# How Important is Living Together Before Marriage for Long term Success?



## Tommy509 (Feb 11, 2011)

I lived with my EW before getting married, but we were engaged at the time. I'm divorced now and have been dating my GF for about a year and a half. Things are great, but we're both living in separate town homes paying rent and both want to get into a house and out of renting. 

I'm nine years older than her and had my kids young, so my kids are grown and I have few restrictions, whereas she has half custody of her 8 and 10 year old and due to her EH moving next spring, is under the gun to move into their school district by next summer because he's moving out of it and they want to keep the kids in the same school. 

The result of all of this is that we're both looking to move into a house next spring and are entertaining the thought of pooling our resources and buying something together. Our lease situations and current accommodations are such that is doesn't make sense to move in together where we're at and I don't think I'm quite ready for that yet anyway. I think by next summer I will be, but she is pushing things along a little faster than I like because she's feeling pressure to get situated for her kids. 

We get along great and my relationship with her kids is very good, so things look promising, but the thought of committing to jointly owning a house before living together seems like a mistake to me. I'm still not quite comfortable with jumping into a marriage again and she knows that (and I think feels the same way), but it seems to me that joint home ownership is almost equivalent or worse, because there are no asset protections (separation of property) if it doesn't work out so things could get pretty messy. Also, although she makes significantly more money than me, I have a much larger savings and better credit due to the circumstances of my divorce, whereas she has less savings and bad credit due to a bankruptcy that her and her EH went through during the divorce, so I'm in a better position to by something soon than she is. Even next Spring, I'll be committing much more to the down payment than her, but she'll be able to provide more ongoing financial support because of much higher salary.

The alternative is that one of us purchase a house in the spring and the other contributes to the finances like a renter with no equity. Individually we would be compromising what we want in a house and so the downside to this is that we would likely want to sell and combine our income for something bigger within a few years. Her credit and low savings will really restrict what she can buy short term, while my solo earnings will keep me from buying something larger with enough room for all of us. 

Combining our savings and earnings would allow us to get something really nice and comfortable for long term, but we would be committing to it without ever having lived together. Even if I'm ready for marriage by then, we're still jumping in with both feet without living together first.

Sorry that was so long winded, but it's complicated. We both love each other and work great together. She's more comfortable than I am with this, but she also tends to be more impulsive and impatient than me, whereas I tend to be a "planner" and very cautious about major decisions. She respects my point of view, and I hers, but my gut is saying to ease into this and not let circumstances dictate our decisions. On the other hand, we're a great couple and if we're going to be together long term, I don't want to create costly hassles for us down the road. I think we should live together first before we make major commitments, but I wonder if that's a valid requirement or maybe just cold feet on my part.

Thoughts? (again, sorry about the book...also, I did search on this, but didn't really find much on living together before marriage, surprisingly)


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

Not specifically towards your situation, but in general, I think living with the person first is paramount before marriage. If you can't live together, don't get married.

For you 2, you both have ample baggage, and I would suggest you don't pool ALL the resources together at once. I would rent out on place and move together into one. Keep income separate, though open the books together (you each keep separate banks for now, but invite each other to budget together, look at each others finances, etc.). The income from the rental can go down on the other place, and the rest of the mortgage and bills are split 50/50.

If it goes south, you need to be prepared to split amicable, especially for the kids. 1.5yrs together isn't a long time.

BTW, She still lives with her ex, the kids dad??


----------



## Tommy509 (Feb 11, 2011)

tulsy said:


> BTW, She still lives with her ex, the kids dad??


No, she's been on her own for a few years. He lives close enough that they share the kids on a 2-2-3 schedule. Their split was amicable and I have gotten to know her EH through kids events. He's a nice guy, has a GF with her own kids, and everyone gets along. In fact, we sometimes laugh about our extended, if unusual, family as we walk out of church together (where they exchange kids) or the kid's ball games. 

We both are completely open about our finances and everything else. Email, texting, relationships, how we spend money, everything. There are no secrets. It's just better this way. That said, we would keep separate bank accounts, credit, etc until married and would run our own finances either way. Once married, things would be combined for the most part.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Why not rent for a year in her preferred community? If not, you should both talk to a lawyer and get s clear document drawn up with regards to home ownership. Like a pre-nup, without the nup. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tommy509 (Feb 11, 2011)

PBear said:


> Why not rent for a year in her preferred community? If not, you should both talk to a lawyer and get s clear document drawn up with regards to home ownership. Like a pre-nup, without the nup.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Right. There is such a thing as a "Domestic Partners" contract. Don't have much detail on it. I have suggested renting a place together, but she said she doesn't want to move twice.


----------



## SpinDaddy (Nov 12, 2012)

Howdy Tommy,

You know Ms. Spin and I only “cohabitated” for a few months prior to our marriage. OTOH, we’d been in a relationship for several years prior to that.

It might not do you both too much harm to talk up a mortgage broker or two and get a feel for what they really think they can do for you financing-wise. Based on her bankruptcy and notwithstanding her superior cash flows, your credit and earnings are probably going to dictate the terms you’ll have available. From what you’ve said, that may not be the most ideal long-term. 

That said, leasing for a couple years, marriage and “saving-up” might be the best available option you’ve got.

The other thing to look into as well, is in our school district (North Harris County Houston, TX), there is a relatively simple petition process parents may avail themselves of for circumstances like this. Ask around.

Good luck Bro!


----------



## FormerSelf (Apr 21, 2013)

This is a good article.


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

Tommy509 said:


> Right. There is such a thing as a "Domestic Partners" contract. Don't have much detail on it. I have suggested renting a place together, but she said she doesn't want to move twice.


So what if she doesn't want to move twice? I think it would be a good trial to see if you guys can live together before making a large purchase like a home.

Honestly, if it were me, I would want to live with the guy first in a rental and see how he does with my kids and that crazy life in general. 

It would seem she has more to gain by rushing into this though? 

Protect yourself. Don't purchase a home with someone you haven't lived with yet.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I think living together for convenience is a mistake, as it's much harder to extricate yourself when you're living together. If your level of commitment is serious then it's a good next step whether you're planning marriage or not. We moved in together a year before our wedding but we were already planning it.....I would not have moved in with him without that.

We have an age difference so when we met my kids were 2 and 5 and his daughter was 16. I gave him the option of bowing out with no hard feelings if he didn't want to deal with young kids again and he stuck around, and they're now 11 and 13. Just ask yourself how involved with kids you want to be at this point.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Tommy509 said:


> Right. There is such a thing as a "Domestic Partners" contract. Don't have much detail on it. I have suggested renting a place together, but she said she doesn't want to move twice.


Moving twice should be the LEAST of her concerns when considering how badly things could turn out. Isn't she open to any compromise? Is buying a house together on her timetable the only option as far as she's concerned? If so, I'd be wary of an attitude like that.

Renting a place together seems like an excellent idea. Buying a place together now seems like a terrible idea. Especially because of what you said here: 


> Our lease situations and current accommodations are such that is doesn't make sense to move in together where we're at and *I don't think I'm quite ready for that yet anyway.*


You aren't ready so don't let her schedule and financial expedience push you into it. You shouldn't move in with a woman because of financial logistics. And you should never, ever buy a home with someone else because of it, either.

Wait until you're ready. If you don't, it WILL end badly because you aren't doing it for the right reasons and you aren't doing it because you 100% want to.


----------



## Sunburn (Jul 9, 2012)

It's very important.

You'll discover little things that might become big deal breakers.

Above all, some women tend to become different people when things seem permanent. You may not like Ms. Hyde.


----------



## Tommy518 (Nov 28, 2011)

You're right, FormerSelf. That was a good article.

There are good points here, and not surprising. I won't let myself be pressured into living together before I'm ready. We need to talk more about this, but financial convenience is not a good reason to move in together. We have talked to a mortgage banker to discuss our options and have a pretty good handle on that, both individually and together. 

After reading that article, it seems that cohabitation really only works if you're both in agreement on being together long term before you move in. I think our mentality right now is that it's an opportunity to test the relationship while resolving the housing issue, but that seems like a bad idea and certainly would rule out joint ownership until any doubts of a future together are eliminated. 

Things are strong, but I just feel like we need more time. I allowed myself to be pressured into my first marriage and regretted it. I don't want to make the same mistake again. Her kids are great and we really hit it off, but they also add a dynamic that in my opinion makes my relationship with her more complicated and will take longer to feel totally comfortable with. There's really no reason to rush this, and I've told her that.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Living together is a bad idea on many levels.
I'm glad you saw that article, becuase cohabitation prior to marriage has a higher divorce rate. You know what has even higher divorce rate? Second marriage with minor children. So statistically you are way high up in the chance of divorce.

Antother reason is what you are teaching these minor children. Would a mother want her daughter to do this when she grows up? Well she is teaching her daugther that this is how a woman gets a man: to live with him. Also, due to the instabilty of the situation, you are setting the kids up for a second "broken home" to occur in their life. That is not really fair to them.

My view is you should stay dating until the kids are grown, and avoid living with her until you are married legally.


----------



## GA HEART (Oct 18, 2011)

My BF and I bought a house (and I brought my kids) before we lived together, he lived there alone while my kids finished the year in the school district, we stayed on weekends. That gave us a chance to "live together" without living together for about 6 months. I was feeling kinda like you, pressured a bit. I WANTED to do it, but was scared to. The 6 month "weekend" deal gave me and the boys both plenty of time to adjust to the living arrangement. Just a thought.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Living together is a MUST prior to marriage. HOWEVER, I would not recommend doing so until 3 years into relationship (WELL after Honeymoon phase <<< look into this).

Also, with young children, can your girl EVER make you her priority (vs her kids). This would be prerequisite as well!!! DO NOT more forward without her SHOWING that to you IN ACTION (not words).

Most single mothers put their kids as the priority and NEVER EVER change that.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Tommy518 said:


> You're right, FormerSelf. That was a good article.


IMO, the article is crap. It's based on old research and seems to have some bias. The key factor in whether cohabitation works when those couples marry is the age at which they cohabitate. Younger couple marriages fail at a higher rate regardless of cohabitation.

Cohabitation doesn't cause divorce after all | Fox News

The Science of Cohabitation: A Step Toward Marriage, Not a Rebellion - The Atlantic

Best predictor of divorce? Age when couples cohabit, study says. - CSMonitor.com

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/cohabitation-divorce-brief-report/



> ... newer research has suggested that the risk associated with premarital cohabitation may be receding. Sociologists Wendy Manning and Jessica Cohen found that for marriages formed since the mid-1990s, living together before marriage did not raise the risk of divorce. In fact, for a minority of women with higher than average risks of divorce – women with a premarital birth, women raised in single or stepparent families, or women who had had more than the median number of sex partners – living together while engaged was actually more protective against divorce than moving directly into marriage.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

I think it's one of those ideas that, in theory, sounds absolutely logical and even necessary.

Yet, in actuality, no evidence exists to suggest cohabitation prior to marriage has done anything to preserve the collective state of matrimony in westernized nations, where it's nearly universally practiced. The overwhelming majority of people who are divorced lived together prior. I'm not sure to what degree cohabitation really helped them, as many will attest that living together and being married aren't necessarily remotely synonymous. 

Anecdotally? Of all the people we know who are in our similar age bracket, and were all married within a few years of each other, every single couple but us lived together before marriage.

And all but two of those marriages are either strained or completely finished. And in all of the cases one of the major issues cited has been related to incompatibility; i.e. I thought I knew them, knew what they wanted, knew how to live day to day with them, and it turns out that being married to them was nothing like living with them in a long term relationship.

On the other side I can think of one couple for whom it worked out VERY well. My former university roommate. He met his future wife our very first year and basically by my last year (he was a year behind me) he was living almost full time at her off campus apartment. They were inseparable very early on, got married 5 years after they met, and when I asked him how married life was he basically said it wasn't any different for them than before. They seemed to slip pretty seamlessly into a marital life built strongly on years of co-habitation.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Alrighty, I answered the topic question before reading the OP, which is a lot more complex than the title suggests.

I'm totally team rent a place for a year. Considering the kids, that there are at least two failed marriages between you, and your very reasonable apprehension to purchase a house with someone you've never lived with, I definitely think you guys should look into a trial run with renting. Hopefully it'll go well and you guys can rent until you feel comfortable marrying and then purchase the home together as a married couple. I think buying now could potentially be an incredibly huge mistake.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Absolutely NO legal/mortgage agreement with no marriage. NEVER EVER.

Same goes for room mates or friends or even family members. DO NOT get into "ownership" battles with people. ONLY once married.

RENT ONLY OP

I don't really care what studies says or if there is evidence. It's pretty simple. You don't know someone until you live with them for extended period of time (at least 6 months - 1 year). 

I would HIGHLY recommend not finding out who the person is AFTER marriage.

PS. I do recommend above to my kids as well.


----------



## devotion (Oct 8, 2012)

Still a sore point in my relationship. I know she only cares due to the stigma she feels if her parents knew she lived with me (despite her effectively living with me already, and instead paying TWO rents for one place) but can't convince her otherwise that its a huge waste of money once you're committed (ie engaged) since it still takes 6 months to a year afterwards to make it happen. 

Bugs me, since to me its just like premarital sex, she got over that because that's a stupid ban too because you need to know if you're sexually compatible BEFORE marriage. The only way around it is to effectively live together but still have a separate place just for 'appearances'. Frustrating!


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

devotion said:


> Still a sore point in my relationship. I know she only cares due to the stigma she feels if her parents knew she lived with me (despite her effectively living with me already, and instead paying TWO rents for one place) but can't convince her otherwise that its a huge waste of money once you're committed (ie engaged) since it still takes 6 months to a year afterwards to make it happen.
> 
> Bugs me, since to me its just like premarital sex, she got over that because that's a stupid ban too because you need to know if you're sexually compatible BEFORE marriage. The only way around it is to effectively live together but still have a separate place just for 'appearances'. Frustrating!


Well, TO ME, all of the above "no sex before marriage" or "no living together before marriage" is simply bunch of Religious BS.

DO NOT fake or pretend to "meet her or your parents expectations". You guys are ADULTS capable of making decisions ON YOUR OWN. Without your parents approval.

If they don't like it, ohh well. They will get over it in time....trust me.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

devotion said:


> Still a sore point in my relationship. I know she only cares due to the stigma she feels if her parents knew she lived with me (despite her effectively living with me already, and instead paying TWO rents for one place) but can't convince her otherwise that its a huge waste of money once you're committed (ie engaged) since it still takes 6 months to a year afterwards to make it happen.
> 
> Bugs me, since to me its just like premarital sex, she got over that because that's a stupid ban too because you need to know if you're sexually compatible BEFORE marriage. The only way around it is to effectively live together but still have a separate place just for 'appearances'. Frustrating!


That's ridiculous. How old you are you/her?

She's living a lie, and you are agreeing to it.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

tulsy said:


> That's ridiculous. How old you are you/her?
> 
> She's living a lie, and you are agreeing to it.


To top things off, I would HIGHLY recommend that OP looks into laws regarding step children in your state.

Just by LIVING with them, you might be responsible for child support NOW and GOING FORWARD.

Be VERY careful!!!


----------



## Tommy509 (Feb 11, 2011)

DoF said:


> To top things off, I would HIGHLY recommend that OP looks into laws regarding step children in your state.
> 
> Just by LIVING with them, you might be responsible for child support NOW and GOING FORWARD.
> 
> Be VERY careful!!!


I appreciate the concern about that, but her and her husband have split custody and are financially responsible for the kids. I'm out of it. Just the same, I'll look into it. Thanks!


----------



## GA HEART (Oct 18, 2011)

I was very worried about my parents too. Because they are EXTREMELY anti-sex before marriage, LIVING together (GASP).......basically as old fashioned and religious as two people can get. I didn't tell them about the house purchase initially. I DID get lucky in my case, as the house I was renting at the time was undergoing foreclosure (found out after we purchased the house anyway) so I lammented to my parents about finding a place to stay. They were worried, so I finally came out and just told them I was moving in with the BF. Their reaction? 

They were FINE. Shocked the crapola outta me! LOL! I finally came clean and admitted that I bought the house with the BF too. They were fine with that as well.

We purchased the house with survivors benefits, that way there would be no issue with our kids and legal issues. If one of us croaks, the other gets it. We arranged our own "legal" agreement that if we split, one of us buys the other one out. Most likely it would be me buying him out, as I refuse to move my children yet again (the divorce was hard on our living arrangements.....me and my poor kiddos have moved 4 times in the past 3 years.)

I looked at it like a partnership of a company or something. Honestly, I feel BETTER about this purchase now versus if we were married. I am still petrified of the whole marriage thing anyway, for whatever reason. He is too, so we are a fine match. We both "feel" married, but we both know we can move on and not feel "stuck" if we decide to.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

DoF said:


> Living together is a MUST prior to marriage.


That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the overwhelming majority of marriages in the history of the institution didn't involve pre-marital cohabitation.

And millions, if not billions, of human beings the planet over live in societies where pre-marital cohabitation isn't seen as a viable or positive option.

This idea that you "must" live together prior to marriage, for a test run, is a very _western_ idea. It has never been a "must" in a historical or even modern global perspective.




DoF said:


> You don't know someone until you live with them for extended period of time (at least 6 months - 1 year).
> 
> I would HIGHLY recommend not finding out who the person is AFTER marriage.



Not a universal truth. At all.

I didn't cohabitate with my now wife in the 8 years we were romantically tied. I knew her VERY well, and she me.

Yet with both know plenty of people who cohabitated for years prior to matrimony, and almost all of them have run into many shocking surprises with their partners after marriage. You can live together for years and years and still not find out who a person "really is" until after vows are exchanged and marriage licenses are signed.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

GA HEART said:


> We both "feel" married, but we both know we can move on and not feel "stuck" if we decide to.


Moving beyond the legal definition of marriage, that sounds like the heart of marriage to me. Love. Commitment. A shared, intertwined life. "Feeling" married. 

I know others will disagree.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

jaquen said:


> That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the overwhelming majority of marriages* in the history of the institution* didn't involve pre-marital cohabitation.
> 
> And millions, if not billions, of human beings the planet over live in societies where pre-marital cohabitation isn't seen as a viable or positive option.
> 
> This idea that you "must" live together prior to marriage, for a test run, is a very _western_ idea. It has never been a "must" in a *historical* or even modern global perspective.


Okay, but if you live in the western world, this is the new reality. Marriage isn't what it used to be. 

If you still live in the dark ages, then by all means, wait till you are married before having sex and living together. 

It's 2014. Times have changed drastically, and since marriage is likely the most important financial decision you will ever make, it's irresponsible to approach marriage traditionally. 

The contract of marriage should not be taken lightly, especially if you live in the western world. That includes co-habitational agreements and common-law, since they can also cause serious financial hardships.


----------



## devotion (Oct 8, 2012)

*Re: Re: How Important is Living Together Before Marriage for Long term Success?*



tulsy said:


> That's ridiculous. How old you are you/her?
> 
> She's living a lie, and you are agreeing to it.


Late 30s for both.

I don't disagree with you guys. Not much I can do other than point out how idiotic it is to waste thousands of dollars for a silly reason.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

devotion said:


> Late 30s for both.
> 
> I don't disagree with you guys. Not much I can do other than point out how idiotic it is to waste thousands of dollars for a silly reason.


So ask yourself why you're going along with it.

Better yet,

STOP DOING IT.

It's also a bit insulting to have to live your life in secrecy. If you are grown adults, it's really none of your parents business who you are living with.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

jaquen said:


> That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the overwhelming majority of marriages in the history of the institution didn't involve pre-marital cohabitation.
> 
> And millions, if not billions, of human beings the planet over live in societies where pre-marital cohabitation isn't seen as a viable or positive option.
> 
> This idea that you "must" live together prior to marriage, for a test run, is a very _western_ idea. It has never been a "must" in a historical or even modern global perspective.


Sure, but I'm just stating what makes sense to me. It's my advice.

Idea of "religion" has been practiced around the world for THOUSANDS of years too.......I find it primitive and "magical".

I don't really agree with "most" main stream ideas that are common. Even more so if herds of people follow these ideas.

I question them if anything.

I stand firm on this. I've lived with my wife prior to marriage and even though it worked out, it could have easily turn ugly.

Until you live together you simply DO NOT know the other person, you don't know the chemistry and atmosphere in your household amongst MANY other things (finances/habits etc).

I say DO IT!



jaquen said:


> Not a universal truth. At all.
> 
> I didn't cohabitate with my now wife in the 8 years we were romantically tied. I knew her VERY well, and she me.
> 
> Yet with both know plenty of people who cohabitated for years prior to matrimony, and almost all of them have run into many shocking surprises with their partners after marriage. You can live together for years and years and still not find out who a person "really is" until after vows are exchanged and marriage licenses are signed.


I'm not disagreeing with that.

It's like security, it's all about layers of security. For relationships, doing due diligence and time investment is crucial. 

It minimizes the risk.

And no, nothing ever is perfect and things can still happen. But at least you know you did your best if they do.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

tulsy said:


> Okay, but if you live in the western world, this is the new reality. Marriage isn't what it used to be.
> 
> If you still live in the dark ages, then by all means, wait till you are married before having sex and living together.
> 
> ...


Gotta love the "dark ages" talk when discussing the billions of people living in non-western societies. Or the scores of millions who do and still chose not to cohabitate prior to matrimony (yes, check the statistics, a very high minority of people still don't move in together prior to marriage).

Also gotta love the fact that, again, cohabitation hasn't been proven at all to aide in the long term success of marriage. Like, again,* at all*. 

Guess what? My wife and I took the "dark ages" road and have an extremely successful relationship and marriage so far. We didn't take anything "lightly", which is one of the reasons we decided to take a "traditional", sorry, "dark ages", approach.

Interesting that we know plenty of "enlightened", co-habitated couples who are now divorced, on the way to divorce, or struggling hard to avoid divorce.


----------



## devotion (Oct 8, 2012)

So, my thought is that cohabitation before marriage isn't as much of a correlation to a successful marriage as people think it is. It's not necessarily a requirement or a detriment on its own. 

My concern in my situation is financial. I have a unique situation where a) both people are renting and b) both people are not in any long term lease and c) there's a place that's cheaper than EITHER place that's halfway in between. So why not save money for the future (a combined future, because we're BOTH wasting money)? 

Anyway, it's a point of contention for me right now. I'm getting the impression it may be a deal breaker for her so I'm deciding if its a deal breaker for me.


----------



## Tommy509 (Feb 11, 2011)

I suspect that in the end, it's the commitment level of each couple that determines if they stay together or not. If they feel that marriage is forever only if everything works well without a lot of effort, versus being willing to work through any problem regardless of how hard it is, then they will be quick to separate when the going gets tough. That can be the case whether they live together first or not. 

I suppose its possible that many people who refuse to live together first for religious or ethical reasons might also be more compelled to work through their troubles by those same beliefs. They're thinking "it doesn't matter if we live together first because I love you and I'm committed to making this work no matter what" whereas cohabitating couples might think "lets try it and if it's not too bad we'll get married". The latter might likely be faster to give up because they never really felt committed from he start.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud. ...in writing.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

jaquen said:


> Gotta love the "dark ages" talk when discussing the billions of people living in non-western societies. Or the scores of millions who do and still chose not to cohabitate prior to matrimony (yes, check the statistics, a very high minority of people still don't move in together prior to marriage).
> 
> Also gotta love the fact that, again, cohabitation hasn't been proven at all to aide in the long term success of marriage. Like, again,* at all*.
> 
> ...


MILLIONS of people also buy Apple products.....practice religion......and buy Xbox.

It does NOT mean I SHOULD or want to do it. Quite opposite actually. Since MOST people do, I would prefer NOT to do it and have PLENTY of reasons to support that.

Some people wait to have sex and don't move in before marriage, some are successful with that, some are miserable and just go along....and some divorce.

Same goes for those that move in before and have sex (me for example). I have a very successful marriage.

My wife and I had a KID prior to marriage......both of us came from broken families and both of us had some MAJOR red flags. Yet we ended up with a successful marriage.

Would I recommend above during teens, no, not at all.

NOTHING is guaranteed in life or perfect, regardless how you go about getting there.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

DoF said:


> NOTHING is guaranteed in life or perfect, regardless how you go about getting there.



Well...exactly.

Which is the reason I wondered why you'd tell somebody that moving in prior to marriage is a "MUST", when it's actually proven anything but.

Just as I wouldn't tell somebody NOT cohabitating is a key to happy, long term marital success, I find it odd that those who think it is often push it as universally necessary when, again, the institution of marriage has never required cohabitation as a necessity for long term success and the actual evidence shows that cohabitation, as logical as it sounds, hasn't been proven to be very helpful to enough people as to prevent serious compatibility issues within marriage.

Hell premarital sex doesn't even seem to prevent postmarital sex issues, slow down, with sexless couples being pervasive at an alarming rate.

There are obvious downsides to all approaches. And exceptions to every "rule". It seems cohabitation might be harmful, at worst, and at best have no proven positive effect on the general martial state. It is, like all things, a case by case basis.


----------



## devotion (Oct 8, 2012)

The problem with marriage being the 'turning' point for anything like sex or living together is that you don't confront the issues you might have till AFTER marriage. I'd rather much know these issues before marriage, because divorce is complicated and messy. Breakups of non-married couples aren't smooth sailing, but its much easier than a divorce (usually). 

Of course you can have kids and live together without being married so those complications exist outside marriage. I know in my first marriage even though I did have pre-marital sex I never confronted the issues that I had, assumed that it would be better after marriage-- rookie mistake! I know there are definite issues that arise from living together. Still deciding how to handle my situation on that.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Tommy509 said:


> I suppose its possible that many people who refuse to live together first for religious or ethical reasons might also be more compelled to work through their troubles by those same beliefs. They're thinking "it doesn't matter if we live together first because I love you and I'm committed to making this work no matter what"


There is not such a thing as "no matter what", that's heart talking right there.

There is MILLIONS of reasons why you would NOT want to marry someone. Sure, most of the time your heart will tell you go ahead.

But your brain should trigger red flags and prevent you from doing so.

Not living together prior to marriage is "heart thinking" IMO. 



Tommy509 said:


> whereas cohabitating couples might think "lets try it and if it's not too bad we'll get married". The latter might likely be faster to give up because they never really felt committed from he start.


We didn't think of it this way. My wife had no place to go and my mom was willing to let her stay at our house as we already had a child.

Our life was ALREADY "like married" before we even moved in.

Moving in was more of a validation. You see, marriage (to me) was really just a "seal", I knew our relationship would be the same way it was all along. 

This legal step means VERY little, yet our society makes it into this big event.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

devotion said:


> The problem with marriage being the 'turning' point for anything like sex or living together is that you don't confront the issues you might have till AFTER marriage. I'd rather much know these issues before marriage, because divorce is complicated and messy. Breakups of non-married couples aren't smooth sailing, but its much easier than a divorce (usually).
> 
> Of course you can have kids and live together without being married so those complications exist outside marriage. I know in my first marriage even though I did have pre-marital sex I never confronted the issues that I had, assumed that it would be better after marriage-- rookie mistake! I know there are definite issues that arise from living together. Still deciding how to handle my situation on that.


To be honest, I would even recommend having a child before marriage. Seeing what kind of a mother your wife will be (and husband as well) is a BIG deal.

Again, you have to think of marriage as a legal/government commitment, not some kind of relationship milestone.

Marriage is a legalized relationship. Relationship is what you have ALL along and what you will have FOREVER.

Marriage means or changes NOTHING.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

DoF said:


> Our life was ALREADY "like married" before we even moved in.
> 
> Moving in was more of a validation. You see, marriage (to me) was really just a "seal", I knew our relationship would be the same way it was all along.
> 
> This legal step means VERY little, yet our society makes it into this big event.


That makes you part of the group most likely to gain from cohabitation. You were already basically married, save a legal document.

That's a far cry from the "slow slide", the "I guess our next step must be marriage because we invested so many years in living together", and the "test run" couples who seem to not benefit from cohabitation.

Understand that the situation you were in is optimal, makes perfect sense, but yet isn't indicative of lots of people who cohabitate.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

jaquen said:


> ...
> 
> There are obvious downsides to all approaches. And exceptions to every "rule". *It seems cohabitation might be harmful, at worst, and at best have no proven positive effect on the general martial state.* It is, like all things, a case by case basis.


Living with someone before you marry them doesn't guarantee the marriage is going to be perfect, and no one is saying that. However, most people wouldn't buy a car without driving it first...and once they drive it, they don't expect that since they took it for a test drive, there won't be any problems with the vehicle down the road.

I don't see where cohabitation could be harmful or detrimental, actually causing the breakdown of the relationship, but if that is what you are suggesting, it would still be better to reveal issues before you actually get married.

What works for some people doesn't work for other people. There are no guarantee's in life.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

you dont have to live together before marriage. my wife and i didnt live together. we did have sex before marriage, but considering the fact that we knew each other for only a few weeks before we got married, you could hardly say we knew each other. what we DID know was that we werent all that compatible in bed and that we didnt get along very well. 

we also correctly predicted that the first couple years would suck, but we would LEARN to fall in love with each other. we expected a **** storm, we got a **** storm, and now we are completely unafraid of conflict. and guess what? we fell in love with each other.

the ONLY thing that you have to do to be successful in marriage is commit. but both parties have to make that decision. when you decide that your going to make it work and that there is no other option, then it will work!

my parents knew each other for even less time than my wife and i did... less than 24 hours. they just decided to get married. they are still happily married. 


i am often surprised with how many people believe it necessary to live together and have sex before marriage. the truth is, people change. if you only focus on finding the perfect spouse, then you may get lucky, but when one of you changes, are you ready to deal with the conflicts that arise? 


personally, i like the old model better. if you can learn to fall in love with someone you dont even know, then who cares if you lose the passion later on? you will know exactly how to get it back because its nothing new. all these problems that crush marriages seem so trivial once you have already dealt with all of them and have genuinely managed to fall in love with your spouse AFTER dealing with them.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

In our circle of friends, relatives and acquaintances the divorce rate is higher among the couples that lived together before marriage.


----------



## Tommy509 (Feb 11, 2011)

As'laDain said:


> you dont have to live together before marriage. my wife and i didnt live together. we did have sex before marriage, but considering the fact that we knew each other for only a few weeks before we got married, you could hardly say we knew each other. what we DID know was that we werent all that compatible in bed and that we didnt get along very well.
> 
> we also correctly predicted that the first couple years would suck, but we would LEARN to fall in love with each other. we expected a **** storm, we got a **** storm, and now we are completely unafraid of conflict. and guess what? we fell in love with each other.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with this. Longevity is about commitment. It's a decision. Obviously, both parties have to share that commitment, but beyond that it's just a matter of figuring out how to make it work. My pastor says that love is a decision. It's not some magical thing that drifts in and out, but a decision to commit yourself heart and sole to the person you're with. If both people share that commitment, it'll work, whether you lived together first or not.


----------

