Living together before marriage

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 8:06:58 PM
Author: 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.

I know what you mean! Anything off-topic from my major was ''fun'' for me while I was in school

though I have to say this stuff is particularly interesting. I especially like the articles, though there are few of them, that fully admit that there are more variables than can be accurately represented in these studies. Interpersonal relationships are such an intricate matter!

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 8:08:19 PM
Author: 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.

That is so true! I think that's why many of my friends are afraid to get married, because they don't think they'll find the guy who they'll be able to have a "fairy tale" marriage with.

I think for me, there's a big divide between "fairy tale" marriages and ones that simply "work." If I married a man without being fully prepared, and it was the best marriage could be, I would still make it "work." But how sad to be stuck with something that simply "works," instead of something that is also wonderful? I'm quite glad that FI and I can still feel like we're in some sort of honeymoon phase after 4 years together and 2 years cohabiting. They say the honeymoon phase can't last forever, but there's a 60-year-old couple in my building who act like a couple of lovesick teenagers with each other. It's disgustingly cute. I only with everyone could find that, instead of having to just "make it work."

I figure that if, for some people, doing the "trial marriage" helps determine whether they could do more than just "make it work," then that's enough reason for them to go for it!

 

[LegacyGirl]

Date: 3/10/2008 8:16:01 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/10/2008 8:08:19 PM
Author: 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.

That is so true! I think that''s why many of my friends are afraid to get married, because they don''t think they''ll find the guy who they''ll be able to have a ''fairy tale'' marriage with.

I think for me, there''s a big divide between ''fairy tale'' marriages and ones that simply ''work.'' If I married a man without being fully prepared, and it was the best marriage could be, I would still make it ''work.'' But how sad to be stuck with something that simply ''works,'' instead of something that is also wonderful? I''m quite glad that FI and I can still feel like we''re in some sort of honeymoon phase after 4 years together and 2 years cohabiting. They say the honeymoon phase can''t last forever, but there''s a 60-year-old couple in my building who act like a couple of lovesick teenagers with each other. It''s disgustingly cute. I only with everyone could find that, instead of having to just ''make it work.''

I figure that if, for some people, doing the ''trial marriage'' helps determine whether they could do more than just ''make it work,'' then that''s enough reason for them to go for it!

Oh I so agree!! We''re so happy even after all these years... Same with my parents, they still hold hands when they go out. My grandparents do the same. It''s so cute!

Living with my SO actually made me want to marry him. Before that I didn''t care too much. It just seems the more time we spend together the more I love him. I''m glad that I will have as close to a fairy tale as I can.

When are you two getting married? And congrats!!

 

[LegacyGirl]

Oh let me add that I didn''t care too much about marriage, not my SO! LOL I reread that and I was like wait that sounds funny!

 

[FrekeChild]

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.

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.

I wasn't making that point either. Mine was much more to the tune of: There are things that can pop up after you live together (before or after marriage) that no amount of talking beforehand will even begin to cover or know about until you live together. No mention of remotes or dirty socks here.

There are 3 Cs that make marriage work:
Compassion
Compromise
Commitment

Notice that none of those 3 are cohabitation. In the long run, I don't think it matters in the slightest. I highly doubt that people getting divorced are saying, "my marriage didn't work because we lived together first." Or "my marriage didn't work because we didn't live together first". It's more likely that these are reason for divorce: financial issues, compatibility issues, different expectations, incompatibility in raising or having children etc.

Actually musey I'm glad you posted the correct spelling and hadn't edited it. All the "cohabitating" instead of "cohabiting" was starting to get to me. My class was only last semester and we got a whole day of lecture about it being cohabit and not cohabitate.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 3/10/2008 8:47:02 PM
Author: FrekeChild

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.

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.

I wasn''t making that point either. Mine was much more to the tune of: There are things that can pop up after you live together (before or after marriage) that no amount of talking beforehand will even begin to cover or know about until you live together. No mention of remotes or dirty socks here.


There are 3 Cs that make marriage work:

Compassion

Compromise

Commitment


Notice that none of those 3 are cohabitation. In the long run, I don''t think it matters in the slightest. I highly doubt that people getting divorced are saying, ''my marriage didn''t work because we lived together first.'' Or ''my marriage didn''t work because we didn''t live together first''. It''s more likely that these are reason for divorce: financial issues, compatibility issues, different expectations, incompatibility in raising or having children etc.


Actually musey I''m glad you posted the correct spelling and hadn''t edited it. All the ''cohabitating'' instead of ''cohabiting'' was starting to get to me. My class was only last semester and we got a whole day of lecture about it being cohabit and not cohabitate.

i agree with you FC.

i hope you didn''t think that any of that post was directed at you other than the bit about statistics, and only because i was agreeing with you that they should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Smurfysmiles]

i think everyone on this thread should have a nice cup of hot cocoa and a cookie, watch a funny movie, and chill out....then come back and post

love you girls

 

[FrekeChild]

Nah mimzy, I learned not very long ago to take anything personally on here. This is a very hot button topic and I was kind of expecting it to get heated. As for stats-I''m just now taking my first stats class(

) but I''ve always been told that stats can very easily be manipulated to say what the author wants you to read instead of presenting all of the information. Stats Boy (BF) has beat this into my unwilling brain.

And Smurfysmiles it''s ironic that you said that because I was just eating a cookie. But now I have to go make dinner.

This is one of those "I need a bucket of popcorn and my refresh button" threads isn''t it?

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 8:59:12 PM
Author: Smurfysmiles
i think everyone on this thread should have a nice cup of hot cocoa and a cookie, watch a funny movie, and chill out....then come back and post

love you girls

Haha smurfy! Good suggestion. I just had a good, long walk with my dog and it felt so great.

It gets so difficult when things are misinterpreted, people take offense to things that shouldn''t be taken offense to, everyone gets on the defensive, etc. etc. I always try to explain what I was saying, but then it gets to the point where I''m explaining what I was trying to explain when I tried to explain the fourth post back that was trying to explain my explanation.

 

[LegacyGirl]

Date: 3/10/2008 9:20:29 PM
Author: musey

Date: 3/10/2008 8:59:12 PM
Author: Smurfysmiles
i think everyone on this thread should have a nice cup of hot cocoa and a cookie, watch a funny movie, and chill out....then come back and post

love you girls

Haha smurfy! Good suggestion. I just had a good, long walk with my dog and it felt so great.

It gets so difficult when things are misinterpreted, people take offense to things that shouldn''t be taken offense to, everyone gets on the defensive, etc. etc. I always try to explain what I was saying, but then it gets to the point where I''m explaining what I was trying to explain when I tried to explain the fourth post back that was trying to explain my explanation.

It''s the internet. It happens

 

[Smurfysmiles]

Date: 3/10/2008 9:23:12 PM
Author: LegacyGirl

Date: 3/10/2008 9:20:29 PM


It''s the internet. It happens

hot cocoa happens too...eh eh?

if anyone needs something to laugh at while they are pricescoping- there is a family guy marathon on tv lol

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 3/10/2008 7:47:15 PM
Author: 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:

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.

**I was not referring to that part of your post, but the part where you were replying to Mimzy and specifically named me as suggesting that I thought that living with someone before marriage would hurt someone''s chances at a happy marriage, which I never said. That was the whole point of my argument about this matter - be sure to read someone''s post before you reference it. I surely read everyone''s posts carefully before I reference them and think it''s just proper.**

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.

**Again, I was speaking of your explicit reference to me. And you don''t have to actually "quote" someone to cite them. When Mimzy asked you where you got the idea that someone said that living with someone before marriage hurts the chances at a happy marriage, you answered that I did. Also, yes, I do not post on this forum very much, quite frankly because I don''t have the time or energy to write very long posts or contribute more than "Beautiful ring!", but when I saw this topic I felt my different viewpoint would help explain the other side of the coin to the original poster. I did not know that so many people who were living together would feel judged. The colors are there for me to use so I use them. If Pricescope enacts a rule against using pink or just simply takes it off, then I won''t use it anymore. I find it makes it easier to find my post and distinguish it from others. People are free to read my post or not read it, but if they are going to refer to my post I would hope that they do.

**

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.

**While you say that you were "helping" people I really don''t know why you deleted the post. I was not the only person who was writing "cohabitate" and the like and since you addressed to everyone, I didn''t know why you would be so quick to delete it.**

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.

**I did minor in Sociology but I wrote papers for the class I used spell check and the cohabitation subject was about three weeks of class. I completed my minor when I was in my 3rd year of undergrad and it was in 2004 so I apologize if my terminology was not on point. I understand your reasoning but, like you said, this is a non-academic forum and I would highly advise no one to use the information here for academic work. Again, by specifically putting my name at the end of the comment I think any reasonable person would have interpreted that as mocking. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I think if someone referred to you in that way you would feel the same way.**

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.

**Yes, I was on the defense because I have not specifically named anyone with conflicting views in my posts and was careful to make sure to personalize my own opinions - but other people have not been so kind.**

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.

**I cannot help but feel singled out when you say my name, quote my post, etc. I think anyone would feel the same. I was not the only poster who was not pro-cohabitation but I was the only one you specifically mentioned (plus Mimzy). Again, my personal opinion and I''m sure there are aspects of my life that people think aren''t the best way to go about things but I respect everyone''s right to make their own choices - one of the only things I think we agree on.

**

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.

**I only wrote that post because after I responded I realized you had editted your post to remove the remark at the end and to ask that people think about what they post.**

I really didn''t want these posts to be so back-and-forth but I felt the need to clarify and defend my viewpoints when prompted, by name. I apologize to anyone who finds my posts "uncomfortable" to read or hurtful because that was not my intention.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 3/10/2008 8:08:19 PM
Author: 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.

Thanks LegacyGirl! It has been tough but I love every minute of it! I actually only earned by Sociology/Child Development & Family Studies minors because of a general interest I had and my major was Sports Medicine. I am pursuing a J.D. & Masters of Health Administration so my major will hopefully be useful.

I also agree that marriage is not a fairy tale - dating is not even a fairy tale! LOL I hope wedding planning isn''t stressing you out too much and I''m sure your marriage will be wonderful! I know that my viewpoint is probably contrary to a lot of younger (or older) people in today''s society and I am also respectful of everyone''s right to do things their own way.

 

[diamondfan]

I am wading in again!!!

I agree that statistics can be viewed in different ways to support or discredit. I am going only with gut and personal experience here.

I think, to be general, it is the true compatibility that is the likeliest indicator for success. Now, living together might reinforce that, or show it's lack. And certainly, NOT living together can sometimes just mean you find things out later on, but maybe while living together but not married, you might NOT have had the issue crop up. It is really too hard to say.

I agree too with the notion that sometimes one can move in, with all the high hopes, find the relationship is not working, but lack the momentum to leave. For lots of reasons, including not having the funds etc. Inertia can set in, and the stuff we know (and are not happy with) is sometimes safer than the stuff we do not know. BUT, I know plenty of married people who stayed in marriages that were sort of long over, just because it was easier.

Bottom lining it, I think one could say, statistically, that often there is a correlation but not a causal impact on living together and the satisfaction/success in the marriage. So, it is sort of immaterial. I would like to think couples who belong together would make it with or without living together, and couples who are not going to make it also do not make it with or without. And I pass no judgment on couples who want to live together first, engaged or not. Whatever works in each situation is what should be explored, and life involves taking some risks. Not all of them turn out, but hopefully the important ones do! Life is not a fairy tale, and though there are good times and wonderful highs, there is also tough stuff too. Accepting that makes things easier in the long run.

 

[musey]

Wow, Anna. I won't try to respond to things individually anymore, because I don't think it would do any good, as you are still bringing up issues that I've already explained. The one thing I have to say bothers me, though, is your selective quoting of my post, leaving things out so that you don't have to acknowledge them.

I understood your reaction before, because you were already feeling like you were "on the spot" in this thread, but I really don't understand your continued offense taken even when I very thoroughly explained my multiple posts. You keep referencing things that I said and you'd misinterpreted earlier, even after I explain my actual intentions.

All I can say is that I've been posting around here for over a year and a half, and I've never had someone take offense to things I've written the way you have--OR suggest that I single people out and mock them. I've really only butted heads with one other person who, after I explained my earlier posts, agreed with me that our quasi-tiff was just a complete misunderstanding.

So my mind is just a wee bit boggled at how insistent you are that I must be out to get you. I've never been that kind of person, and never had someone so fervently assume that from misinterpreted posts, though after your incredibly strong reaction I'm beginning to wonder if it has happened before and I just haven't been told about it. My posting style hasn't changed, so maybe that's the only logical explanation.

So I guess I should extend a blanket apology to any and all PSers I've so strongly offended. It is never my intention to do so.

 

[FrekeChild]

musey for the record I''ve never read anything you wrote that was offensive or singled out any posters and I have to confess that I had read a lot of them because I love your e-ring

and I went on a hunt for your wedding dress (gorgeous as well!).

And Anna I just want to reiterate that I did not feel "judged" by your post, but just that it sounded a little bit judgmental. I know that you have no right to judge any part of my life, and I don''t have the right to judge yours.

I think everything that has caused any drama in this particular thread has been because of misinterpretation or misunderstanding and I recommend everyone please GET OVER IT.

 

[Smurfysmiles]

Date: 3/10/2008 10:36:29 PM
Author: FrekeChild

I recommend everyone please GET OVER IT.

*dittos it
*hands out hot cocoa

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/10/2008 10:59:49 PM
Author: Smurfysmiles

Date: 3/10/2008 10:36:29 PM

Author: FrekeChild

I recommend everyone please GET OVER IT.

*dittos it

*hands out hot cocoa

*takes hot cocoa, hands around a plate of cookies and goes back to looking at green shoes on the internet...

 

[musey]

Date: 3/10/2008 11:05:03 PM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 3/10/2008 10:59:49 PM
Author: Smurfysmiles

Date: 3/10/2008 10:36:29 PM
Author: FrekeChild

I recommend everyone please GET OVER IT.

*dittos it

*hands out hot cocoa

*takes hot cocoa, hands around a plate of cookies and goes back to looking at green shoes on the internet...

Ooooh green shoes!!!

Anyone?

 

[Smurfysmiles]

i really like this green shoe

 

[princesss]

Smurfy, how on EARTH did you find a picture of me in my favourite shoes? I happen to know I only posted that on the "Why you love being an elf" forum I frequent. (Drat...now I''ve let the cat out of the bag that I''m an elf. Shoot. Smurfy, why did you have to put me in this position?)

And I''ll take some lemon pie. Pie helps concentration, right? It''ll totally keep me focused on my reading. And keep me from killing my printer that suddenly decided it doesn''t have any paper in it (a complete lie).

Pie all around! Mmmmmmmmmm......

 

[FrekeChild]

Smurfy! That is perfect! But I have to tell you, I was considering these(both in green!):

Luxious
or
Liatris

Feel free to give your opinions!

P.S. BF has said he *might* buy me Liatris (he likes those better) if I stop harassing him while he''s reading some school book he has to read before Wednesday. So I''m being as quiet as a mouse and minding my own business on PS.

 

[Anna0499]

Musey - I hope you don''t think I was being selective with your post to try to somehow distort your opinions, I was just trying to save space like you did when you posted only parts of mine.

Contrary to popular belief, I actually don''t feel like this is an offense-defense situation, but maybe that''s because of the law school classes I am taking which thrive on these kinds of discussions with points and counterpoints. I saw it as just a back and forth and not a "feelings hurt" kinda thing...I don''t really take things on these forums internally but I do find lively discussions interesting and entertaining. I don''t really like it when two people have different viewpoints and one side just stops posting so I didn''t want to do that. I assumed the original poster wanted both sides of the argument and offered my seemingly minority viewpoint (at the time of my first post).

I appreciated FC''s opinion that she found my post kind of judgmental (thus, my (incorrect) assumption that she was feeling judged) and so I asked her why it sounded that way so that I could be aware for future posts. About 99% of the posts on this forum are opinion so in the end the answer will always be "do whatever is right for you," something that has an infinite amount of possibilities. As a suggestion to everyone, if you do not want for posters to feel singled out, I would not specifically and repeatedly refer to them by name and omit other posters who share the same viewpoint.

I have not been a member of this forum for a long time but I have also never had someone analyze my posts so ferverently and actually state my name in a negative way - maybe that''s why I was so excited and willing to partake in this back and forth! I agree that everyone, including me, needs to just chill out, but like I said before, I never considered this to be any sort of tiff - just lively discussion that I am accustomed to. Maybe I should just leave that to the courtroom?

After the recent back and forth on this thread, I now know that people might view my counterarguments as me being defensive and will try to work on that. I would also like to extend an apology to all who have been bothered by my font color but I really didn''t think it was that big of a deal. I promise this will be my last post about this discussion regarding my previous posts but if anyone has a different perspective on the original topic I will comment on that.

 

[Smurfysmiles]

lol i was reading the responses on here and my SO walked by and saw a picture of that green shoe i posted and said "what the f**k is that" and i said "a green shoe i''m thinking of buying, do you like it" and he walked away shaking his head. lol
funny stuff

 

[FrekeChild]

Smurfy-that is awesome. Where did you find that pic anyway? I apparently have a need for ANY green shoes.

 

[Smurfysmiles]

haha i typed funny green shoes into google and it popped up lol

 

[bee*]

Date: 3/10/2008 10:36:29 PM
Author: FrekeChild
everyone please GET OVER IT.

Definitely FrekeChild!! Everyone should do what''s best for THEM! If you want to live together before engagement/marriage, do it! If you don''t,that''s fine too.

 

[poshpepper]

Date: 3/10/2008 9:09:12 PM
Author: FrekeChild
Nah mimzy, I learned not very long ago to take anything personally on here. This is a very hot button topic and I was kind of expecting it to get heated. As for stats-I''m just now taking my first stats class(

) but I''ve always been told that stats can very easily be manipulated to say what the author wants you to read instead of presenting all of the information. Stats Boy (BF) has beat this into my unwilling brain.

And Smurfysmiles it''s ironic that you said that because I was just eating a cookie. But now I have to go make dinner.

This is one of those ''I need a bucket of popcorn and my refresh button'' threads isn''t it?

I have not participated in this thread (but since the pie is out) and I thought this little tid bit might apply to this... I took a stats class in college and our teacher loved to say the following:
"Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics".
No, I am not calling anyone in here a liar, but it is just something to think of that supports FCs point.

Can I get some pie and hot coco too?

 

[LegacyGirl]

There are three types of lies:

lies

d*mned lies

and statistics

 

[musey]

Poshpepper, yeah, I think that's the general theme of this thread. Past cohabitation threads have always had a bunch of people saying "but such and such statistic says _______!" but I haven't really noticed it as much this time around. We all seem to be in general agreement that stats are mostly worthless on this subject.

Date: 3/11/2008 12:00:40 AM
Author: Anna0499
I saw it as just a back and forth and not a 'feelings hurt' kinda thing...

Anna, I have a lot I could say about your sudden change of tone, but suffice to say that you certainly did make it clear that this was more than just a civil exchange of opinions for you. I'm disappointed that you chose to ignore any and all attempts I'd made at explaining your misinterpretations of my posts, but that is your prerogative.