So what do you guys think? Should people live together before they get married?
No. Absolutely Not.
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
Yes. Definitely. You’d be a fool not to.
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
Maybe. It really depends on the two people involved.
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
Ah, hell, what do I know anyway? You do what you gotta do. Good luck.
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
It can be a win-win situation:
The gal gets a free place to stay, and the guy gets a steady supply of carnality–without the trappings of commitment.
How can you beat that?
It’s when you view it as more than that when you set yourself up for being sorely disappointed.
Yes, but it’s never a guarantee.
Lived with a gal for 2 years. Got married.
Divorced within the year.
Go figure.
Mjollnir–Why would the girl necessarily live there for free?
TennHippie–What changed after the marriage?
Just FTR–This isn’t really an issue in my life, since I have no SO at the moment. Just got to talking with some friends of mine and the topic came up. This Message Board seemed like a good place to find some well-informed, experienced, humorous opinions on the subject.
I vote for shacking up. Besides, I don’t want to go anywhere near an altar. It’s bad enough that I have to be in a wedding party next summer. 
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge…others just gargle.
Can’t remember where I read this (wish i could, it is kind of nice to be able to cite a statistic)
It was something along the lines of - Couples that live together before marriage are 3 (or 4) times more likely to get divorced.
Wow, that just might be the most unofficial statistic anywhere. But it is in the ballpark.
“Living there for free” is hyperbolic.
In general (and I realize, not always), it’s the gal who moves in with the guy, so she is less likely to be locked in to a lease or mortgage.
Whatever her monetary contributions, it’s certainly going to be a lot less that if she were on her own, and she wants to get out of a roommate or family arrangement–and all she has to do is spread 'em once in a while.
And that is an integral part of the contract. Let her stop and see how long she lasts there.
I’m all for it here. I too shacked up before getting married TennHippie… our marriage lasted 11 years, but things sure changed after that piece of paper was awarded to us on our wedding day.
I think its a good way to really figure out ech other’s bad habits… then decide if you want to take it further or not.
I opened the door, and look who I found. Damn I’m good
Mullinator
Could it be that the couples who don’t live together have religious beliefs that make it less likely that they would get divorced ?
I am personally living with my fiancee. My question would be, what is the advantage in not living with her? In my mind, that is an outmoded concept, similar to the popularity of the idea (not so long ago) that you shouldn’t have sex before you’re married.
Quand les talons claquent, l’esprit se vide.
Maréchal Lyautey
Arnold,
Yeah, you might have a good point with that. It would tend to skew the statistics a good bit. My wife and I waited until after marriage to move in and to have sex, and we are both very happy with the choice.
The #1 reason I would choose to wait to move in is that I have had so many friends move in with SO’s, get married, and then start complaining about how nothing seems special now that they are married. That seems pretty sad to me.
Of course, I also realize that isn’t the same in every case.
As a guy, I say shack up, and skip the wedding all together.
Since the so-called “sexual revolution”, women have redefined the concept of marriage, to the point that there is no incentive for males to marry. Consider:
Women no longer want to change their names to their husband’s. I don’t want to debate why this is good or bad, I’m just saying that it removes one of the symbols of commitment of the relationship, and it makes it easier for the female to leave when the going gets a little rough.
Women want to delay (or avoid) childbearing to pursue a career. Again, I’m not saying this is a bad thing per se, I’m just saying that it is one more thing dis-incentivizes marriage for males.
After childbirth, women want to return to their careers. In my opinion, This is wrong; an exception would be if the couple agreed in advance that the woman would work and the man would stay home with the kids. Any other arraingement is bad for the kids. Period.
No fault divorce encourages women to leave relationships, especially if they have kids; they can usually depend on custody and child support, so why should they work on a relationship when it gets a little rocky? Argue all you want, I’m just saying that it is another reason guys think twice about marriage.
The whole concept of women “wanting it all” (marriage, carreer and children) is flawed. Men realized this a long time ago; in order to provide for their families, they gave up a large part of the joy of family life. Women should realize there is more to life than their own goals and aspirations, and some of these have to be sacrificed for the good of the relationship and the family.
Until I find that traditional woman who sees marriage the way I do, I see no advantage to tying the knot. At all.
TT
“Believe those who seek the truth.
Doubt those who find it.” --Andre Gide
Definately not!
Shacking up in an abominationin the face of God!
You should only hold hands with your love interest when you are praying to the almighty for the strength to wait for your wedding day.
There will be great rewards in heaven for those who wait!
Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.
Oh SHIT! The fundies have assimilated Burn! Run for the hills!!!
(VERY nice post, Burn…I’ll get even as soon as I clean the Diet Coke off the desk…)
“There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.” - William James
couldn’t resist
Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.
And they’ve got what, like six women up there in Soldotna? You poor bastard!
StoryTyler
I am too in shape! :::muttering::: Round is a shape.
C’mon up and see me sometime.
The only thing worse than a woman speaking for all women is a man speaking for all women. Frankly, the fact that I might be able to change my last name to something a bit more easy to pronounce is one of the few reasons I actually WOULD get married.
Avoid, here. Not necessarily for the career, either, but more because I don’t feel like adding to overpopulation, and I’m not incredibly attached to my own genetic material. I can see that if you want to have children, marrying ME might not be the answer to your problems…but there are plenty of women around who are perfectly willing to be mommies.
I can’t really fault you there, but what if you, hypothetically, were married and wanted children, but could only afford it on two incomes?
Um…out of love, friendship, and respect for their partner? Funny how you didn’t mention that once in your rant, here.