I have been living with my boyfriend for 4 months. It just sort of happened. We were dating for a year and and then he worked out in the oil patch for 6 months. I missed him so much so when he came home, he moved in and we vowed to stay together forever.

We plan on getting married maybe in a year and a half or two years. We've talked about it many times.

My godmother and other Christian friends think this is a bad idea. Aside from the religion, they said that statistics show that the divorce rate is higher for people who lived together prior to marriage.

I personally don't care about divorce rates. I think I have a grip on my relationship and I prefer to live with my man first so I can see how things are, and build on our relationship in a semi unified manner.

My godmother suggested that when you live together before marriage, you don't share financially 100%, but when you get married, you should be sharing everything, but having lived together prior, you never get used to that change.

Evidence suggests couples who live together before marriage are more likely to experience problems and divorce after marriage.

What can I tell ya? It worked for us. I don't think that either of us ever felt less than 100 per cent commitment, and even before we got married, we'd already figured out what sharing equally meant. Neither of those things happened in a light-bulb moment -- I guess we slid into them over some months towards the end of the patchy year -- but we had definitely made both the emotional and the practical commitments some time before we got married. And for us, they just held true -- still do, although health problems complicate the story at this point.

All the same, I would never claim that we were a model for anyone. I married Fang not because I wanted to get married in the abstract but because I felt the way you're feeling right now. I don't think that thinking about marriage in the abstract makes much sense at all, really -- it happens when two real, particular individuals just suddenly feel that they are there anyway, if you know what I mean.

The divorce stats and the living-together stats probably do mean something, but something fuzzier than your elders are suggesting -- just that many people are finding traditional commitments harder to keep up, or are questioning traditional commitments. That doesn't especially bother me, although it wasn't true of me, either.

There are arranged marriages, of course, and many of those work very well, apparently -- the partners really do come to love each other, and I believe that that can happen, although you may need a supportive culture for that. I think it's true, though, that people become especially tender towards one another simply by virtue of spending a long time together -- well, either that, or they grow to detest each other, or just bore each other.

But here, where cohabitation is so prevalent, no it hasn't led to a drop in the divorce rate among couples who do wind up getting married, and marriage or not, among long-term couples or families with children.

I don't necessarily agree with your godmother that couples should necessarily share everything financially after marriage. It is important to be fair and kind but I don't think fairness and kindness necessarily mean sharing everything.

[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
What about if they move in together without the expectation of marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Hmmn. Are we talking Peter Pan Syndrome here, josh?

---

Skdadl...does that mean that people who want to live together for good instead of getting married at some point are doing so because they don't wanna grow up?

If I were going to cohabit again, I'd do so without marriage, at least for the first year or two. And maybe for good. It's much easier, legally speaking, to go back to single again from a cohabiting relationship than it is from a marriage, should that step be necessary.

Also, in the first living-together arrangement I had, it gave me a chance, before I got married, to realize that I didn't want to spend the rest of my life with him, and therefore we didn't go through with our planned wedding. But with my husband, by the time we realized we were bad for each other, we were married with a child.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Hmmn. Are we talking Peter Pan Syndrome here, josh?

---

2. Michelle, it's true that to women of my and lagatta's cohort (and gee, josh, that would be your cohort too, eh? ), that expression, when first it was used, was applied almost exclusively to the guys. The assumption was that it was the guys who commonly had cold feet, feared commitment, etc, while the grils were just so eager to be nest-building right after the first kiss.

Yes, those are stereotypes and sexist -- except we all grew up with those stereotypes in a culture drenched in sexism, so to a considerable degree, they were self-fulfilling prophecies about the roles people really played out. I mean, I did know guys who were cartoon-perfect Peter Pans. We all did.

And those are the guys who suddenly discovered, in their mid-forties, what one of them called (in a G&M column about ten years ago) his "bread-winner instinct" (yee hee hee hee hee hee) -- at which point they all went out and married thirty-yr-old women, since their contemporaries were ... etc etc etc.

I don't think it's just the act of living together that makes a couple more likely to divorce later, and I don't think divorce is the big tragedy it's made out to be anyhow. I think it has more to do with the person's attitude toward relationships. I think people who are open to living together before marriage are people who are less traditionalist about relationships. They're less likely to be people who think it's their holy duty to stay in a miserable marriage for the rest of their lives because "we vowed it before God". They're probably more likely to see relationships as things that grow and change and sometimes need to end.

14 years later and we're still living together. Will we marry? Maybe, just for the fun of it. But at this point it's not going to be a big event, culminating in consummating the relationship or anything.

But I think your godmother is right about thinking about the financial arrangements. It seems that in a lot of incidences women end up paying 100 per cent (I know 3 women who did that or are doing that) of house, groceries etc., In one case, the minute the guy moved in he quit his job - looking ofr something better yah right. Anyhow, it took her 5 years to see that she was just being used, and the loser she was with wasn't going to ever get a job, and kick his sorry butt to the curb.

When the blond guy and I decided to cohabit, there was a very practical reason -- her name is Ms B, and we found out she was on the way about 6 weeks into our dating relationship. Since we both wanted to be parents and were pretty compatible (not to mention dippy about each other), moving in together seemed like the most sensible and natural thing to do. The idea of marriage came up briefly, and we decided against it, for the time being.

We got married when Ms B was about 10 months old. For us, the marriage began a year and a half before the wedding. We just formalized it, and had a really nice party. It's not the trappings, it's the commitment.

We also shared a joint bank account and the house I had bought when I was single. We've always shared all the financial stuff. I think that if you can't entirely trust somebody with money, you shouldn't marry him/her.

This is the second marriage for both the blond guy and I. We both had ill-advised but brief marriages in our early twenties. We both left with our previous marriages with very little -- he, what he could load into his van (this included his motocross bike and gear, so there wasn't room for much else), and me, a VW beetle, my grandfather's desk and a wicker chair. Neither of us really cares about stuff enough to be dangerous in the money department.

I believe that in most provinces after a certain number of years the useless bum or bummette becomes a spouse for the purposes of the law. I've heard 6 months and one year alternatively thrown around. Of course, the in house lawyer would know more than me.

The woman I know in Alberta has checked with a lawyer, and he is a spouse, as they've lived together for 3 years I believe. And if I heard her right he's entitled to half of her condo in Whistler, and half of her house in Calgary. Of course, she would get half of his business but since he doesn't work at it its not worth much anyhow. But I think she may be responsible for his debts too. Also we pals were wondering if he could sue for child support (he he - I mean spousal support -- they have no kids - but he's a 12 year old in my opinion). She's a Dr., so she could end up supporting him we were thinking. All very sad. But she hasn't left yet, so .... ????

For instance, if I own a house, and some guy moves in with me, and I continue to make all the payments on the house, and he does not contribute to the upkeep of the home or to the financial end of the relationship, then when we break up, he doesn't get 50% of our assets accumulated. Whereas if we were married, he would.

"common law spouse" means either

(a) a person who is united to another person by a marriage that, although not a legal marriage, is valid by common law, or

quote:

---

After a little bit of real estate shuffling, our lawyer informed her that her ownership of anything has gone from 50% to 0.

---

quote:

---

I believe that in most provinces after a certain number of years the useless bum or bummette becomes a spouse for the purposes of the law.

---

For some purposes, but not for others. Supreme Court said last year in a decision called Walsh that each one of the provincial matrimonial property acts applied only to married people and not co-habiting bums and bumettes. As to the date that you get to divvy up the matrimonial loot, that DOES differ from province to province.

[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: beibhnn ]

The blond guy and I are both the marrying kind -- we strongly believe in the legal bond, as well as wanting the kind of public declaration of the commitment we've made to one another.

I also think that if one chooses a traditional relationship, as long as it is an informed choice, that this is no less feminist than choosing to have a non-traditional relationship. It is having the choice, not the pattern chosen, that relates to feminism.

(edited for typo)

[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

If, God(s) forbid, something dreadful happened to my partner today, her parents would have me out the door in less time than it takes to say "homophobia". I'd have no power over what happened to her, no access to her, nada. She wants to put it all in writing, have a lawyer write up our wills, our power of attorney, etc...but I don't think that all the papers in the world carry the weight of one certificate of marriage.

---

Yup.

And that is just the practical side. (NEVER discount the importance of the practical side.)

Only once in my life have I ever met anyone who could make me feel freer living with him than I could feel on my Peter Pan own, and Reader, I married him.

I know that that's lucky. Maybe because I was so prickly for so long, I made part of that luck -- ie, I resisted even living with anyone until I already knew that it would make me even freer.

Doctors don't like to do these things, and I don't blame them -- these forms and categories are legal ones, not medical ones, and a lot of doctors will not help when you need them to. But some kinds of social workers can do the declaration of "incapacity." And if you've already sat down and talked through the PA with the person you love and a lawyer, then it becomes that much easier to take all further steps.

Some of what I've watched over the last year or so has made me think very very seriously about whom I give my PA to. I still haven't made up my mind.

Sometimes, even love isn't all you need. You need to find someone who is both smart and loves you unreservedly. Unfortunately, ...

[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

Rights to support kick in afer 3 years of co-habitation or the birth of a chile of the union.

People have these vague notions about "common-law marriage", (there is no such thing) and "legal separation" (again, no such thing, but neither is there such a thing as an illegal separation).

Skdadl said

quote:

---

I mean, it was a syndrome. Pretty much. I tend to assume that you younger chicks are much more liberated than many of us were, so you tell me: is it true that those stereotypes just don't make sense any more?

---

I think the "stereotypes" are still live and kicking. Why? I am not sure. Media? Friends?

I am at the age where a lot of my friends are getting married. The ones who aren't engaged yet are green with envy and pushing their spouses to pop the question. Women still don't want to do the asking. It seems less romantic.

I did tell my boyfriend that I do not want to buy a condo with him until we are married but the temptation is high. The buying is good right now and together, we can make it happen. Single, we can't really.

He has the downpayment money, I have the stable job to pay the mortgage if he loses his job in the oncoming volatile oil industry...

I don't want to be one of those women with a house, wondering when she will be proposed to.

It seems like if we lived in the old fashioned world, the whole "proper" courtship of dating, no pre-marital sex ( as if that really ever happened ), proposal, marriage, children thing would be so easy.

Nowdays it is so convuluted.

Love can be dangerous, but it's so wonderful when it's going well. I hope you are mostly enjoying it right now, even as you work through these issues. As Michelle says, nothing is a guarantee against the collapse of a relationship/marriage, and ending a relationship/marriage isn't even necessarily a bad thing, or always an excruciating thing ... although I suspect it's that more often than not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
As Michelle says, nothing is a guarantee against the collapse of a relationship/marriage, and ending a relationship/marriage isn't even necessarily a bad thing, or always an excruciating thing ... although I suspect it's that more often than not.

---

quote:

---

Aside from the religion, they said that statistics show that the divorce rate is higher for people who lived together prior to marriage.

---

I think this is very easily explained. The more liberally-minded people who would consider living together are also those who are more open to the concept of divorce.

My lifemate and I lived together for six months before running off to elope on vacation. And though we are approaching seventeen generally blissful years of marriage, the topic of divorce has come up a couple of times when we hit an impasse - always by my wife. Why? I believe it's because it's worked for her in the past. She's been previously (unhappily) married and (happily) divorced, and it's always an option for her.

quote:

---

I am at the age where a lot of my friends are getting married. The ones who aren't engaged yet are green with envy and pushing their spouses to pop the question. Women still don't want to do the asking. It seems less romantic.

---

I know of two women exactly like that. In one case, she had to be the first in her high school class to get married. I thought that ridiculous, but admit I don't like him.

The other couple is getting amrried July 3. He says she pressured him into the ring, and now the marriage. Well if you're so spineless!!!!!!!!! Oh, and he's telling everyone he doesn' t love her. What a catch.

Arborwoman and I lived together for 5 years before getting married. Others do it quickly.

Some couples live together, hit a rocky patch and think marriage will solve that. It won't. A depressingly large number of women I have known still seem to think that a wedding and a husband will solve all of their problems. Men are sometimes similar, but I guess I can't be sure (cause men never tried to ensnare me).

This is not to say that all women, or even most, think that way. I have no idea. Just that many of the otherwise quite aware and feministic women I have known go bananas for a wedding dress, as if it has meaning in itself. Depressing because it shows how far feminism, and society, has a long way to go before we see and treat marriage like what it is, rather than a chance to be royalty for a day.

[ 12 June 2004: Message edited by: Durango ]

My very best girlfriend got married in April. She and her beau didn't live together before then, but she'd had a previous engagement, and they did live together. Until they broke up, because the dude got lazy and greedy and figured he had it made, and why bother with the marriage if she was already cooking for him and doing his laundry. So eventually she realized that he wasn't for her after all (despite their shared house and the engagement ring she was wearing, and the wedding dress in her closet).

So in that case, I'd say it was a good thing for them to live together first, so that she had time to learn more about him and ultimately change her mind about him. It was especially fortunate in this case, because being religious, I don't know how easily she would have been able to divorce him if she'd wanted to later.

Another good friend of mine just got married last weekend. He didn't live with his bride, and in fact, they've "saved themselves" for marriage all this time (as in, a five or six-year courtship with no sex). This is the opposite end of the spectrum, if you ask me. I really wonder how well they'll get along when they have to really get along, you know?

First, please don't capitalize each and every word in your post. It makes your text VERY hard to read. And it's a teensy bit annoying.

Second, what a blast from the past! My first reaction on seeing this thread for the first time is to start a thread called Should couples have sex before marriage, and also, has there been a timewarp back to a time and place that is actually socially constructed and never existed?. I get sarcastic sometimes, Apple=], forgive me.

And, um, Apple=]?

quote:

---

Every Little Girl Imagines At Least Once In Their Child Hood About The Perfect Wedding And The Perfect Man

---

quote:

---

Also Glidding Through The Dance Floor As If Walking On Air,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
Yes, couples should live together before taking the real plunge. Six months to a year should get ye over the infatuation stage and onto identifying the major differences before it's too late.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tully s:
we all know that $$$ is the # 1 reason for divorce in North America

---