# Shacking up



## Riverside MFT (Oct 5, 2009)

I was recently talking with a friend from my church about marriage. We were talking about how living together before marriage has become so commonplace in our society. Marriage is taking a back seat to “shacking up”. She talked about an episode of the Fox show “Breaking In” where a guy got down on one knee and dramatically opened a small little box that contained a key and asked his girlfriend, "Will you live with me?" She immediately turned the show off. Go Kathy! 

After our conversation, I thought I would do a little research. I found a journal article titled "Does Premarital Cohabitation Predict Subsequent Marital Stability and Marital Quality? A Meta-Analysis." (A. Jose; K. D. O'Leary; & A. Moyer [2010] in _Journal of Marriage and Family_). This article incorporates over 28 other studies showing that cohabitation (or shacking up) reduces a couple’s ability to stay together and be happy. The article showed that couples who live together reduce their chances for staying together should they decide to get married. These couples will also generally be less happy in their marriages than those who chose not to live together prior to marriage.

[Living together is also detrimental to children. The Deseret News reports a study done by the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. “According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.”]

While the research clearly states that shacking up is not good for marriage, we tend to think otherwise as a society. By living together, couples think they can merely try each other on as you would do with clothing from a department store. If the item of clothing does not fit, you discard it and keep trying on other clothing.

With clothing, even when you find the perfect fit, it will still only last a few years. Fortunately, marriage is not like clothing. Getting married does not require any amount of “trying on” – it is an act of total commitment to each other and to God. 

Couples who live together before marriage make the assumption that they can just stop living together if there are any problems. The dilemma with this assumption is that there are always going to be problems in relationships. It takes the commitment and dedication that comes from marriage (and not just living together) to persist through these problems. Shacking up is not about commitment, dedication, or persistence; it is about taking the easy way out when problems arise. 

If you or somebody you know are considering living with someone before getting married in order to “try it out”, please think about the research and the implications of that decision. If someone is asking you to live with them, be strong and assertively say “NO WAY!”

Originally posted at Improve My Marriage: Cohabitation


----------



## SunnyT (Jun 22, 2011)

Part of couples living together, I would think.... is it's just easier. And we are a society of doing things the easy way. I think MOST people go into living together with the intention of taking the relationship to marriage, as opposed to "trying on". 

While traditional waiting for marriage makes sense, living together is the easy way.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

I live in a rural area and "shacking up" still isn't looked on as favorable as perhaps it is in other places. I'm not saying people don't do it, but I can't think of anybody at my job or in my circle of friends who did it. 

Now that I am single, I have given thought to how things have changed over the years. I'm sure it's possible that I could meet someone from out of town who might want this before marriage, but it would be a definite no for me.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

I think that it can actually go either way. My husband and I both feel very strongly that getting married was actually the worst thing that we ever did for our relationship. Whether we'd be in the same spot emotionally now had we not gotten married, it's hard to say, but I can unequivocally say that getting married has been financially disastrous, emotionally draining and now we're often left wondering if we're going to be able to even salvage a friendship from all of this some days once we get all of the financial morass straightened out. 

Looking back, a party and some shiny jewelry just haven't been worth it.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno (Jan 18, 2011)

The way I'm feeling now, after having got burned by my H (and my kids getting burned, too) is even if I remarry, I will keep a key to my own place where me and my kids will live. No men allowed except if they ring the doorbell or are given a pass to let themselves in to make dinner. :-o

Of course, I would have a key to 'our place'. 
Unless he needed a similar arrangement.

At least until the kids are grown and gone, and maybe even after.

Looks like I became a feminist somewhere along the line.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Me & my husband "Shacked up".....but not sexually. We were and still are a very odd couple. 

I moved in with HIS parents when I was 19 after living in a camper in my parents back yard for a summer (don't ask), My husbands father told me to move in with them, he is the type to give you the shirt off his back. I had a job in their town too so it was convenient. His mom gave me a room down the hall from his. I was so open with his mother about remaining a Virgin, they didn't care what we did. 

Eventually we moved in together because his Aunt had a little country house for rent & that was our dream, We jumped! 

As soon as we moved in together, we knew it was time, and we set the date for our wedding- 8 months later. I wanted to do it right to every last detail. We had a BIG one, almost 400 people. Luckily the Paster down the road never made a big deal out of "our situation", he offered to counsel us since he was who we asked to marry us, he treated us with Grace & not judgement. 

And amazingly, through all of that, we never had intercoarse or oral sex! I can't say we didn't touch each other, I mean, that would have been impossible! And we both wore WHITE proudly. 

We have a GREAT marraige. I wouldn't change a thing. Other than my patheitc sexual inhibitions back in the day- and he had some too. I regret not becoming more educated about sex. 

And...... *on the very morning of our wedding day*, we got up & walked outside together to look around the yard, Photographer & many people would be coming soon & we had to feed our dog. And what did we see.....across our yard in the distance -not 1, not 2 but THREE Albino deer. We stood in AWE, It is a moment neither of us will ever forget. I went to get my camera, hoping they would not run away, I did take a picture, it looked like 3 dogs in the distance when I got it back. I even lost it over the years, how I could kick myself now! I remember being very disappointed that it looked like 3 dogs. 

I feel it was a sign from heaven. How many see even 1 in thier lifetime. We had seen them in our yard before but never 3at once.

Obvioulsy, not everyone has a good situation at home, and sometimes we get thrust into situations that others might judge, so I try to use Grace. 

I don't think people should sleep around, and since we avoided intercourse while living together, My standards are still a little high but I remember thinking / feeling others likely judged us -but what did they know. If we could have forseen how much trouble my hymen was going to give us after the wedding, I am not so sure we would have watied, but it does make for a an interesting story.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm one that firmly believes that living together gives a couple a more realistic idea of what a day-in/day-out, full-time relationship consists of...how to balance the bills, manage the household, learn one another's everyday little quirks of living that may not be seen otherwise, etc. That said, I understand those who, for one reason or another, don't want to.

But, if living together before marriage is detrimental to the relationship, as the research cited suggests, then logic would suggest that living together AFTER marriage is equally detrimental to the relationship. So, perhaps we should all be like the couple that was profiled on Good Morning America this morning. They've lived the majority of their married life in separate apartments. Less than two years ago, they moved in together, not because they wanted to, but because financial circumstances dictated it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CoffeeTime (Jul 3, 2011)

Riverside MFT said:


> Living together is also detrimental to children. The Deseret News reports a study done by the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. “According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.”


While I can understand the premise here, I respectfully disagree with the black and white range of the concept. For one, this concept would include even remarriage and step parents. Two, it does not include the concept of biological parents being abusive themselves. I've learned to be weary of 'studies' and 'polls' since relationships are not an exact science with an exact set of variables. 

Another aspect to me here is the fact that homosexual relationships (until recently) have not had the opportunity for 'marriage' and yet 'shacking up' was relatively the only thing we could do. I know plenty of couples going on 5 yr, 10 yr, 20 yr, or 30 yr commitments. Maybe it would be different if the legality of marriage were in place all this time for gay couples? I don't know. It is something to ponder for me but without an answer. 

My partner and I have been together for 6 years and hope to be together for life. I was legally married before to a man and I had the same desire for total lifetime commitment as I do now. The difference being, who I am with to make that happen rather than a piece of paper.


----------



## Dogsquat (Apr 27, 2011)

I agree with your skepticism, CoffeeTime.

I can think of several reasons why that study may be flawed. How did they adjust for all of the other societal factors that contribute to a higher divorce rate? Maybe some statistics ninja holds the answers to all our problems in his graphing calculator, but I doubt it.

Also, The Deseret News has a dog in the fight. That's an LDS paper. Mormon folks are usually pretty hardline about booty time prior to matrimony, so you can see why someone on the staff of the paper would want the conclusion of the study to be true - it validates their religion's teachings.

I'm not bagging on anybody's religion here - I'm just saying one should carefully consider the incentives that underlay so much of what is reported.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> Me & my husband "Shacked up".....but not sexually. We were and still are a very odd couple.
> 
> I moved in with HIS parents when I was 19 after living in a camper in my parents back yard for a summer (don't ask), My husbands father told me to move in with them, he is the type to give you the shirt off his back. I had a job in their town too so it was convenient. His mom gave me a room down the hall from his. I was so open with his mother about remaining a Virgin, they didn't care what we did.
> 
> ...


Such a beautiful story!

My father constantly drilled in the 'use them and leave them' concept, so I think about half of my old fashioned values originate from rebellion, in a sense.

I've been married 24 years. My wife just found out that her only surviving family member, her younger sister, has cancer. Considering that it is the same familial kind that killed her mother and aunts, she is convinced that she is next. She asked me what I would do if she passed early (we're watching some new growths in my wife's last Cat scan, hoping that they stay benign). I couldn't believe it! Her point was that at 45, I'm in a different situation. I've made back the million I lost in my retirement portfolio during the downturn. Because I'm an old fart, at least according to my company, I got the "Sundown" offer to keep my pension while the younger ones are going to just the 401K that I also have. My wife said that I should avoid marriage....

All this creepy talk was just ... well ... creepy. Then, I remembered my father, and the live-in who was younger than me when he died. I'll stay gullible and naive, thank you, and be happy for the others who find happiness in their own way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Halien said:


> My father constantly drilled in the 'use them and leave them' concept, so I think about half of my old fashioned values originate from rebellion, in a sense.


I believe there is something to this! I have NEVER been a parent to say you can't watch this, listen to that, your ears are virgin type of thing and my oldest with his next brother in line are wonderful christian boys, wear their silver rings proudly, and here I am the mom -saying "Go out -have a little fun, date have some experiences!" . It does appear my oldest's form of rebellion is to "BE GOOD"-he is all into the "courting" thing . Of coarse I think he would be happy to date the girl he wanted if she hadn't "freind zoned" him. 

We accually argue about the bar of purity. Interesting dynamics at our house. 

Though we would never advocate what your father did. 

So sorry to hear about your wife & this recent news, the cat scan , I can't imagine. We never know how long we have here. Would we even want to know, to look into that crystal ball.

I believe I would decline.


----------



## Pandakiss (Oct 29, 2010)

i dont know anything about studies..i know if your mom wasnt married, you prob wont...

my husband lived together for a few years, and had a baby before we ever got married. i dont think living together or co-habitating is easier than being married.

if you have lived together for 2 or more years, than you have rent, clothes,a car, a tv or 2 the cable, light bill, friends..all to be divided up as though you were getting a divorce.

i had always thought it might be easier to cheat, but its all in the mind set.

i just watched true life "newlyweds"....i was laughing so hard. these basically kids waited to have sex until they were married, and one couple didnt even kiss.

one guy was standing in the kitchen eating and his chick said something about bedtime was 9pm...it was after 10. he kept on eating said compromise, but she just had this look of disgust on her face as he was eating.

see shacking up lets the both of you see all the annoying habits of the other person, then you get to decide if its a deal breaker. like my husband likes to chew LOUDLY....i hate it...but i knew about it and decided it didnt matter. 

he plays video games, you never can tell how much a person plays when you talk to the on the phone, so is good to see what you will be living with, and weather or not its worth it.


----------



## Locard (May 26, 2011)

Research supports NOT living together. When you are married you have both made a public and legal commitment to being together. The first year of living with anyone is rough. Without that, it easier to check out and resent your partner.


----------



## CoffeeTime (Jul 3, 2011)

Dogsquat said:


> I agree with your skepticism, CoffeeTime.
> 
> I can think of several reasons why that study may be flawed. How did they adjust for all of the other societal factors that contribute to a higher divorce rate? Maybe some statistics ninja holds the answers to all our problems in his graphing calculator, but I doubt it.
> 
> ...


I did not know it came from a LDS study. Thank you.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

Actually neither study was funded by the LDS, the LDS publication picked out some statistics from an ongoing national study. However, an excellent point is made about looking at the sources when it comes to using data and statistics to support your position. I frankly do it all the time...I write grants and and am always looking for the numbers and the "story" that will support the need for my program.

When you look at these particular sources however, it's important to note that a meta-analysis of any kind is only as good as the common data between the sources analyzed. And while this one had all sorts of information that supported the premise that cohabitors did in fact dissolve their relationships, the time period in which it happened wasn't specified, whether the data sources used a relatively common definition of dissolution wasn't specified and no comparison was ever made to overall divorce rates during the same time period. All of which might have made a more complete picture of the effects of cohabitation on a relationship. It's also important to note that while the journal it was published in is peer-reviewed, it tends to have a very-pro-family slant. Which is fine, but it's good to understand it's research interests going in.

The report that was quoted in the Deseret News is a national study done every 5 years, it's a comprehensive study of child abuse and neglect that incorporates not only reported, conclusive incidences, but any reasonably suspected by not only child protective services but law enforcement, schools, day cares, etc. It also uses an extremely wide definition of abuse that includes a total of 16 categories, including one called "other/unknown". And while the Deseret News reported that a "mother and her boyfriend" were 11 times more likely to abuse children, the statistic was actually "single parent and unmarried partner". It's also important to note that to be included in the category that this statistic was pulled from, a child could have been harmed by a parent, parent substitute, OR an adult caregiver. 

Overall, the statistic was correct, harm standard (as opposed to endangerment) abuse was significantly higher in homes with single parents living with a partner, however looking at the definitions and the source of the data helps to paint a bigger picture. That is also the largest grouping. Later data also looks at the perpetrator profiles, and in every category--abuse, neglect and overall maltreatment--the biological parent was overwhelmingly identified as the perpetrator. 

It's also interesting to note that the next highest population of abused children were in homes with "other married parents", which could be either bio-parent/step-parent or adoptive parents. So we could conceivably then start to make the argument that we shouldn't allow children to be adopted, if we wanted to start cherry-picking those statistics.....

I know...I'm a numbers geek who probably took this way too far, but I'm often curious about the numbers behind the statements. It's usually interesting what you find.


----------



## CoffeeTime (Jul 3, 2011)

COGypsy,

This is a great contribution to the discussion! I, for one, appreciate the addition to the 'whole picture'.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

I guess I would need to see what sort of stats they used in the study to make their conclusions

does it take into consideration that people who choose to not live together first due to moral and religious reasons also are more likely to choose to stay together in an unhappy marriage rather than divorce for the same moral or religious reasons?


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

Almostrecovered said:


> I guess I would need to see what sort of stats they used in the study to make their conclusions
> 
> does it take into consideration that people who choose to not live together first due to moral and religious reasons also are more likely to choose to stay together in an unhappy marriage rather than divorce for the same moral or religious reasons?


Within the limits of the meta-analysis, reasons, length of time in relationship, etc. were not taken into account. The study simply calculated the odds of marital stability and marriage quality for cohabitors and non-cohabitors based on the common data points from other researchers' data sets. However, some of the studies they drew from may have looked into those influences more closely. 

If I had to guess though, you wouldn't find much. They only had 12 data sets for marital quality and the average respondents were 28-year old white females. 

Here's a link to the article:
Does Premarital Cohabitation Predict Subsequent Marital Stability and Marital Quality? A Meta-Analysis


----------



## heron_inthewater (Jul 23, 2011)

One thing I have learned from people who lived together before marriage is that it will never give you a complete picture of what life is truly like. People get comfortable in a relationship after a while, and once you live together you feel "safe" even though you should continue working on the relationship.

Also, if you live together before marriage and realize that the relationship isn't working out so well, it's much harder to leave. This is even more so because you've invested so much in the relationship-- sex, money, material possessions, experiences, etc. Usually couples who live together beforehand are more likely to indulge in activities that involve travel, huge expenses, etc. They let their guard down a bit too much and it's more difficult to psychologically assess problems in an objective manner. I think this is more true of woman than men, since research shows women are affected much more than men in cohabiting relationships.


----------



## Free (Jul 29, 2011)

CoffeeTime said:


> While I can understand the premise here, I respectfully disagree with the black and white range of the concept. For one, this concept would include even remarriage and step parents. Two, it does not include the concept of biological parents being abusive themselves. I've learned to be weary of 'studies' and 'polls' since relationships are not an exact science with an exact set of variables.
> 
> Another aspect to me here is the fact that homosexual relationships (until recently) have not had the opportunity for 'marriage' and yet 'shacking up' was relatively the only thing we could do. I know plenty of couples going on 5 yr, 10 yr, 20 yr, or 30 yr commitments. Maybe it would be different if the legality of marriage were in place all this time for gay couples? I don't know. It is something to ponder for me but without an answer.
> 
> My partner and I have been together for 6 years and hope to be together for life. I was legally married before to a man and I had the same desire for total lifetime commitment as I do now. The difference being, who I am with to make that happen rather than a piece of paper.


This entire post deserves a standing ovation!


----------



## TwoDogs (Jul 29, 2011)

Grayson said:


> I'm one that firmly believes that living together gives a couple a more realistic idea of what a day-in/day-out, full-time relationship consists of...how to balance the bills, manage the household, learn one another's everyday little quirks of living that may not be seen otherwise, etc.


:iagree:

Better the dissolution of a shack-up relationship than a divorce. Two of my past relationships ended because living together wasn't working, for reasons that weren't apparent during dating.

In hindsight, I'm soooo glad I didn't marry either of those guys. If we'd felt obligated to "make it work" because of the marital commitment, we'd either be divorced now or two miserably unhappy people, shackled together.


----------

