Cohabiting Before Marriage

[SeeRat]

But I really don't mind if people do it first before marriage, whatever works for others might not work for me.

Exactly... Also whatever works for us might not work for others..

[JoeyBug]

I agree with so many other people who have posted.

Not everyone who is in a long term relationship will choose to get married, there are those that just don't need or want the piece of paper that says they are together (not knocking marriage, just a thought) I don't think there is any way to prove or study that those who got married before or after engagement/marriage or what not have a higher/lower risk of divorce. As someone else has said, it's not always that simple. Plus for people in international LDR's sometimes marriage is the way to close the distance. You love each other and get engaged and can't choose to live together before hand. That doesn't make that marriage any less possible to fail, it happens no matter what the situation before marriage.

I also agree that the fact that a lot of us will have moved countries and such and move in together before marriage. It's a different thing. Like someone else said, that shows a bigger commitment than marriage itself, at least to me it does.

I just don't think it's something simple enough to put into a study and a few statistics.

[corrda00]

This has always been an interesting topic for me. I never beleived in pre-marital sex so that plays a factor. I would probably wait till at least engagement until I moved in, but thats all of this is probably a long way down the road for me yet.

[arrah5]

my ex-husband and I just kind of moved in together while we were still teenagers, we didnt talk about it, it just happened, he spent more and more time at my place, his own home was an abusive mess, so my parents never made him go home, and pretty soon we were doing his laundry, all his stuff was there, and viola he lived with us. We got engaged shortly after our first child was born, and married 5 months later. Our marriage lasted 12 years. We lived together for probably a good 8 months before we got married. His abusive behavior didnt begin to surface until we were around year 9. So, IMO living with someone before marriage isnt going to give you any better idea of who they really are, than marrying that person. There is no real harm in living with the person, and no real harm in not. Whether you live with them for a year before marriage or live with them for a year after marriage, their personalities and "quirks" are going to be the same, and you can choose to get used to it, or not. If it going to be a deal breaker, its going to be a deal breaker. I am all for the living together before marriage so you dont have to go through legal means if you discover a trait that is a deal breaker. But then again, I didnt discover my deal breaker trait in my ex until we were many years down the road with 3 kids under our roof.

My SO and I plan to live together before we get married, if we ever decide to get married. I know I don't need a legal document to keep me committed to him and faithful. For Pete's sake the legal document didn't do jack crap for me the first time around. So for me, it can go either way.

But my point is, and to answer the original question, co-habitating is fine, if that's what you want to do. And its fine if you don't.

[Hololz]

I could never see myself getting engaged to somebody I had not lived with, or was about to move in with. For me I see the commitment of "living together" as less of a commitment than marriage, especially if you're renting.

[dukes2011]

My SO and I don't believe in cohabiting before marriage, but I realize that we are more traditional than most people. Honestly I don't think it makes a difference in whether or not your marriage (if you choose to get married) will be successful. Sure you hear the adage that you never truly know a person until you live with them, but if you've been with someone for a long time I think you know their quirks well enough to predict certain things. For example, my SO likes to keep his apartment super neat and I go for a "lived in look" as he calls it but I'm not a slob either. We have been on several family vacations together, so we've spent extensive time together under the same roof. In addition, we lived CD for about 2 years in college so I think that makes a difference for us.

[loveknowsnodistance27]

I would like to live with my SO before we get married, especially since we both want to move out of state. It's cheaper than getting two separate places.

[digitalfever]

But it makes getting some nookie so much easier?

Anyhow..., I'm a bit late on this but I don't really see a problem with either option. I'd say that the research is a bit of a crap shoot since there is an obvious agenda and that's to reaffirm conservative values through scaring young women. This book is a clear marketing ploy and was really used to scandalize couples and the personal decisions they made within their relationship.

In other words..., do what you want.

[lyonsgirl]

Anyhow..., I'm a bit late on this but I don't really see a problem with either option. I'd say that the research is a bit of a crap shoot since there is an obvious agenda and that's to reaffirm conservative values through scaring young women. This book is a clear marketing ploy and was really used to scandalize couples and the personal decisions they made within their relationship.

The original post by efish said that the author is neutral on the topic, so, I'm confused why you think there's an obvious agenda to reaffirm conservative values. And why you think it's a marketing ploy.

[digitalfever]

The original post by efish said that the author is neutral on the topic, so, I'm confused why you think there's an obvious agenda to reaffirm conservative values. And why you think it's a marketing ploy.

I'm talking about research on the topic in general and the research the book is most likely quoting. I don't believe any research is neutral and even if the author states she is.... the research she's quoting always has some sort of underlying agenda.

[lyonsgirl]

I'm talking about research on the topic in general and the research the book is most likely quoting. I don't believe any research is neutral and even if the author states she is.... the research she's quoting always has some sort of underlying agenda.

Okay. I guess I don't think that research ever has an underlying agenda. I mean, yes. Research is done for back up, for proof. But I've never viewed it as "an underlying agenda", as you call it. IMO, it's more of "okay, if the research shows that we are right, hooray. If it shows that we are wrong, fascinating, it's good we did the research."

ETA: But, I'm not trying to argue with you. I was just curious why you thought what you do.

[lucybelle]

Okay. I guess I don't think that research ever has an underlying agenda. I mean, yes. Research is done for back up, for proof. But I've never viewed it as "an underlying agenda", as you call it. IMO, it's more of "okay, if the research shows that we are right, hooray. If it shows that we are wrong, fascinating, it's good we did the research."

I actually got to disagree. I mean you can find research that says women are less intelligent than males. You can find research that says cancer is caused by carrots. I've seen "research" done on 10 people and they've written up findings like 10 a good representative of a population. I normally think of the best of people, but a lot of times they conduct surveys in a certain way so they get the results they want.

[lyonsgirl]

I actually got to disagree. I mean you can find research that says women are less intelligent than males. You can find research that says cancer is caused by carrots. I've seen "research" done on 10 people and they've written up findings like 10 a good representative of a population. I normally think of the best of people, but a lot of times they conduct surveys in a certain way so they get the results they want.

Well, okay. When you put it that way-I mean good, well thought out, & professional research. Not "research". I mean "good" and "professional" not because it's done by some well-known person. Oprah can do crap research. I'm talking a very large randomized survey group. (I know there are "qualifiers" you have to meet for your research to be deemed "good" or whatever, but I can't think of them all off the top of my head.)

[Trethsparr]

I normally think of the best of people, but a lot of times they conduct surveys in a certain way so they get the results they want.

Researcher/Experimenter Bias.

[digitalfever]

Okay. I guess I don't think that research ever has an underlying agenda. I mean, yes. Research is done for back up, for proof. But I've never viewed it as "an underlying agenda", as you call it. IMO, it's more of "okay, if the research shows that we are right, hooray. If it shows that we are wrong, fascinating, it's good we did the research."

ETA: But, I'm not trying to argue with you. I was just curious why you thought what you do.

I don't believe that's possible. I think for research to be objective then there must be no investment within the subject and the population must be of a substation all size to apply findings. Neither is usually the case.