Not Engaged Yet

Better to wait until engagement/marriage to live together.

edited September 2013 in Not Engaged Yet
In another thread of mine, a lively side discussion was started about the effects of cohabiting before marriage. I'm not sure if anyone is interested in continuing it, but I thought I'd post a summary here, if they are.

Basically, because of a past live-in relationship of mine that went no-where for 11 years, I have a strong value of not living together before getting engaged. We talked about marriage very seriously, and "unofficially" planned to get married, but there was no date set, and no "official" engagement.I finally got tired of waiting and left. After that, my rule was, no living together until there is a date set.

A few months ago, I read a bunch of articles that summarized a study by the CDC which essentially validated my viewpoint. In general, the study states that couples who live together prior to a formal commitment (engagement or marriage for the purposes of the study) are at a greater risk for divorce or problematic marriages later on.

Prior to this research, it was thought that the main reason that couples who cohabit are more likely to get divorced is because they were non-traditional to begin with, and more likely to leave an unsatisfactory relationship. While that may be true, this study also revealed that the intention behind the decision to live together is probably the more important factor.

"Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself."

The study doesn't actually suggest that cohabiting CAUSES divorce, but I found research earlier today by Prof. Scott Stanley that has been studying the same phenomena. He does a great job of explaining why they believe this effect is present:
"One of the major theories we are testing is what we call the inertia perspective. Here's a quick recap of the idea. Cohabitation may be risky for some people because it makes it harder to break up with someone that they otherwise would have broken up with and never married in the first place. (Or, they never would have stayed together long enough to have a child; a variable that fits all the same logic.)  Yes, cohabiters break up all the time. In fact, they break up much more often than people who are married.  That is not exactly a news flash.  But cohabiters break up much less often than people who are dating. A lot of the time, that's just because cohabiters are more likely to be more deeply involved (entangled).  The idea of inertia is that cohabitation makes it harder to break up in comparison to dating without cohabiting.  Inertia suggests that some people actually marry someone they would not have married had they not been cohabiting.
 
This idea of inertia also suggests that, among those who eventually marry, those who were already engaged or mutually planning marriage, when they began to cohabit, will be at lower risk for marital difficulties than those who cohabited before nailing down that big question.  It's the latter group that would contain the people adversely affected by inertia. If two people already mutually agree on marriage before cohabiting, it's not very likely cohabitation will be a factor in them getting married.  Inertia is not their issue.  There may be other factors that matter for such a couple, like what their beliefs and values are about cohabitation, but inertia is not part of equation for them.
 
Back to the CDC report. What got a lot less attention on Tuesday is the fact that the researchers also found exactly what we have been predicting, testing, and publishing for some years now based on the concept of inertia. They found that those who cohabited prior to engagement were at greater risk for divorce but those cohabiting after engagement were at no greater risk than those who didn't cohabit at all before marriage."

So, all this really resonated with me, because of my own personal experiences. If you want to read more about this topic, here are a few articles you can skim:


Several of you expressed very strong disagreement with these ideas, if you wish to elaborate, I'd welcome the discussion. I apologize if I sounded frustrated in the other thread, I guess I just wasn't expecting so much resistance to this issue! But really enjoy a good debate.

«134

Re: Better to wait until engagement/marriage to live together.

  • I agree that the research results are valid and accurate for the most part, but I disagree for my personal situation. I view moving in together as the logical next step towards engagement and marriage. A chance to get situated, build a home-life foundation, save up for the future. Plus it's a way to learn even more of your SO's quirks, and see up close how they deal with stuff like finances, and those insights provide the opportunity to take a serious look at issues you may face in the future (how to raise kids, handling finances, etc.). Learning which roadblocks your relationship may encounter means you can work to resolve it - visit a financial planner, realtor, premarital counseling, etc.

    Granted, some couples could do this without living together, but that's not me. I wouldn't live with my BF without having discussed the future and agree that we're on the same path. For example, we've been together 3 years. We've discussed it several times and we know we want to get married someday, and we want to be engaged for about a year, after living together for about a year, and based on our current situations we'd like to move in together in about a year.

    If we didn't both agree that marriage is a step we want to take in life, and if we didn't agree that we're on the same path and timeline (even if it's a long one) then living together wouldn't be an option.
  • @loves2shop4shoes - you know we can swear on the boards now right?

    As for the topic - personally I don't care about the research. For the most part unless it comes to making medical decisions (such as getting vaccinated) I don't live my life by what research says. BF and I aren't living together before marriage, partly because of religious reasons and partly because logistically it just doesn't work right now.

    I think there are a lot more important contributing factors to a marriage's success or failure than a couple's living habits beforehand.


  • Objectively speaking, I do agree with pp.... Maybe he just wasn't that into you. And that's not a shot at you, it's a shot at him. If he didn't want to marry you, then that's his loss.
    Just because things didn't work out between the two of you, does not mean it will be like that for everyone else. It honestly sounds like you are over-analyzing a terrible break up. It really does look like you're seeking out answers and found an "answer" that satisfies you. Kind of like a hypochondriac jumping from doctor to doctor and finally finding a doctor who can throw you a random diagnosis and keep billing you for "treatment."

    Regardless of what the research says, every couple is different because every person is different. What works for some, might not work for others. You really need to decide for yourself what will work in your relationship.
    I know plenty of couples that have lived together before getting engaged/married and are still together now. I also know couples that didn't live together before getting married that are no longer together.

    I absolutely believe that some people move in together and/or get married for the wrong reasons and that's where the problem is, not the fact that they lived together, first.


    image
  • Allow me to flip your statistical results on their head. I will do a survey and ask the same question a different way.

    The problem with statistics is that a lot of people - academics, researchers, and the public - use them the same way drunks use lampposts: for support rather than illumination. And when statistics have been abused in this way by academics and researchers, by the time they reach the public, they're essentially useless.

    Let's use a non-social sciences example of a useless number. There's a fuel cell the size of a dishwasher that has an 80% conversion when it's being used to co-produce electricity and heat. And just how much of that do you think actually goes into electricity?
  • cu97tigercu97tiger member
    Eighth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited September 2013

    I really really hate to flex my social sciences statistical knowledge because I thought I would never have to use statistics again in my life. If you look at the hard numbers of the report, all I have to say is that numbers can be read differently by anyone. For example, Mirena has a 99% effective rate in preventing pregnancy. Well, my friend will tell you she's the 1% since she got KTFU with Mirena. So, yes, numbers don't like, but someone like Christian Science Monitor is going to interpret that living together is WRONG.

    First thing that I noticed was when the data was collected was the ages of the respondents in the survey. People between the ages of 15-44. I hate to be a judgy mcjudgerson but two 15 year old TEENAGERS aren't going to work out living together, therefore they're going to scew the results. I'm sure there's an SPSS output on the report, but anything coming from the CDC in regards to sociological relationships I'm going to take with a grain of salt. Dude, you guys are the CDC not the freaking moral monitor. IF they conducted the survey with respondents between the ages of 18-44 then I may have dug a little further in this report.

    I think if you used your statistical thinking cap on and read ONLY the appendix you would see how flawed this is. Here's a point: since it only captures respondents between the ages of 15-44, lifetime marriage and cohabitation rates are incomplete.

    Also a lot of these charts show the hard facts. It all depends on YOUR SITUATION. If I looked at this report and based it on my age, race, educational achievement, income/poverty level, etc. I would be ahead of the curve.

    So, whover is reading OP's post and is getting worried, read the CDC report and YOU JUDGE what you think about your situation. Not was OP feels, the NYT feels or the Christian freaking Science Monitor feels about the results.

    Like Mark Twain said: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable" that's why I hated statistics.

    You had me at SPSS :)

    From @istril (you just don't give up, do you?)
    But cohabiters break up much less often than people who are dating. A lot of the time, that's just because cohabiters are more likely to be more deeply involved (entangled).  The idea of inertia is that cohabitation makes it harder to break up in comparison to dating without cohabiting.  Inertia suggests that some people actually marry someone they would not have married had they not been cohabiting.
     
    This idea of inertia also suggests that, among those who eventually marry, those who were already engaged or mutually planning marriage, when they began to cohabit, will be at lower risk for marital difficulties than those who cohabited before nailing down that big question.  It's the latter group that would contain the people adversely affected by inertia. If two people already mutually agree on marriage before cohabiting, it's not very likely cohabitation will be a factor in them getting married.  Inertia is not their issue.  There may be other factors that matter for such a couple, like what their beliefs and values are about cohabitation, but inertia is not part of equation for them.

    There is a whole lot of BS in these paragraphs. I'll go in order:
    1-Who the hell would say 'You know what would be easier than breaking up? Getting married to someone I'm not that into.' I don't buy it.

    2- What?!? You cannot compare apples to apples with this statement. Every relationship is different. Every couple has different baggage. Every couple has different reasons for moving in together (or not moving in together). A broad stroke like 'those who were engaged or mutually planning marriage' vs 'those who are just cohabitating' is grossly misleading. What constitutes 'mutually planning marriage'?

    Let's be honest here... you got burned. It hurt. You don't want it to happen again. You are grasping at scientific research to prove your point, and trying to force that point onto internet strangers. I think you should just go to your boyfriend's house and TALK TO HIM. 

    According to your research, my husband and I are at a greater risk of divorcing because we lived together prior to marriage. We've been together for 63 months, engaged 26 months ago and married for 18 months. I'm confident that the sheer act of living together prior to our engagement isn't what will determine our success. It's the work we put in every single day to love and respect each other. Your research isn't worth the paper it's printed on to me.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    Daisypath Anniversary tickers

    "You are made of win." -SopChick
    Still here and still fabulous!

  • I don't agree with that "scientific proof" at all. Science has nothing to do with why your relationship didn't work out, or why anyone's relationship doesn't work out. I don't know that I would marry a person who I hadn't lived with. I don't care how long you're with someone prior to living together, you don't truly know a person until you live with them. I would hate to enter a marriage without ever living with that person and finding out all their weird quirks, annoying habits, and odd ways of doing things. We all have our quirks and some people can't handle them. I've known my boyfriend for 6 1/2 years, and I can honestly say that I've learned so much more about him in the 5 months we've lived together. I've had to get use to his habits and he's had to get use to mine and, luckily, its worked out perfectly. But bringing that stress into a new marriage? No thanks. I'd like to know what I'm getting myself in to before I make that commitment with someone.,
    Anniversary
    image
     
  • Allow me to flip your statistical results on their head. I will do a survey and ask the same question a different way.

    The problem with statistics is that a lot of people - academics, researchers, and the public - use them the same way drunks use lampposts: for support rather than illumination. And when statistics have been abused in this way by academics and researchers, by the time they reach the public, they're essentially useless.

    Let's use a non-social sciences example of a useless number. There's a fuel cell the size of a dishwasher that has an 80% conversion when it's being used to co-produce electricity and heat. And just how much of that do you think actually goes into electricity?
    I love you. 

    Also, to the OP:

    image
  • As an aside, I lived with my husband before we were engaged, during our engagement, and now that we're married.  We are unbelievably happy together.  He's the best person I've ever known and I consider myself incredibly lucky to get to spend the rest of my life with him.

    Living together beforehand only made our relationship stronger.  It gave me a sense of commitment because when there were problems, I had to face the music instead of running away/ignoring problems...after all, I had to come home to him at the end of the night.  Living with him made me feel like I HAD to resolve conflicts in a healthy way and I HAD to talk things out, otherwise my home life would have been shit.  That was HUGE for me because I wasn't raised with good examples of happy marriages.  And I wasn't raised to resolve conflicts, or talk things out, or compromise.  Living together gave me precisely the nudge I needed to form those healthy habits.
  • minskat30minskat30 member
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited September 2013
    I think @istrill you need to realize that statistics are often skewed depending on who is doing the analysis.  If you don't want to live together before marriage, fine, but don't look for a "scientific study" to back you up on this.  Funny thing about society (unlike a lot of hard science) is that it shifts...culturally certainly things become acceptable/unacceptable over time so any analysis of a wide group of people in age is inherently likely to be skewed.  
  • image
    "Stuart was scared, but he loved Margalo, Mommy. And there is nothing bigger than love." -The Bean
     "His farts smell like Satan's asshole mixed with a skunk's vagina. But it's okay, because I love him." -CSousa









  • @phira wins the internet.  Yet again.

    image
  • astimmelastimmel member
    100 Love Its 100 Comments Name Dropper First Anniversary
    edited September 2013
    Ok I admit I didn't actually read the quotes and articles - I just went straight ahead and answered with my opinion for my own situation. So here's a more "scientific" response:

    I do think that living together before marriage can have a negative outcome, based on the reasons why people chose to do it. Like 1) If they did it because it would be cheaper for them even though they weren't necessarily committed to each other for the long haul, 2) Unexpected pregnancy and the couple automatically assumed (or felt pressured) they had to move in together and get married in order to "properly" raise a family based on society's expectations, 3) You do it hoping that it will put pressure on your SO to propose, and they do because they feel obligated.

    In situations like those, I believe the chance of divorce increases. But any study done on this topic is going to be extremely skewed, especially by a publication like Christian Science Monitor. You cannot, just CANNOT, blindly accept the results of a publication with such an obvious bias. Even if multiple studies were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, you still have to take it with a grain of salt. There's always going to be some variable a study forgot to account for.

    @istril, this is such a subjective topic that you can't rely on articles and studies like these to make your decision. You can collect as much information as you want so that you're fully informed of potential risks, but in the end it's you who has to make the decision based on what feels right for you and your SO.

    You lived with your ex for 11 years, yes? I'm guessing you learned a lot about your own expectations, and about yourself and what you really want in life. Take the things you learned about yourself and about what it's like to live together and apply that to your current situation. You have to use the things you learn to move forward in life - otherwise you'll just keep making the same mistakes.

    I agree with @minskat30 (and others) 100% that it's totally fine if you don't want to live together before marriage, but you can't let a "scientific study" (especially such biased ones) make such a personal decision for you. The situation is different for everyone. Science + subjectivity = ?????????
  • phira said:
    Oh come on.

    1) Citing mainstream media articles =/= published research. Read the damn primary lit.

    2) Primary lit is not infallible. I teach undergrads to be critical of primary lit. It depends on the methods used, and the analysis and presentation of the data. Even then, conclusions can be subjective, especially in social science.

    3) The inertia stuff smells like a big pile of bullshit to me. Everything stinks of, "Well, there's nothing to suggest that living together before marriage LEADS to divorce, but here's how it does."

    You, personally, don't want to live with someone prior to being engaged because you got stuck in a crappy relationship with someone who kept leading you on and stringing you along with promises of more commitment. Fine. But don't cite bullshit bad research as a reason.

    I lived with my fiance prior to our engagement because we loved each other and wanted to test the waters to see if we'd like living together; we decided if living together was a hot mess, then we probably didn't want to get married. It follows the same logic about why we had sex or met each other's families before living together/getting engaged: we wanted to have as much information and experience as possible before committing further.

    Living together is a commitment. It's one that's easier to get out of than an engagement and marriage. If you don't want to live together before you've made an even more serious commitment, that's fine. But living together will not lead to an eventual divorce. It is not something that's for less committed couples. It's not a way to pretend to be committed.

    It sounds like your issue right now is that you're afraid to talk with partners about your expectations and needs. You spent 11 years in a relationship where you were strung along and your needs weren't being addressed. You're still having trouble talking with your current partner about your needs (for example--you talked with him, but you didn't feel comfortable asking him to clarify what "soon" means). I'd say that until you sort our your communication, you're not ready to be engaged.
    Love all of this. Well said, as usual!
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers
  • My degree in Women's Studies never fails to come in handy!
    Anniversary
    now with ~* INCREASED SASSINESS *~
    image
  • beanbot2002beanbot2002 member
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments Name Dropper
    edited September 2013

    My impression of Phira:image

     

    and also...image

    "Stuart was scared, but he loved Margalo, Mommy. And there is nothing bigger than love." -The Bean
     "His farts smell like Satan's asshole mixed with a skunk's vagina. But it's okay, because I love him." -CSousa









  • I actually do believe that some people get married because they're too weak to break up. Whether it's co-dependency, convenience, or an aversion to conflict, I don't know. Probably a variety of factors are involved. However, I think this applies to a pretty small population.

    I think the reason behind living together is significant, as @astimmel points out. In my own personal case, the only person I have ever lived with is my husband. We moved in together 9  months in, after a very serious conversation about where our relationship was going. It was not a step we took lightly. Not all people view it that way, which is totally fine. For us, it was a sign of serious commitment--the step we were taking that would eventually lead to engagement.

    I do think this type of study is outside of the CDC's realm. There are too many qualitative social factors involved to look at this from a largely quantitative view. Much like the often-abused "50% of marriages end in divorce" stat, there is much more going on here than numbers can convey.
  • I agree with all PPs. Istril I am sorry about your 11 year relationship with your ex.  Maybe you are using these "empirical articles" as a form of closure (maybe your ex didn't give you an honest reason as to why he strung you along I really don't know). I understand that you have some background in psychology, but any good researcher (scientist to social psychologist) knows that stats and where you receive the information is heavily dependent on the desired outcome. My two cents? Agree to disagree, and please focus more on your relationship with your boyfriend rather than searching the internet for validation of your viewpoints regarding cohabitation. 
  • poegirlsmorespoegirlsmores member
    Second Anniversary 10 Comments 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited September 2013
    Throwing my opinion into the mix-

    OP, I'm glad to see you pull up the article. It shows me that you are concerned about the truth,n to just what some popular magazine says (which is where I previously assumed your research was from, my bad). And I will also play devil's advocate here and say, no research is trying to say X causes Y, 100% of the time. It is all about averages. Now, maybe it is true that on average, people who cohabit before marriage divorce more often. And I'll even suspend my disbelief and say maybe part of it is that they cohabited before they decided to become engaged.

    But here is the thing about averages- I am not average. You are not average. No one is.

    I am currently cohabiting with my boyfriend, and no, we have no immediate plans to marry. But I've known that I want to marry him (someday) since before we moved in together, so hopefully that lowers our chances. Wish me luck I guess.

    Truth is, I still don't buy that people would rather choose to marry someone than break up with them and move out if the relationship was just plain bad. Partially because that's dumb, but also because cohabitation is a form of commitment to most people, and I know I would have never chosen to do so unless I was very serious about my partner. And since we have moved in together, we're learning a lot more about each other. And what is happening to my best friend who married before cohabitation? She learned of her husband's porn addiction, and that he really doesn't find her attractive. As these are case studies, I am aware they cannot be used to justify the conclusion that cohabitation is always better. I just know that for me, there would never have been another way. Since I was little I knew I wanted to live together before marriage.

    Point is, we're all individuals, making our own decisions based on what is best for us. And we should respect everyone's choices.
    "Love is hard and love is messy and it can hurt worse than fire, and sometimes it makes you wanna tear down a building with your bare hands, but it also happens to be the best thing that's ever happened to me, and I'm obviously not a big fan of hyperbole."


  • Riss2893Riss2893 member
    100 Comments 25 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited September 2013


    I absolutely believe that some people move in together and/or get married for the wrong reasons and that's where the problem is, not the fact that they lived together, first.


    Yup. If it's not going to work out, it's not going to work out, whether you move in together first or not.


  • psychbabe314psychbabe314 member
    100 Comments Second Anniversary 25 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited September 2013
    Now, to show both sides of the argument (since the OP has already posted her information) here are some scientific, peer-reviewed articles about the subject. These are psychology based and most of them you have to purchase to access so I will give an overview (I have free access for school).

    Article 1: A sample of 1365 never-married cohabiting couples were used in this study to develop a typology of premarital cohabitation. They were classified as engaged and cohabiting or non-engaged and cohabiting and were compared to engaged and non-cohabiting or non-engaged and non-engaged non-cohabiting. Results show that cohabiting couples with an agreement to a future marriage do just as well as non-cohabiting couples with an agreement towards marriage. It was found that the highest risk was for any couple that did not have an agreement for future plans of marriage.

    Article 2: A study done with 63 couples found that the ones that had lived together previously had a easier time adjusting to the married life.

    Article 3: To sum, it was found that couples who were cohabiting before engagement/marriage were just as likely to lead a successful relationship as were non-cohabiting couples.

    Now, I did find a 2 articles out of the ones I glanced through that supported OP's opinion, but they mainly attributed an unhappy marriage or breakup over the having a child out of wed-lock and they also related this to race stating that findings support that white women who have a child before engagement/marriage were more likely to end a relationship than any other type of relationship studied.

    Now, this is just research, but something to think about. Personally, I would more likely believe these scientific articles than most that you would come across online. But, just thought I should throw some of this out there. These articles were all published in the past 5 years.

    Another interesting article placed the main reason for break-ups to be attributed to the self-fulfilling prophecy, stating that someone in the relationship expects the relationship to fail and that leads to the breakup.

    These are just some articles, whether you want to believe these studies or not is up to you :-)

    Sorry it was so long!
  • edited September 2013
    {Checks responses before bed} Goodness.
    @everyone complaining of the topic, yes you can "mute me", yes it will "die soon", no you don't "have to," here's how: DON'T CLICK. I titled my post to very clearly indicate what topic was within. If you don't want to participate, ignore it.
    loves2shop4shoes said: "OMG. Make it stop. You're nucking futs. You found "scientific proof" that validates why your relationship of 11 years went nowhere and why you're right to take out that hurt on every new relationship that comes to pass. Maybe that particular guy just wasn't that into you. Based on what you've written on this board, I don't wonder why."

    First, "scientific proof" are your words, not mine. Nothing in science is ever considered truly proven. Second, I really do seek out constructive criticism, and I think I can see some here. But, that last bit was pretty much just mean.

    A few general responses:
    1. If I had never found this research, my values would be the same. They were shaped by my experience, not research. I happened upon the research, and I was excited by it, because it resonated with my experience. I don't regularly scour the interwebs for stats to legitimize notions I fancy.
    2. Some of you have suggested that I'm living in the past. I have taken this to heart, and am currently mulling it over. I DO see some truth in it. However, my reasons for forming these values in the first place were very strong, so this is something I need to consider carefully.
    3. I would never marry anyone without living with them first. I continue to be puzzled about why so many people view engagement as virtually on par with marriage. I simply see it as the "serious enough to move in" phase of dating, capable of being easily terminated prior to the legal arrangement of marriage, if things don't work out.
    4. Don't generalize research. It predicts trends, not YOUR relationship. It isn't a horoscope. The many personal anecdotes that have been offered that are contrary to the research don't refute the research, but they do highlight the complexity of variables surrounding it, and I appreciate the insight.
    5. Don't infer causality from correlation. For the love of God. Please. I hate this. Just don't. I never implied living together first causes a threat to your marriage, so don't suggest that I did. 
    @buddysmom80 please don't apologize! I enjoyed your post, and you pointed out some legit weaknesses in the data. I appreciate the intelligence of your response. The only caveat I will mention is that much of our pscyh research is prone to similar limitations -- you mentioned the age ranges, but the scope of the research never claimed to cover lifetimes. This is definitely an important limitation to keep in mind when interpreting the data, but we can still extrapolate (possible) trends.

    Also, thank you for reminding readers to make their own judgments, and to NOT generalize research to their own relationships. This research is just that  -- general. It predicts trends, not the outcomes of specific relationships.

    One other bit: the Christian Science Monitor is probably one of the most terribly named publications ever. I'm actually a skeptic and an atheist, but I have a good deal of respect for this publication (initially the name turned me off, I abhor "Christian Science", but a fellow librarian illuminated me about this pub). I have no idea why it is named that way, but the reporting is often thorough, accurate, and secular. Experience has taught me that it frequently reports science more accurately than other popular publications.
    phira said:
    [snip]
    You, personally, don't want to live with someone prior to being engaged because you got stuck in a crappy relationship with someone who kept leading you on and stringing you along with promises of more commitment. Fine. But don't cite bullshit bad research as a reason.
    You are exactly right. I'm not hiding that it is my experience that led me to this decision, in fact, I believe that my experience IS what I cited primarily; the bullshit bad research came second. I DO also sympathize with your suspicion of the bullshit bad research -- so far it is just a narrative summary with no results (that I've found) to back it up. I appreciate your skepticism.
    phira said:
    I lived with my fiance prior to our engagement because we loved each other and wanted to test the waters to see if we'd like living together; we decided if living together was a hot mess, then we probably didn't want to get married...
    Your explanation here exempts you from the "inertia effect" as proposed by the excerpt I posted. As I said, it is the intention of cohabitation that seems to be the important factor in predicting the future success of marriage. Since your intention was specifically to test marital compatibility, well, basically, "ur doin' it right."
    phira said:
    ... But living together will not lead to an eventual divorce. It is not something that's for less committed couples. It's not a way to pretend to be committed.
    I beg to differ, on the last bit at least. I think there are plenty of people, who, sadly, use this as a way to pretend to be committed. I used to live with one. In fact, this is the crux of the argument, as I see it.
    phira said:
    It sounds like your issue right now is that you're afraid to talk with partners about your expectations and needs. You spent 11 years in a relationship where you were strung along and your needs weren't being addressed. You're still having trouble talking with your current partner about your needs (for example--you talked with him, but you didn't feel comfortable asking him to clarify what "soon" means). I'd say that until you sort our your communication, you're not ready to be engaged.
    You've taken quite a bit of liberty with generalizations here. I have only given you a glancing view of my past relationships; I assure you, my expectations and needs were discussed ad nauseum with Mr. 11 years. I have had some hesitation with my current partner in discussing my one specific need about knowing a timeline for engagement. I recognized this deficiency in communication, and am trying to address it. ... Your judgement that I'm not ready to be engaged is premature, and perhaps a bit cavalier.

    I'm disappointed I seem to have annoyed the piss out of you, @phira, because you seem like an intelligent lady and I generally enjoy your responses.
    Riss2893 said:
    I absolutely believe that some people move in together and/or get married for the wrong reasons and that's where the problem is, not the fact that they lived together, first.
    Yup. If it's not going to work out, it's not going to work out, whether you move in together first or not.
    Hurrah! Someone(s?) agree with me :)

    psychbabe314 Thank you! I knew when I started this thread that it was one-sided (I presented mine), and I really appreciate you taking the time to post this. I haven't read this stuff yet, because it's gotten super late, but I plan to come back to it tomorrow.

    Will think about all this, and post my thoughts soon. Just curious, has anyone heard an argument that changed the way they viewed something surrounding this issue?
  • istril said:
    Will think about all this, and post my thoughts soon. Just curious, has anyone heard an argument that changed the way they viewed something surrounding this issue?
    image



  • istril said:
    phira said:
    ... But living together will not lead to an eventual divorce. It is not something that's for less committed couples. It's not a way to pretend to be committed.
    I beg to differ, on the last bit at least. I think there are plenty of people, who, sadly, use this as a way to pretend to be committed. I used to live with one. In fact, this is the crux of the argument, as I see it.
    I have to restate this: Living together is NOT a pretend way to be committed. It is an actual, real commitment. It might not have been the commitment you were looking for (and I'm not saying that you should have been satisfied with that relationship), but it is absolutely a real commitment.

    I'm always annoyed by bad research and by social expectations that are damaging and not realistic. Again, it would be one thing for you say, "I do not want to live with someone until we're engaged." But you've been arguing that in general (aka not JUST you and your partner), it's better for people to move in together only when they're committed to getting married. I vehemently disagree.
    Anniversary
    now with ~* INCREASED SASSINESS *~
    image
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards