Living together before marriage increases chances of divorce? True or false?

[Musicat]

Omitted from marriage longevity studies are those couples that live together but never get married, or live together for a long time, never marry, then separate. If these cohabitiations were included, it might skew the results, at least if you are trying to find out if living arrangements cause breakups of all kinds rather than just marriage dissolutions.

[Ruken]

A few people have mentioned that religious people are less likely to live together before marriage or divorce, but I have heard this countered by people saying that there is more divorce in the South, despite people being more religious. No idea if this is true though .

[Muffin]

Stats Canada http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2006001/main_death.htm

Living common-law is also strongly associated with a first marital breakdown. In fact, the risk is 50% higher among people who lived with their partner before the wedding than among those who did not. This finding is supported by recent Canadian research which clearly shows that marriages preceded by a common-law union are distinctly less stable than those that began at the altar,7 possibly because the tradition of marriage is less important to people who have participated in non-traditional conjugal relationships.8

[I_m_Ron_Burgundy]

I would think it logical that among couples that get divorced, those that live together are going to get divorced sooner. Say couple A gets married, then lives together for 10 years, then divorces. Couple B lives together for 4 years, gets married, lives together for 6, divorces.

BTW I really don’t think any research in this sort of field is ‘solid.’ That’s not to say that the studies are inaccurate or unduly performed. They’re all bloody statistics. You’re attempting to force years of peoples’ lives into a spreadsheet. You’re going to leave out a hell of a lot of details and explanations.

[Renee]

@Dangerosa

Are marriages that stay together more or less satisfying for the couple if they cohabitate. i.e. if you are against cohabitation and against divorce (which are probably linked) are you also be more likely to stick around in an unhappy (even abusive) marriage?

Since we are IMHO after all, its my opinion that high divorce rates are better societally than a high incidence of abusive marriages.

I would heartily agree. I lived with my husband of six years before we got married and it’s going well so far. I was thinking…how does it even work not living together first? You go on you honeymoon and then moving day? I can’t quite picture it.

Anyway, according to Harriet the Spry’s link (http://www.stcdio.org/OMF/marriage-.../7ReasonWhy.htm), not only are you doomed to divorce if you live together, but

Research reports couples who live together have more frequent disagreements, more fights and violence, lower levels of fairness and happiness with their relationships compared to married people

and

Another study done by the Family Research Council found that 72 percent of all married “traditionalists” (those who strongly believe out-of-wedlock sex is wrong) reported high sexual satisfaction. This is roughly 31 percentage points higher than the level by unmarried “non-traditionalists.” Religious women are most satisfied with the frequency of intercourse and were more orgasmic than are the nonreligious.

and

Depression rates are more than three times higher.
Women being assaulted is 56 times higher

and some other stuff. None of the journals listed (and we don’t get the original articles) have an obvious religious agenda, although the website that comes from does, so I don’t know how skewed it is. It is something to think about, I guess. Strangely counter-intuitive.

[Mangetout]

@Phlosphr

I always thought it was bad, bad, bad to not live with your SO before getting married. How else would one know if they are a complete slob etc…etc…

However, as to whether or not it has any baring on if they get divorced or not I don’t know. I’d think and hope people contemplate long and hard before saying ‘I do’ - -> Dang ain’t that a perfect world if that were true.

I haven’t a clue what the actual statistics are - I rather suspect they’ll be disappointingly uniform, but I just wanted to point out, probably for no reason, that it’s not ‘I do’, it’s ‘I will’ That makes a whole heap of difference, in my opinion, at least it should.

Actually, maybe that varies geographically, but here, it’s ‘I will’, anyway.

[dangermom]

@Renee

I was thinking…how does it even work not living together first? You go on you honeymoon and then moving day? I can’t quite picture it.

Well, if you’re really curious…the logistics were pretty simple for us. We had arranged to move into my husband’s apartment, so his roommate moved out, and I moved my things (from the house I shared with 3 friends) over there. There was also some furniture that belonged to the apartment. My mom and best friend showed up and stayed at my house, and I spent the night before the wedding in my roommate’s extra bed. After the wedding, we went back to our new apartment, checked the mail (my husband had gotten into his program! Yay!), changed the answering machine, grabbed our luggage, and drove away.

I think most of my friends did the same–did the moving before the wedding and stayed on someone’s couch for a day or two. Since a lot of people get married in their home town or somewhere besides where they live, they just put the new place together and then leave for the wedding.

Hope that helps.

[SusanStoHelit]

@Ruken

A few people have mentioned that religious people are less likely to live together before marriage or divorce, but I have heard this countered by people saying that there is more divorce in the South, despite people being more religious. No idea if this is true though .

From my link above that appears to be true:

Table 21. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

At 15 years:

Northeast: 0.39
Midwest: 0.38
South: 0.48
West: 0.42

Pg 65

[MandaJo]

@SusanStoHelit

From my link above that appears to be true:

Table 21. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

At 15 years:

Northeast: 0.39
Midwest: 0.38
South: 0.48
West: 0.42

Pg 65

Remember though that Catholics are traditionally the most stringently anti-divorce, and Catholocism is certainly more common in the NE and Midwest than in the South or West.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Manda JO

Remember though that Catholics are traditionally the most stringently anti-divorce, and Catholocism is certainly more common in the NE and Midwest than in the South or West.

Isn’t the South also economically worse off, on average? Financial troubles are usually listed as the leading cause of divorce, so I’d want to see that controlled for in any study that showed a particular demographic as more likely to divorce.

[SusanStoHelit]

According to the CDC study the best thing you can do for your future marriage is to be born white, middle-class, religious and in the mid-west.