What's the point of moving in together?

[yeawutever]

Well that's the only aspect I'm old-fashioned. I do not believe in moving in unless the man is my fiance (though I don't want kids, I still want marriage someday: a childfree marriage) and there is a date set-on, not just talk nor maybe answers.

 

So this has me wondered. Relately I've noticed too many women living together with a bf, no offense but to me doesn't really make sense. IMO a ''living together'' relationship is only a temporarily version of what it's like seeing them everyday but without any real commitment. If a potential bf ever asked me to move in with him, I will say no right away. I don't really see moving in together with a bf as something serious and I also don't want to end up in the ''We've been living for 5 years and no proposal'' category.

 

I'm I right in thinking this way? Hopefully I didn't offended anyone. If any of you like living together as only bf and gf ok but that's not for me.

[LDRohnos]

Well, there is a flip side to that thinking. When you live with someone you REALLY get to see all the sides of that person. It's very difficult to hide things when you see someone on a daily basis. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's much more difficult to wear a mask 24/7.

 

From a personal standpoint, if I'm living with my girlfriend there's a very, very "real" commitment there. I would never move in with a woman I wasn't sure of or if I (or she) wasn't ready for a committed relationship. Also, I would definitely want to live with the woman I was going to marry first before any engagement is set. Ideally for quite awhile. I think it's a natural step to take before marriage, and a smart one. I'd rather get married and have all the cards on the table already rather than get married then move in to find out I couldn't possibly live with this person for the rest of my life.

 

By the way: I don't think you're wrong thinking this way. It depends on your upbringing and personal experiences. My personal experiences tell me to flush all the crazy out of the box first and see if it's still a strong relationship.

[yeawutever]

I guess I come from the old generation. My parents never lived together before getting engaged, which took 3 years and they're still married. Also how would I know the man is not stringing me along? If I were to move in with him and let's say I'm not the ''right woman'' for him or he isn't ready till years later, I would want him to tell me right away so I can break if off and not waste further time.

 

I would say anything from 2-3 years should be enough to know if I'm the right woman for him or not. I would hate to be spending years with him only to find out he's still thinking about it.

[sara-pezzini]

living together is a REAL commitment, there are also people who do not believe in marriage or don't think marriage is important......

to me there isn't much difference between marriage and living together....i'd do either one of them in a heartbeat with my BF....

[LDRohnos]

I guess I come from the old generation. My parents never lived together before getting engaged and they're still married. Also how would I know the man is not stringing me along? If I were to move in with him and let's say I'm not the ''right woman'' for him or he isn't ready till years later, I would want him to tell me right away so I can break if off and not waste further time.

 

Use that wonderful woman's intuition you're blessed with! Love can blind, this is true...but if there's problems in a relationship, living together will flush those things out in a hurry. There's nothing stopping you from making an arrangement to live together for a certain period of time and if no greater commitment (marriage/engagement) is in the cards then you split ways amicably.

 

Still, it's just a point of view. There's no right or wrong.

[RedDress]

I agree that there is no right or wrong. It's all about preference.

 

If you move in before marriage/engagement, you have a better idea of what you are getting. The downside is that it may take longer to commit (the why buy the cow theory) but... when you get that commitment, I argue it would be a more solid, well-informed commitment.

 

If you don't move in before marriage/engagement, you may get a commitment faster... but what are you committing to? Is it a happier union or a faster union?

 

I think it's the same argument as the "no sex before marriage" argument. There are pros and cons. You'll likely get a faster commitment... but... is it the right commitment? What if you are sexually incompatible? Same problem, same arguments in my books.

[yeawutever]

I agree that there is no right or wrong. It's all about preference.

 

If you move in before marriage/engagement, you have a better idea of what you are getting. The downside is that it may take longer to commit (the why buy the cow theory) but... when you get that commitment, I argue it would be a more solid, well-informed commitment.

 

If you don't move in before marriage/engagement, you may get a commitment faster... but what are you committing to? Is it a happier union or a faster union?

 

I think it's the same argument as the "no sex before marriage" argument. There are pros and cons. You'll likely get a faster commitment... but... is it the right commitment? What if you are sexually incompatible? Same problem, same arguments in my books.

Yeah that's a good point. In the end everything is a risk but I would prefer having a faster commitment than one that can takes 4+ years. I'll go for the ''What I'm commiting to'' than the later.

[Unknown1607307972]

I live with my boyfriend and we're not engaged. Personally marriage isn't a huge goal for me, I can take it or leave it, therefore it doesn't really matter if I don't get a proposal.

[yeawutever]

Use that wonderful woman's intuition you're blessed with! Love can blind, this is true...but if there's problems in a relationship, living together will flush those things out in a hurry. There's nothing stopping you from making an arrangement to live together for a certain period of time and if no greater commitment (marriage/engagement) is in the cards then you split ways amicably.

If I knew for sure that he really was marriage-minded and someone that kept his words then my timeframe would be only 12-18 months of living together, no more.

[markie6]

Much better to find out whether you can live together, before you get married. You never really know somebody until you have lived with them. Personally speaking, I wouldn't risk marriage without at least trying to see if I can handle living with them. In this day and age, better to try before you buy.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

People often say that living together helps you see the real person...but often people live together even though they have no desire to spend the rest of their life with that person, married or not married. Living together is often just a matter of financial and personal convenience. Splitting rent or house costs, food, utilities etc. It is also a matter of convenience...if two people see each other 6 days a week and one person is always staying over at the other's place, they feel it is better to just move in together and then there is no travel involved. So what is happening in the younger generation is that instead of serial divorces, people are having serial splits from live-in relationships often even going through the same financial aggravation. It is not uncommon for people today to have lived with 2, 3, 4 and beyond partners by the time they hit their mid-thirties. Some even buy the house, have the kids, split and then do the whole thing over with someone else..buying another house, having more kids.

 

Bottom line is that people are claiming that it is better to "test the waters by living together rather than getting married right away"..but in the end they often get themselves into the same emotional and financial pickle and have to go through the equivalent of a "divorce" from their live-in.

[fireside]

there was a recent article in the new york times about cohabitation. very interesting, i thought.

link removed

[DN]

In some places, those getting married are becoming a minority and more and more couples are living together. It is no longer a tiny minority doing something against the mainstream. Saying they are wrong is an opinion but it isn't shared by increasing numbers. That survey is from 2001 - over eleven years ago and therefore can't really be relied upon for today's thinking.

[Fudgie]

People do it to make sure that they can actually live with the person day to day. My parents lived together before marriage and this was how I was raised. Not to just move with with "just anyone" but not to marry someone unless I had lived with them beforehand. My dad told me this horror story from a woman he knew, how she dated a man for 2 years, married him, and then found out he was a functional alcoholic. You find out a LOT about a person by living with them. I would not feel comfortable making the commitment to be with someone forever without knowing as much as I can. I do not like the risk in that.

 

I plan to get a place with my boyfriend in the near future. Another thing is, not everyone wants to get married or wants to get married in the NEAR future. Should I just wait to move in just because I don't see myself getting married for another 5+ years? I don't see the point in that. I don't really want to marry until I'm at least in my late 20s. Yet I want to be in a committed LTR and live together. That's just how I feel. I don't think I should be "rushed" into marriage just to live with a person. That makes no sense. I think I should take my time.

 

People need to be careful not to go into things for financial reasons. I was already planning on moving out to an apartment the same size as the one I would be living in with my boyfriend, so it really makes little difference to me. Some people make shack up not because they want to take things to another level, but because they want to make things easier financially. This is not a good reason to move in together, IMO.

 

Personally, I think if a couple wants to have kids, they should get married beforehand. I don't really understand the whole "cow" metaphor. I hate it, actually, with the idea that a man has to "buy" the cow (ie marrying the woman) and then you "have him". Marriage is a commitment, yes, but you'll run into problems assuming that you "own' the man now that you have a ring on your finger. You don't. He can still cheat, he can still look at you as disposable. The key is to finding someone who is not this way and will cherish you, no matter if you have a ring or not.

 

Also, living together is not just him getting "milk for free". His name would often be on utility bills, and the lease. He can't just waltz out without serious financial or legal problems if he doesn't pay. If you own your own separate furniture, then he'll lose the use of yours. Depending on who is more financially secure, he could be out on the streets if you guys break up and you kick him out. The key is to be financially self-sufficient and be able to live on your own, WITH or WITHOUT the boyfriend, so that him leaving would not render you homeless.

[rahulrocks]

Just keep believing, what you are believing...there is nothing wrong about it. There are advantages and disadvantages at both the sides of the coin. So those who want a live-in should have a live-in and those who do not want it are equally correct. Both these patterns of life brings you something and takes something away from you. Its upto you what suites to your conditioning and culture.

To me this question is like asking.......'Should men have beard or not ?' for which probably there are no answers.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

Lots of men and women live together, think they know each other well..then they get married and they find out that the person is actually very different once married. Lots of live-together first relationships crash and burn upon marriage. Living together doesn't necessarily give an accurate depiction of who the person will be once married.

[Fudgie]

Lots of men and women live together, think they know each other well..then they get married and they find out that the person is actually very different once married. Lots of live-together first relationships crash and burn upon marriage. Living together doesn't necessarily give an accurate depiction of who the person will be once married.

 

True, true. But if the choice is not living together before marriage and living together before marriage, I'd choose the latter. It's just too much of a risk for me and I would rather not take that.

[DN]

People also change after marriage who did not live together beforehand.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

People also change after marriage who did not live together beforehand.

 

Yes, I realize that. However, the premise that many people give for living together first is that they know what they are getting before committing. It is the same naive rationale that people use to say why they need sex before marriage...to see if they are sexually compatible before committing...and yet so many people end up being sexually incompatible only after marriage. Bottom line is that compatibility prior to marriage does not guarantee compatibility after marriage.

[Fudgie]

Yes, I realize that. However, the premise that many people give for living together first is that they know what they are getting before committing. It is the same naive rationale that people use to say why they need sex before marriage...to see if they are sexually compatible before committing...and yet so many people end up being sexually incompatible only after marriage. Bottom line is that compatibility prior to marriage does not guarantee compatibility after marriage.

 

I can understand that. There is always that risk. Nothing is ever 100%. However, would you say that between couples (let's just say they have dated for around the same amount of time) who traditionally date and never live together or spend several nights at each others' house and couples who live together, would you say that non-live-in couples have MORE of a risk of not knowing what they are "getting" before marriage than the live-in couples?

 

Or do you think it's entirely, 100% possible to know someone JUST AS WELL not living with them before marriage and not having sex before marriage?

[DN]

It isn't naive to 'try something out' before committing - no one is suggesting it is a guarantee of success any more that trying anything one does out is a guarantee of ultimate success.

 

But one thing is reasonable to assume - if you can't get along living together before marriage, a wedding ceremony is unlikely to make things better. So although you don't have a guarantee of a successful marriage by living together first, you can probably avoid a divorce from that individual person

[Crazyaboutdogs]

There have been generations of couples who never lived together before marriage and their marriage worked out just fine. I think this "testing it out by living together first" is a cop out...it is just because it is now fashionable...fashionable doesn't mean successful. Very often living together is just a way to NOT have to get married...and this way people can flit in and out of live-in relationships like they change underwear rather than making a more concerted effort to make it work.

[Batya33]

there was a recent article in the new york times about cohabitation. very interesting, i thought.

link removed

 

What a great article. We didn't live together before marriage. Neither of us believed it was the right thing to do. Looking back even though living together is one of the largest adjustments of being married (neither of us lived with other people in the past, either) living together before marriage would have had little practical relevance since we became new parents shortly after marrying - and the effect of a newborn on living together is, at least to me, intense. I agree with what the article said about how couples often slide into living together where in contrast it's far more difficult to slide into a marriage and a marital commitment.

 

I do have a friend for whom living together works great - they have been together about 7 years and have a young child. She didn't want to get married again (although he would) and their relationship seems highly committed -I don't think of them as different from a married couple in that way (they are domestic partners in the state they live in although they are hetero).

[DN]

There have been generations of couples who never lived together before marriage and their marriage worked out just fine. I think this "testing it out by living together first" is a cop out...it is just because it is now fashionable...fashionable doesn't mean successful. Very often living together is just a way to NOT have to get married...and this way people can flit in and out of live-in relationships like they change underwear rather than making a more concerted effort to make it work.

Things have changed radically over the last couple of generations.

 

You are making way too many generalisations as if there was only one outcome or motive to living together. Life is more complex than that.

[Snny]

Well that's the only aspect I'm old-fashioned. I do not believe in moving in unless the man is my fiance (though I don't want kids, I still want marriage someday: a childfree marriage) and there is a date set-on, not just talk nor maybe answers.

So what happens when the engaged couple has to eventually live separately based on different circumstances? Nothing is guaranteed whether you are married or not in this day in age.