun.



And even though you didn't intend it Anna, I really think your first post came off as being a bit judgmental.

Please tell me how my post was judgmental but everyone else who posts that they would 'never' get married without living with their SO first because of various reasons are not? I just gave my own reasons for my beliefs just like everyone who is pro-cohabitation gave theirs and I don't really see a difference. I assume original poster wanted perspectives from both sides of the argument and, because most of the posts were pro-cohabitation, I decided to give my different viewpoint on the subject. Most of my friends who have waited until they are married to move in together have had the house bought/apartment lease signed/etc. so that they didn't have to really deal with a lot of stress when they got back from the honeymoon. All they had to do was simply move their things in and arrange the furniture. Like I have said in my previous posts, this is my opinion and I did not say anything derogatory about those who do choose to live together so I apologize if my opinions offended you or anyone else here who are currently or soon will be cohabitating.

Defensive much? I was just letting you know that I thought your first post came off as a bit judgmental, and you finished it by saying 'None of this is meant to sound judgmental, so I apologize if it does. This is just the reason for my beliefs and I respect other people's rights to make their own decisions in their lives.' So I just thought I should let you know that my opinion is that you came off as being a little bit judgmental and did not take any offense to what you said. Sorry that you took offense to my offhand comment.



I have to say after moving several times myself that signing the papers is the least stressful part of moving. You start talking logistics, furniture placement, mishandling of personal items, not being able to find certain things, being able to find sheets and make a bed at the end of the day while being absolutely exhausted- that is where stress comes in. When BF moved into the condo with me, his favorite chair got scratched, and the marble on his coffee table split in two and he was in a funk about it the rest of the day, which made moving a lot harder and not fun at all. And *I* had moved in months prior.



BF and I had a discussion when we first started talking about marriage and I told him that I wanted a ring on my finger before I lived with him or anyone for that matter. When it came down to it though we ended moving in together because it was easier financially on him, and we were already essentially living together at his place while mine (now ours) was being renovated. I already knew what living with him would be like, not only that but what living with him and caring for him while he was incapacitated would be like. I didn't need to physically live in the same place with him to know that I love him unconditionally and will marry him-but that time hasn't come yet, because we are both students and aren't set financially in any way.



To me, the biggest change when it comes down to getting married will be my name, the mixing of our finances, my family really embracing him as part of our family and knowing that where he goes-I go. I'll have enough stress to deal with when we end up moving all of our stuff from our condo to whatever state we end up in once we're both out of school.



I think that when it comes down to it, the divorce statistics have nothing to do with cohabiting or not, rather they have to do with the compatibility of the couple and the commitment they have for the relationship. I think the higher divorce rate (which is more like 40%-instead of the 50% that everyone seems to think- and going down because people are choosing to not get married instead of getting married and then divorced) comes from people just not willing to make their relationships work, and not sticking to their vows that they promised to each other on their wedding day.



Regardless ANY statistics in the vein should be taken with a grain of salt, because it's a very hard thing to measure, and while the Census does it's best, it's just not a simple 'yes' or 'no' type of question and shouldn't be treated as such. This has been gathered from the info BF and my dad have given me (sociological statistician and divorce attorney) and I'd say they're pretty legitimate sources.

I didn't find Anna's post to be judgemental at all. She clearly stated throughout the post that it was HER personal views and that she was not trying to cast aspersions on those who had chosen differently. Even if she made general assumptions and used 'should've's' and 'shouldn't haves' - it's still HER opinion, which everybody is entitled to, right?


I find that sometimes people hear a judgemental tone when it is not intended, especially in discussions of a moral nature. People always get defensive because they feel the other person is 'judging' their life choices, even when it's not the case. I think Anna was clear in avoiding that.


About the stress of moving in before/after marriage - I can't comment on moving in before the wedding but my DH and I moved in after our honeymoon. It was definitely stressful but VERY exciting at the same time. It was like a 'good' type of stress, you know? Arranging furniture, sorting out the bathroom, putting up artwork ...it was fun and exciting to see everything come together. So moving wasn't a pain for us, it was actually the Next Big Exciting Event to look forward to after the wedding!

i agree with Sha and Anna. I would have made the same point that Anna did if i had looked at this thread earlier. the things that make people compatible like how they handle disagreements, their willingness to compromise, etc SHOULD all be known before marriage is considered, and there are most certainly ways to find this out other than getting married. it is unlikely that a man is generous in every single aspect of his life but refuses to share the remote, and that's what breaks up the marriage. besides, if you can't make a marriage work because you get mad about him throwing his socks on the floor, then you probably aren't going to have much luck with anyone, not just that person

we're not saying that it's wrong, we're just saying that the particular argument doesn't hold a lot of water for us. that's all.

musey and frekechild - you're right about taking the statistics with a grain of salt: it might be true that people who don't live together first get divorced less because they are morally against it, but then there's the statistic that says people who go to church get divorced just as frequently as those who don't.... so you just never know. it all has to do with wording and junk...

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 3:31:27 PM
Author: mimzy

i agree with Sha and Anna. I would have made the same point that Anna did if i had looked at this thread earlier. the things that make people compatible like how they handle disagreements, their willingness to compromise, etc SHOULD all be known before marriage is considered, and there are most certainly ways to find this out other than getting married. it is unlikely that a man is generous in every single aspect of his life but refuses to share the remote, and that's what breaks up the marriage. besides, if you can't make a marriage work because you get mad about him throwing his socks on the floor, then you probably aren't going to have much luck with anyone, not just that person

we're not saying that it's wrong, we're just saying that the particular argument doesn't hold a lot of water for us. that's all.

musey and frekechild - you're right about taking the statistics with a grain of salt: it might be true that people who don't live together first get divorced less because they are morally against it, but then there's the statistic that says people who go to church get divorced just as frequently as those who don't.... so you just never know. it all has to do with wording and junk...

It didn't seem to me that many people were even making that argument. I certainly wasn't, at all.

My only argument was that studies have shown that premarital cohabitation does not in any way hinder a couple's chances at future success in their marriage. That renders any argument against premarital cohabitation, citing a supposed higher divorce rate or lower marriage satisfaction, 100% moot.

Therefore, I believe that saying you won't move in with your SO before marrying because you're afraid it will hurt your chances at having a happy marriage is a poorly backed decision. That's the only time I cannot say "to each his own." Partly because citing those reasons spreads misconceptions about the truth of cohabitation, and partly because it confuzzles me to see people making decisions based upon "facts" that are 100% untrue. That's why I always want to share correct information with these people, because if their decision is truly based on these "facts," then they have a right to be informed that their information is faulty.

However, if you don't want to based on religious or moral convictions, or simply do not want to for no particular reason other than not wanting to, that's great. Then I can say "to each his own," because those are personal decisions not based on "faulty logic" but just on one's own value system, which should not be drawn into question, IMO.

Also, re: your last point on statistics, Mimzy... I was not quoting a statistic saying that people who do not cohabit are less likely to divorce because they are morally against both. It was an example of why particular statistics ("flat" stats) are not reliable. It also must be noted that there is a vast divide between people who "go to church," as you said, and people who are morally against cohabitation and/or divorce. They do not go hand-in-hand, and therefore any statistic on any of those categories is not valuable in backing up trends in another category.

 

[musey]

Mimzy, as a side note, I sincerely doubt that anyone is referring to a man's ability to "share the remote" when they say they want to live together first to make sure they are compatible. There are many things I found out about my FI after moving in together. Thankfully, none of them were dealbreakers for me. Here's an example, though, that I posted in the other "living together" thread but hadn't here, yet.

My cousin moved in with her boyfriend after dating him for quite some time (over 2 years). Everyone LOVED him, her parents completely approved, and they were planning to get engaged within the year. They decided to move in together and use the money they save on rent toward their wedding, and that they would treat it as a marriage situation since that's where they were headed, anyhow. After she moved in, he completely changed gears and became obsessively jealous. His justification was that now that they were "married," (as they had agreed to treat the situation) she was now HIS, and he had every right to protect what is HIS. She thought it was just a phase. Things started getting worse, and she eventually ended up in the ER with a broken arm and two black eyes, not to mention extensive bruising throughout the rest of her body.

This doesn't prove to me that moving in together before marrying is necessary, just that the benefits will almost always outweigh any negatives when a couple is already on a marriage track. No matter who you are or what your relationship is like, things change when you move in together. They certainly did for us, and I found that not only did our relationship change, but I changed. Thankfully, all changes were either for the better or not noticeable, in our situation.

Again, I don't believe that any of what I've said should be taken as an encouragement for anyone to live together before marrying. I do not intend it that way at all. The only intention I've written my posts with is simply to share what research has (and has NOT) shown on this subject, and to hopefully spur people to really think about and research this decision, before blackballing cohabitation based on faulty logic.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:06:44 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/10/2008 3:31:27 PM

Author: mimzy


i agree with Sha and Anna. I would have made the same point that Anna did if i had looked at this thread earlier. the things that make people compatible like how they handle disagreements, their willingness to compromise, etc SHOULD all be known before marriage is considered, and there are most certainly ways to find this out other than getting married. it is unlikely that a man is generous in every single aspect of his life but refuses to share the remote, and that's what breaks up the marriage. besides, if you can't make a marriage work because you get mad about him throwing his socks on the floor, then you probably aren't going to have much luck with anyone, not just that person


we're not saying that it's wrong, we're just saying that the particular argument doesn't hold a lot of water for us. that's all.


musey and frekechild - you're right about taking the statistics with a grain of salt: it might be true that people who don't live together first get divorced less because they are morally against it, but then there's the statistic that says people who go to church get divorced just as frequently as those who don't.... so you just never know. it all has to do with wording and junk...

It didn't seem to me that many people were even making that argument. I certainly wasn't, at all.


My only argument was that studies have shown that premarital cohabitation does not in any way hinder a couple's chances at future success in their marriage. That renders any argument against premarital cohabitation, citing a supposed higher divorce rate or lower marriage satisfaction, 100% moot.


Therefore, I believe that saying you won't move in with your SO before marrying because you're afraid it will hurt your chances at having a happy marriage is a poorly backed decision. That's the only time I cannot say 'to each his own.' Partly because citing those reasons spreads misconceptions about the truth of cohabitation, and partly because it confuzzles me to see people making decisions based upon 'facts' that are 100% untrue.


However, if you don't want to based on religious or moral convictions, or simply do not want to for no particular reason other than not wanting to, then that's great. Then I can say 'to each his own.'

musey slow down!

the only reason that i mentioned the statistic at the end is because they conflict but both make sense. i was just saying that using statistics to back or refute anything (including this) with small margins isn't worth all that much because there will usually be another statistic to refute it, that's all. you said statistics show that people who don't live together first for religious reasons are less likely to get divorced BECAUSE of those religious reasons, and i just pointed out a statistic that people who go to church are just as likely to get divorced as people who don't. just to show that statistics can be funny and misleading - that's all. i totally respect what you were saying and what you were getting at.

and people constantly make the argument that living together helps you to decide whether or not you can live with a person peacefully. i never said you did....

as for the bolded part, i don't even know where you got that from! i never said anything of the sort...?


i'm really sorry to hear about your cousin - that's really really sad and i hope the guy paid for what he did. obviously the remote comment was on the extreme side, as i think the situation with your cousin is also. i know things can change once you move in, but they can also change once you get married. it is lucky that some people find out things before they DO get married by living together, but in general i would hope that most of us know what we need to know when we accept a man's proposal

 

[sklingem]

Thanks Musey for your great post ... I think you really nailed it. There is a big difference between assuming that one knows what is going to happen based on previous dating without living together and the first-hand experience of actually sharing a place together. Are there usually unexpected bad surprises when people move in together with all the best intentions? No. But I''d rather not take the chance to commit (such as being engaged) without making sure that we are compatible in everyday life and space. Engagement and marriage is too important to me NOT to make every possible effort to maximize future success, inclding cohabitation.

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:17:34 PM
Author: mimzy

musey slow down!

the only reason that i mentioned the statistic at the end is because they conflict but both make sense. i was just saying that using statistics to back or refute anything (including this) with small margins isn't worth all that much because there will usually be another statistic to refute it, that's all. you said statistics show that people who don't live together first for religious reasons are less likely to get divorced BECAUSE of those religious reasons, and i just pointed out a statistic that people who go to church are just as likely to get divorced as people who don't. just to show that statistics can be funny and misleading - that's all. i totally respect what you were saying and what you were getting at.

No, I absolutely did not. I said that statistics show that people who do not live together first have a lower divorce rate. Then I went on to make the argument that that statistic may be slanted by the fact that those who are morally opposed to cohabiting are likely also morally opposed to divorce.

I never stated that statistics show that people who do not live together for moral or religious reasons are less likely to divorce.

as for the bolded part, i don't even know where you got that from! i never said anything of the sort...?

You didn't, but Anna did. I wasn't addressing you specifically in my entire post, but the general argument that is taking place in this thread (as it is a discussion between many people, not just you and I). Though, to be fair, you did say that you agreed with Anna and would have made the "same point she did."

ETA:

i know things can change once you move in, but they can also change once you get married. it is lucky that some people find out things before they DO get married by living together, but in general i would hope that most of us know what we need to know when we accept a man's proposal

Certainly. Again, I can only truly speak for myself, but I was 100% ready to marry FI before we moved in together--but the timing was not at all right for us. So we moved in together instead. I did not move in with him in order to "check him out" and make sure I knew what I was getting.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:25:15 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/10/2008 4:17:34 PM

Author: mimzy


musey slow down!


the only reason that i mentioned the statistic at the end is because they conflict but both make sense. i was just saying that using statistics to back or refute anything (including this) with small margins isn't worth all that much because there will usually be another statistic to refute it, that's all. you said statistics show that people who don't live together first for religious reasons are less likely to get divorced BECAUSE of those religious reasons, and i just pointed out a statistic that people who go to church are just as likely to get divorced as people who don't. just to show that statistics can be funny and misleading - that's all. i totally respect what you were saying and what you were getting at.

No, I absolutely did not. I said that statistics show that people who do not live together first have a lower divorce rate. Then I went on to make the argument that that statistic may be slanted by the fact that those who are morally opposed to cohabiting are likely also morally opposed to divorce.


I never stated that statistics show that people who do not live together for moral or religious reasons are less likely to divorce.

as for the bolded part, i don't even know where you got that from! i never said anything of the sort...?

You didn't, but Anna did. I wasn't addressing you specifically in my entire post, but the general argument that is taking place in this thread (as it is a discussion between many people, not just you and I). Though, to be fair, you did say that you agreed with Anna and would have made the 'same point she did.'

okay, but the point remains the same? all i was saying was that don't put too much faith in statistics! (and i suppose that it isn't always a good idea to infer things from statistics)

i take no issue with anything that you've said and i'm certainly not trying to be disrespectful or anything. as for making the same point as anna, i don't remember why she said she wasn't living with her SO before marriage/engagement, but that's a seperate thing from the issue that she raised about the whole "finding out if you can live with them" thing. sorry for the confusion???

i don't really get why we are arguing?

 

[musey]

Your point remains the same, but when I am misquoted I do need to clarify.

In my scenario:
Fact: Couples who don't live together before marrying have a lower rate of divorce than those that do.
-However, those who do not live together for moral reasons are generally also opposed to divorce for moral reasons. Therefore, the "not living together" is not the constant in the study. "Morally opposed to cohabitation" is the constant. Therefore the study is flawed, and the statistic stating that couples who don't cohabit prior to marrying becomes meaningless.

Since you misinterpreted my post, the argument you were making was against a statistic that I didn't actually state (and, to my knowledge, has never been published).


And re: arguing... we are?? I wasn't aware. I was misquoted so I just clarified what I actually stated, so that others don't think I said something that I did not. I think you are confusing my addressing of the general topic (and other posters/readers) as being entirely directed at you, which it is not unless otherwise indicated.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:37:38 PM
Author: musey
Your point remains the same, but when I am misquoted I do need to clarify.


In my scenario:

Fact: Couples who don't live together before marrying have a lower rate of divorce than those that do.

-However, those who do not live together for moral reasons are generally also opposed to divorce for moral reasons. Therefore, the 'not living together' is not the constant in the study. 'Morally opposed to cohabitation' is the constant. Therefore the study is flawed, and the statistic stating that couples who don't cohabit prior to marrying becomes meaningless.


In your scenario:

Your 'quote' of my provided Fact: Couples who don't live together before marrying because they are religious are less likely to divorce.

Your argument: There is also a statistic stating that those who attend church are no less or more likely to divorce than those that do, so prior statement (made by Musey) is therefore false.

i wasn't trying to prove your statement was false musey, all i was trying to do was say that ALL statistics are finicky, and i think i made that intention clear. i wasn't arguing the statistic, and if i had been i would have been very meticulous in doing that. i don't really understand what you are getting at with your scenerio. either way, i'm v.sorry that i misquoted you.

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:43:13 PM
Author: mimzy

i don't really understand what you are getting at with your scenerio. either way, i'm v.sorry that i misquoted you.

That's fine, it happens all the time--but I hope you do understand why I felt the need to clarify. I very much dislike feeling as though my posts have been misinterpreted, as I'm sure you do, as well.

As for what my scenario is getting at... do you have much experience with the scientific method? At least the basics. All research is supposed to follow a certain formula, and in the testing phase, there must be both variables (those things which change) and constant/controlled variables (those things which do not change).

Ideally, any study should isolate variables so that only one is changed per test. So, if you're trying to figure out what is making you break out, only change one thing about your routine per week, in order to isolate what is causing the problem for you. This is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do in sociological testing, so sociologists need to determine which variables are most important to keep constant.

So, my point in my "scenario" was that an extremely important variable--moral conviction--was not controlled. They included all those who did not cohabit in one, big pile for that study, without discriminating between those who did not cohabit for moral reasons vs. those who did not cohabit for other reasons. That's a VERY important distinction to be made, which should massively effect results... and yet it was ignored.

So, my point was that moral values should impact the outcome of the "those who do not live together have a better shot at marriage" statistic, and therefore that statistic means little to NOTHING. Which is why I needed to clarify. It is not because I felt you were disagreeing with me, but simply because I felt I had been misunderstood.

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:22:17 PM
Author: sklingem

Thanks Musey for your great post ... I think you really nailed it. There is a big difference between assuming that one knows what is going to happen based on previous dating without living together and the first-hand experience of actually sharing a place together. Are there usually unexpected bad surprises when people move in together with all the best intentions? No. But I''d rather not take the chance to commit (such as being engaged) without making sure that we are compatible in everyday life and space. Engagement and marriage is too important to me NOT to make every possible effort to maximize future success, inclding cohabitation.

Thanks, slkingem. That''s a very important step to a lot of people, even though I don''t think that the extreme cases are necessarily a reason to make exception to one''s own moral code. I just think the extreme cases are a very good reason to not say that cohabitation is "bad" or can lead to "problems."

 

[princesss]

Musey, I''ve been thinking about this study since I read your initial post about it. Do you remember who conducted it/where I could find it? I''m really interested and want to read as much as I can about it.

Also, I kind of want to procrastinate writing my thesis...I know, I know. Bad princesss, bad.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:37:38 PM
Author: musey
Your point remains the same, but when I am misquoted I do need to clarify.


In my scenario:

Fact: Couples who don''t live together before marrying have a lower rate of divorce than those that do.

-However, those who do not live together for moral reasons are generally also opposed to divorce for moral reasons. Therefore, the ''not living together'' is not the constant in the study. ''Morally opposed to cohabitation'' is the constant. Therefore the study is flawed, and the statistic stating that couples who don''t cohabit prior to marrying becomes meaningless.


Since you misinterpreted my post, the argument you were making was against a statistic that I didn''t actually state (and, to my knowledge, has never been published).



And re: arguing... we are?? I wasn''t aware. I was misquoted so I just clarified what I actually stated, so that others don''t think I said something that I did not. I think you are confusing my addressing of the general topic (and other posters/readers) as being entirely directed at you, which it is not unless otherwise indicated.

i understand scientific method and controlled and uncontrolled variables....this bolded part is what threw me off - i''m guessing you meant the reverse?

 

[musey]

Mimzy, a result of poor wording. "Morally opposed to cohabitation should be the constant, instead of 'did not cohabitate'" was my intended meaning, not the reverse of what I said. I wish you'd told me what specifically you were talking about before before, I spent way too long a time trying to properly word my explanation of variables in this context

Oh well, hopefully it helped someone who wasn't aware of that stuff.

Princesss, I took an entire course specifically discussing family makeup as affected by cohabitation during one of my final semesters of undergrad, so the stuff I'm pulling comes from many, many different studies. All were studies that were published in academic journals, so the majority are inaccessible unless you have login permission for JSTOR (which you probably do since you're working on a thesis).

You can find my citations in this identically-named but much more volatile thread from 2006. I'd encourage anyone who's even mildly entertained by this thread to read through that one, as this thread is pretty much a re-hashing of most of the things we discussed there. It's very interesting.

Here's another thread that we discussed these issues in, more briefly: Cohabitation Statistics

And another... How do I know if I should move on?

 

[zoebartlett]

Date: 3/7/2008 11:51:07 AM
Author:TheOptimist
Lately I''ve been thinking that I want to live with bf at some point, just so I know what it''s like. At the beginning of the relationship, he practically lived with me. But now, we kind of have a set routine of me sleeping over at his place two times a week. I think at some point, it would be nice to not have to pay for two places and live together, I''ve been married before and it does show you alot about the other person --- I want to know if our dynamic will work.

I was just wondering how many of the LIW actually lived with their BF/FI/SO before marriage? Why or why not?

I haven''t read the entire thread yet but I''ll do so after responding to the original question.

I''m engaged now but my FI and I bought a condo together and began living each other full time almost 2.5 years ago. Before that, we lived in another area of our state, in separate apartments. I had two roommates and he lived alone so I stayed at his place about half of each week (including weekends). We began dating over four years ago and it took a while to get to the point where my FI and I assumed we''d spend so much time together. It was great -- I could still have my own space (which is important to me) any time I needed it.

I ended up getting a new job and my FI (boyfriend at the time) followed me. It just worked out that we found and bought a condo the same month my FI''s apartment''s lease was up. We knew we''d be together for the long haul and by waiting a few years into our relationship to move in together full time, we knew exactly what we were getting into. It''s not always easy but I much rather know now rather than after we''re married what we''re getting into.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 3/10/2008 4:25:15 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/10/2008 4:17:34 PM
Author: mimzy

musey slow down!

the only reason that i mentioned the statistic at the end is because they conflict but both make sense. i was just saying that using statistics to back or refute anything (including this) with small margins isn''t worth all that much because there will usually be another statistic to refute it, that''s all. you said statistics show that people who don''t live together first for religious reasons are less likely to get divorced BECAUSE of those religious reasons, and i just pointed out a statistic that people who go to church are just as likely to get divorced as people who don''t. just to show that statistics can be funny and misleading - that''s all. i totally respect what you were saying and what you were getting at.

No, I absolutely did not. I said that statistics show that people who do not live together first have a lower divorce rate. Then I went on to make the argument that that statistic may be slanted by the fact that those who are morally opposed to cohabiting are likely also morally opposed to divorce.

I never stated that statistics show that people who do not live together for moral or religious reasons are less likely to divorce.

as for the bolded part, i don''t even know where you got that from! i never said anything of the sort...?

You didn''t, but Anna did. I wasn''t addressing you specifically in my entire post, but the general argument that is taking place in this thread (as it is a discussion between many people, not just you and I). Though, to be fair, you did say that you agreed with Anna and would have made the ''same point she did.''

ETA:

i know things can change once you move in, but they can also change once you get married. it is lucky that some people find out things before they DO get married by living together, but in general i would hope that most of us know what we need to know when we accept a man''s proposal

Certainly. Again, I can only truly speak for myself, but I was 100% ready to marry FI before we moved in together--but the timing was not at all right for us. So we moved in together instead. I did not move in with him in order to ''check him out'' and make sure I knew what I was getting.

Sha - I''m glad you understood what I was saying. I knew this would be a hot button topic when I started typing but because a lot of the posts seemed to be pro-cohabitation I decided to give my viewpoint on the topic as applied to my own situation and circumstances. I tried very hard not to sound like I was "downing" the other position by stating particular facts about my situation to further distinguish the opinion and to make sure everyone knew I wasn''t talking about the general population. All of the other posts cited specific circumstances in their own lives so I thought I was safe but inserted the disclaimer just in case. Unfortunately, I guess I made more than one person feel judged!

Hopefully after my honeymoon I will experience the same kind of happiness and excitement you did with moving in. As I had stated in my previous posts, I realize I am a bit "green" compared to some other posters on this topic and who knows how I will view the topic in 10 years.

Mimzy - I am in complete agreement with you and I want to know every little detail about my SO before marriage, and consequently, before moving in together. We have been together for over a year and I know his living habits and we have spent a week together so I would like to think that moving in with my husband will be an exciting and fun time after the honeymoon high and no huge surprises will arise. While I know that you can find out a lot about someone by actually living with them, many of the reasons why people end up not getting married or get divorces also arise after many years of living together or marriage. I don''t think you can ever be completely 100% sure of the likelihood of a successful marriage but that is the risk you take with love!

Musey - I never said that living together would hurt chances of having a happy marriage. I don''t even know where you got that. I have taken care not to make general statements in my posts. Like I stated in my previous posts, I know of couples who cohabitated before marriage and they are doing just fine. I have many (personal religious, moral, practical) reasons for not wanting to cohabitate before marriage. I have certain expectations about marriage and these are also reflected in my opinion on the subject. Furthermore, if you read my previous posts, I specifically rejected statistics as my reason for this personal choice, and never cited any statistics. I actually minored in sociology and child development and family studies in undergrad and have studied all of the statistics, studies, etc. concerning the topic. That being said, I think people can base their decisions, in part, on any statistics or studies they wish. People use statistics in their everyday lives to make a variety of decisions (i.e. weather, traffic, etc.) and if they understand the methodology, exceptions, flaws, explanations, etc. of the studies they are free to make any choices they want. While I don''t personally think that the statistics on cohabitation should be the only deciding factor in this choice, it can play a part. For example, many people who are choosing not to get married or those who get married but are getting pre-nup agreements cite the overall divorce statistic although that statistic generally includes people multiple marriages. The numbers do tell you something, regardless of how strongly.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 3/10/2008 1:01:02 AM
Author: musey
Anna, re: views on cohabitation depending upon age--I''m 23. I think that Freke is also in her early 20''s? Please correct me if I''m wrong!

I''m not sure whether that means anything but I just wanted to throw that in in case it is significant from your standpoint.

Musey -
No, "age is just a number" but I included it along with the other facts about my personal situation - never been married, no children, financially stable, law student, etc. as reasons why living with my SO is unnecessary and doesn''t make as much sense (TO ME) than maybe to others in their respective situations. I specifically included my age because I wanted to make it clear that I know I am not a wise old sage on the topic and am leaving open the possibility that my opinion may change when I am 30 or 40.

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 6:10:58 PM
Author: Anna0499

Musey - I never said that living together would hurt chances of having a happy marriage. I don't even know where you got that. I have taken care not to make general statements in my posts. Like I stated in my previous posts, I know of couples who cohabitated before marriage and they are doing just fine.

I do. This is what you said:

Date: 3/9/2008 1:58:55 AM
Author: Anna0499
Like some of you have mentioned, I also think that cohabitation is an easy way around ever getting married at all.

So, I apologize. I cited you as an example of people who thought cohabitation would be less likely to lead a happy marriage, when you in fact said that you think cohabitation is less likely to lead to marriage at all. Though I have to admit, that is a VERY thin line.

I likely cemented that ever so slightly "off" idea of your stance in my mind through your later posts because I could only skim them, due to the pink font being quite uncomfortable to read.

I cannot cite research because, to my knowledge and at the time of my course (fall '06), none has been done in this specific vein. However, I can say that the only cohabiting couples I know that have not gone on to marry either never intended to in the first place (i.e. temporary or informal arrangement) OR went in intending to substitute cohabitation for marriage (in which case, both parties were aware). All the couples I know who began living together with the intention of marrying eventually are now either engaged or married. My professor also stated that research indicates this to be the trend, even though there are no hard stats on it as of yet.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 3/10/2008 6:43:39 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/10/2008 6:10:58 PM
Author: Anna0499

Musey - I never said that living together would hurt chances of having a happy marriage. I don''t even know where you got that. I have taken care not to make general statements in my posts. Like I stated in my previous posts, I know of couples who cohabitated before marriage and they are doing just fine.

I do. This is what you said:

Date: 3/9/2008 1:58:55 AM
Author: Anna0499
Like some of you have mentioned, I also think that cohabitation is an easy way around ever getting married at all.

So, I apologize. I cited you as an example of people who thought cohabitation would be less likely to lead a happy marriage, when you in fact said that cohabitation is less likely to lead to marriage. Though I have to admit, that is a VERY thin thin thin line. I likely cemented in my mind through your later posts because I could only skim them, due to the pink font being quite uncomfortable to read.

I cannot cite research because, to my knowledge and at the time of my course (fall ''06), none has been done in this specific vein. However, I can say that the only cohabiting couples I know that have not gone on to marry either never intended to in the first place i.e. temporary arrangement OR went in intending to substitute cohabitation for marriage. All the couples I know who began living together with the intention of marrying eventually are now either engaged or married. My professor also stated that research indicates this to be the trend, even though there are no hard stats on it as of yet.

And just to clarify for everyone, it''s (since I started using the incorrect spellings after seeing it spelled these ways, BAD confused musey):
Cohabit
Cohabited
Cohabiting

Not:
Cohabitate
Cohabitated
Cohabitating

But you know that, Anna, since you minored in Sociology.

So, in your mind, by me agreeing with other posters that some people live together instead of ever getting married, I was saying that cohabitation leads to an unhappy marriage? That makes zero sense - the first statement is about never getting married at all and your accusation deals with having an unhappy marriage - I don''t think that qualifies as a "VERY thin thin thin line."

Also, if you are going to try to cite me, I would suggest that you actually read, not skim, my posts, no matter how "uncomfortable" the pink font makes you. The "pink font" excuse for not reading my post when you are specifically referring to them is laughable in my opinion. If the color does hurt your eyes I would suggest that you not read my posts at all, rather than misciting me.

If you had read my previous posts, which I stand by, I also said that I knew of couples who lived together before marriage and are now happily married. However, not everyone who moves in together has the "marriage" talk or even sees it as a prelude to marriage. Your post stated that people usually end up doing what they intend to do, which to me, doesn''t tell me much.

Futhermore, as for your last comment, I figure that it''s okay that you say that you took a family studies course in 2006 but when I state that I minored in Sociology (not English), then that warrants a very immature and snide remark from you? Thanks for taking this topic to a bad place and for the correction in everyone''s English. I have been respectful of everyone''s posts and have specifically stated in all of my own posts that my viewpoints are based on my own life. If I had known that I would be singled out and mocked by you for my opinions I would not have posted at all. My thought was that the original poster wanted different perspectives. I am quite positive that you would not be reacting this way if I agreed with your opinion on the topic.

 

[Anna0499]

Unfortunately, it is too late to edit your post as I quoted it in my reply. I hope you realize you should stop and think about what you''re posting before you hit "submit."

 

[musey]

It's getting kind of exhausting trying to reply to everything, especially when everyone's gotten to the point that they're feeling targeted and defensive, but here I go:

Date: 3/10/2008 7:07:13 PM
Author: Anna0499

So, in your mind, by me agreeing with other posters that some people live together instead of ever getting married, I was saying that cohabitation leads to an unhappy marriage? That makes zero sense - the first statement is about never getting married at all and your accusation deals with having an unhappy marriage - I don't think that qualifies as a 'VERY thin thin thin line.'

I didn't make any "accusation." This is what I said:

Date: 3/10/2008 4:06:44 PM
Author: musey

Therefore, I believe that saying you won't move in with your SO before marrying because you're afraid it will hurt your chances at having a happy marriage is a poorly backed decision. That's the only time I cannot say 'to each his own.' Partly because citing those reasons spreads misconceptions about the truth of cohabitation, and partly because it confuzzles me to see people making decisions based upon 'facts' that are 100% untrue.

The confusion lies in where you place emphasis. I didn't reference "unhappy marriage," I referenced "lack of happy marriage." For me, the emphasis was on the marriage part, not the happy part. Which is how "not leading to marriage" and "not leading to happy marriage" become nearly interchangeable to me, because of where I place emphasis, where it could be interpreted in an entirely different way by someone else.

Date: 3/10/2008 7:07:13 PM
Author: Anna0499

Also, if you are going to try to cite me, I would suggest that you actually read, not skim, my posts, no matter how 'uncomfortable' the pink font makes you. The 'pink font' excuse for not reading my post when you are specifically referring to them is laughable in my opinion. If the color does hurt your eyes I would suggest that you not read my posts at all, rather than misciting me.

To clarify, I never actually quoted or cited you on the subject, until you took issue to my referring (which is different) to your original post in my reply to mimzy. At which point I apologized for confusing your original meaning. I went on to explain why I had made that *mistake*, not as an excuse, but an extension of my apology.

The use of distracting font colors has been often discussed on here, but I failed to notice until now that you have not posted many times so may not be aware of that.

If you had read my previous posts, which I stand by, I also said that I knew of couples who lived together before marriage and are now happily married. However, not everyone who moves in together has the 'marriage' talk or even sees it as a prelude to marriage. Your post stated that people usually end up doing what they intend to do, which to me, doesn't tell me much.

The point of me saying that people follow through with what they intend was my own take on your point that you "think that cohabitation is an easy way around ever getting married at all." I don't feel that this is the case, unless both parties intend for their cohabitation to be temporary or as a marriage substitute, which is really the main issue: whether both parties are on board. The main drawback of cohabitation that has been alluded to time and again on this board (though slightly less so on this particular thread) is that if a couple moves in without discussing the goals of their cohabitation, they may not be on the same page. That's why I felt the need to state that, if the arrangement is thoroughly discussed ahead of time, it is my belief (and the indication, but not conclusion, or current research) that the couple will follow through with that arrangement.

Futhermore, as for your last comment, I figure that it's okay that you say that you took a family studies course in 2006 but when I state that I minored in Sociology (not English), then that warrants a very immature and snide remark from you? Thanks for taking this topic to a bad place and for the correction in everyone's English. I have been respectful of everyone's posts and have specifically stated in all of my own posts that my viewpoints are based on my own life. If I had known that I would be singled out and mocked by you for my opinions I would not have posted at all. My thought was that the original poster wanted different perspectives. I am quite positive that you would not be reacting this way if I agreed with your opinion on the topic.[/b]

Firstly, as a high school student I was mocked often for using incorrect versions of words (like cohabit vs. cohabitate), so I've since made a specific point of double-checking my spelling, etc. I've also gotten in trouble academically for this problem, because I used versions of words that I had seen in a non-academic arena (like this forum). I thought pointing out the discrepancy could be helpful in avoiding confusion for anyone who might need to use those words in an academic arena, as we do have many college students and future college students reading this forum.

The reason that I made the "but you know that" comment was so that you wouldn't think I was trying to criticize you of using those words incorrectly. Since you minored in Sociology, I figured you knew the correct terms, but that you were getting confused by others' use of the incorrect ones the way I was.

Given that you were already on the defense before I even referenced you at all, I figured that you would take that the wrong way, so I removed it.

Secondly, I was not "singling you out" OR "mocking you" for your opinions. You are fully entitled, as I have said MANY TIMES in this thread and others, to make whatever decisions are right for you in this area. As I have said and said and said, the only reason I have to take issue with someone's decision that they've shared is if they are using incorrect statistics, etc. to back it up, which you didn't. Like I said before, the only thing you said that I take issue with is the idea that cohabiting is "an easy way around ever getting married at all." That may be true for a select few, but certainly does not apply to the majority. But I emphasize AGAIN that this is not an area of study that has been fully explored, so neither stance can be argued as "correct" as of this point.


As a side note, many of the regulars know why I post quickly then edit

so hopefully they forgive me, haha. It does not need to be brought up again here, though, I suppose, as this post is already RIDICULOUSLY long.

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 7:10:44 PM
Author: Anna0499
Unfortunately, it is too late to edit your post as I quoted it in my reply. I hope you realize you should stop and think about what you''re posting before you hit ''submit.''

Well, it''s only technically "too late" to edit a post until 20 minutes have passed

I take a great deal of time to "stop and think" when I think that it actually matters (though when I do that, I have to go through the trouble of opening up a text editing program to work out my response there). Again, it didn''t occur to me that you might take offense to it until after I''d already posted it, so I removed it. I don''t really mind that you saw it before I took it down, other than that it caused you to take a little more offense and therefore be more upset than you already were, which is never a good thing.

 

[princesss]

Musey, thanks for the link! I''ll have to print them out before my JSTOR permission expires in May (dang that graduation). It''ll give me something to research after my thesis...haha, I think my head is going to explode after my thesis, so I''ll need some "fun" research.

 

[LegacyGirl]

I do Family Law and Bankruptcy (they go hand in hand after all

) and you all would be surprised how many people do actually break up because someone "won''t share the remote" so to speak. While there may be underlying problems in the relationship, I do hear a lot that my clients wished they would have lived together before getting married. They seem to think that would change the situation. Would it? I don''t know. Maybe, maybe not... some people just don''t want to work at their marriage and they want it to be perfect, like a fairy tale. The fact is marriage is not a fairy tale all the time. It takes work. A lot of work. I fully believe that 99% of marriages can work whether or not people lived together before or after marriage. They just need to take the time to make it be perfect, not just expect that it will always be perfect.

I support what each individual person wants to do. Don''t believe in living together before marriage? Fine. Want to? That''s fine with me too. I''ve even done cohabitation agreements (sort of like a prenup without the marriage) for some of my clients.

Anna good luck in law school. It can be tough at times.

If you do go into family law your minor will help you. I majored in Sociology and it has been a big help to me. You''ll find that sometimes your clients just really need to talk.

If it matters to anyone... I live with my SO and we are planning our wedding. I''m pretty happy having him around but I do fully support and respect each and every one of you who has a different opinion.