Skip to comments.The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage
Posted on 04/14/2012 5:44:08 PM PDT by reaganaut1
In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along. About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.
But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages and more likely to divorce than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.
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.
As Jennifer and I worked to answer her question, How did this happen? we talked about how she and her boyfriend went from dating to cohabiting. Her response was consistent with studies reporting that most couples say it just happened.
We were sleeping over at each others places all the time, she said. We liked to be together, so it was cheaper and more convenient. It was a quick decision but if it didnt work out there was a quick exit.
She was talking about what researchers call sliding, not deciding. Moving from dating to sleeping over to sleeping over a lot to cohabitation can be a gradual slope
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
My parents were not thrilled we us living together, but my dad really and truly does like his son in law - and absolutely adores his only grandchild - who wouldn’t be around if it weren’t for that said son in law!!!!!!!1
Dad totally despised my first, even when we were just “dating,” - he has liked this man from the first time he met him.
All I can say is that I finally grew up and married a man like my dad! Well, with the same sense of humor :-)
I don’t understand why you would think that. I have an “old maid” aunt who is in her mid70s, and I would not consider her a useless loser. She taught school for more years than I have been alive. (I am 40 something.) she took all of her nieces and nephews on trips around the country and the world. We would not have had such opportunities without her initiative. She taught us to appreciate literature and theater and food. She is by no means perfect. Hah. She is a liberal for some inexplicable reason. Her views on most things are so conservative. I can only guess that it has to do with teacher unions and how she was influenced by their fearmongering.
.....................Your daughters life is an utter waste..............................
No, my daughter’s life would be an utter waste if she had children to a male who did not love her, nor who she loved. And, then trying to raise kids without a father.
Her father was stupid for getting married because it felt good - it felt much better getting divorced - except for the impact to the young children.
If you haven’t gone through that emotional roller-coaster, you may have a hard time relating to a parents delayed anguish for the emotional impact on their children.
I’ll carry my guilt to my son and daughter to my grave!
That’s funny! Our son-in-law reminds me a lot of my husband when he was younger, but they are still different enough that it’s not weird. ;-)
You lived in sin for 10yrs!!! OMG!!!
How could you possibly be happily married?
If you do not create and train your replacements to be decent productive people, you have failed. Your children are your replacements. If you live your entire life without giving society any respectable replacements, you are in some ways no better than the trash who live off of public assistance their entire existence.
That milk must have gold in it.
Does that milk belong to someone other than the cow? If so, I guess it should be paid for somehow.
Wow. I dated my wife for 3 years and I thought I was slow but 10? :-)
Right on! 80% do it therefore the other 20% must do it.
I was never married until I was 46 and thought I had a great life until I met my wife who was also 46 and now we have even better lives. We dated for 3 years and were never tempted to move in together. Praise G-d!
>>Think of two high school dances<<
You don’t know high schoolers. The girls are freely giving no matter how many guys. They have been brainwashed by a secular society.
In fact, hooking up is mostly initiated by females. My daughter is just as happy hanging out with the guys who are uncomfortable with it.
I loved her deeply and have yet to find another woman as enjoyable. It will happen someday. I say this to make the point that living together beforehand didn't affect me at all. I wish we could have remained functional, she have remained stable, and we could have stayed together. But then again, she would have needed to have been another woman for that to happen.
We shacked up, and we just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. I married the only girlfriend I’ve ever had (and the only person I’ve ever had sex with). We’re just like everybody else, just a couple of statistics.
immoral? lol. Ok. What time is your book burning scheduled for today?
Your brain doesn’t work very well does it?
Pretty much every couple among my friends and family lived together for a year or two (at least) before they were engaged, and all are working on ten+ years of marriage with two or three kids. Divorce rate virtually zero. Nice, smart people don’t get divorced in the absence of money problems (with “not getting caught cheating” being a subset of smart and nice).
immoral? lol. Ok. What time is your book burning scheduled for today?
You must not understand the meaning of the word “immoral” or you couldn’t have connected it with book burning.
The roles and behavior of men and women are differentiated by the simple fact that it is the woman who gets pregnant.
A lot follows from that fact. For one, the woman always knows that the baby she bears carries her genes.
Men cannot say with the same certainty that the baby their women bear carry their genes.
(Technology makes no difference in this, because the brains and emotions of men and women evolved long before genetic testing was invented)
For another, women have evolved to strongly feel the need that the man they have sex with, will stick around after he impregnates her, to protect and provide for her during her pregnancy and after giving birth, continue to do the same for her and the growing child. (However, if the woman already has a man to provide for any offspring she may have, she might also be tempted to combine her genes with some other guy, who is of better quality than her husband, this would be a genetic advantage for her, if she isn't caught)
Whereas a man, who historically could never be 100% sure the baby his woman bears is his baby, has been programmed to hedge his genetic bet, by feeling the urge to have sex with (and thereby impregnate) as many women as possible, including those of other men (the latter case is especially advantageous, as the other man wastes himself on rearing the other guy's baby, thereby perpetuating the other guy's genes, and not his own).
BTW, people generally don't behave because they are actually thinking what is good for the survival of their genes--rather the other way around: their genes strongly influence the decisions people make via emotions like jealousy, lust, etc.
I could go on and on . . . but why bother.
I could not agree more.
Strange the discussions we have on this forum. As a Catholic I lived my life understanding that ‘adultery’ was sex outside of marriage.......and thus, a sin, because it broke a Commandment.
There are those who would argue that, but we all know times have changed, [not for the good], and what was once considered debauchery is now considered OK - by many who claim to be Christian.
On other threads some of those same people may fight you and call you names over who you choose to vote for, or which side of an argument you favor. Thank God we are each only responsible for our own sins.
You’re right, why bother..........
I stand by my statement.
Including bulls giving other bulls fatal STD's and cows killing their young because they value baubles over the next generation.
Yes they can. My schlong has never been in any other woman than the one I married and she has been likewise faithful in her marriage vows. Couples like us used to be considered normal.
FWIW, men can also perpetuate themselves by instilling their values into the children they raise. A good family friend of mine had the unfortunate circumstance of marrying a woman who wasn't faithful to him. He knew the first two daughters born to her were not genetically his. But he raised them with his values anyway.
It cost him his home and almost all his worldly possessions, but he eventually got full permanent custody. The girls wanted nothing further to do with their birth mother. Now they are delightful young ladies with conservative religious values.
They belong more to my friend via the love and values he instilled in them than any genetic connection.
Unfortunately, these ‘sliders’ also create children for the same reasons....playing house without the responsibility of making the decisions.
God bless you and God bless your friend.
Wonderful story! Thanks for sharing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.