Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's a cop out and ingenious one designed by males. I'm a married guy so I will fully admit that if my wife was stupid enough to agree to a "live-in" situation back then, I would taken that in a hearbeat. My wife was smart enough not to accept any such situation and we've been happily married for 15 years; and I'm glad she held me to that! And when my daughter grows old enough, I will tell her the same thing.
It's truly about commitment and responsibility. The whole "let's live together for years before we get married" is b.s. and just an excuse from someone who lacks the fortitude and honor to commit to someone long term. For every relationship like this that lasts, there are 10 that were broken up because the couple got tired of each other and had a convenient escape clause(they weren't married). It's much easier to have a no strings attached relationship. But mature and responsible people don't take the easy way out.
Someone said "fear" is the motivation for men to marry and my answer is "so?" Fear is also a reason people choose to get educated and have a job because if they don't, they will starve. Fear is the primary motivator in nearly everything we do. There is something called a healthy sense of fear. Being afraid that your woman will leave you if you don't marry them is a healthy sense of fear because any woman who is worth something will do exactly that.
The problem with the American approach to relationships is it's only based on attraction (physical and emotional). They don't account for things like how well their families will interact, educational background, cultural background, religion, personal things in common (hobbies, sense of humor, temperment). That's what the movies teach "Opposites attract" "Let's fight everyone because our love will bring us together" and other forms of bull. My personal favorite is the "We met in high school or college, dated for 3 years and figured our next step was marriage" The reality is people need to date more but once they find someone they have a lot in common with and have a connection, they should marry each other.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 12-28-2012 at 11:49 AM..
I am in a long-term, cohabitating, unmarried relationship. We're certainly committed--besides the fact that we are you know, in love and are just plain committed to our relationship, we also own a home together, have a dog together and have talked about a business together in the future. A marriage license is not the only way to commit to someone, nor does that marriage license guarantee commitment.
There have been times we have discussed marriage for certain practical reasons, especially before my partner established his US residency, and when we lived abroad together. But we never ended up needing it for those reasons, and never found a marriage license anything we needed to continue our relationship, so.....the reasons other people want marriage have never rung true with us.
I'm always unclear why people think it seems to mean one person has a foot out of the door. We've been together for many years, through many of life's ups and downs. Some people are more comfortable with a legal/spiritual agreement regarding their relationship, some are not. Some people find certain benefits of a legal partnership to be helpful in their lives, some do not. There's no right or wrong for everyone.
I think it's a cop out and ingenious one designed by males. I'm a married guy so I will fully admit that if my wife was stupid enough to agree to a "live-in" situation back then, I would taken that in a hearbeat. My wife was smart enough not to accept any such situation and we've been happily married for 15 years; and I'm glad she held me to that! And when my daughter grows old enough, I will tell her the same thing.
It's truly about commitment and responsibility. The whole "let's live together for years before we get married" is b.s. and just an excuse from someone who lacks the fortitude and honor to commit to someone long term..
Speak for yourself there Bub. Just because your not married to someone doesn't mean that your not as committed to them as if you were married to them. YOU might have a problem with staying committed to someone because you have said issues but don't go pointing your finger at the rest of us judging us because we can. Post like this really get my goat! People come on here and ASSume that we're all the same when it comes to relationships. Most people rush into marriage because they don't take the time to get to know each other & they fail because of sexual incompatibility or they can't get along as a couple in general. For some that piece of paper changes them & adds to the stress of the relationship & they fail. I've know couple stay together for 10 years plus without getting married & they get along better then most married couples. So point that finger of yours some where else! I agree that people need to take their time to find out hobbies & such & that's one reason why people live together first. I'm not going to marry someone who rubs me the wrong way because they won't put the cap back on the toothpaste & then divorce then because it drives me nuts. You can find out many things about them if you live with them first that you would never find out if you didn't live with them first. So that's B.S assuming that non-married people can't commit to each other. Everyone is different & to assume were all the same is wrong.
Different strokes for different folks. I honestly think it's silly to argue about this sort of thing. To me, marriage is the ultimate sign of commitment. To someone else, it's not and other things work for them. No big deal.
One would think that since it is easier to leave a non-married LTR, if 2 people manage to have a successful non-married LTR, they are just as deeply committed as any married couple. It's not unreasonable to assume that divorce costs do keep a small number of people married when they'd rather be legally separated from each other.
This post is about the fiscal cliff and the challenges older married couples face sometimes financially, which may explain why usually shacking up makes a lot of sense for older couples. I think the situation sucks for this couple.
I don't see the illusory added depth that giving free food and booze to my relatives would add to a genuine and committed relationship. "Honor," "fidelity," and other such words that the traditionalists toss about are best when internally motivated, not originating from a fear of shame due to vows made before the community a la some Victorian melodrama.
I personally prefer cohabitation over marriage and that is why if I divorce or if tragedy happens and he dies, marriage will not be an option again. Marriage does not guarantee the relationship will last. It just makes it way more expensive to breakup if it doesn't. Plus, to me(and this is just my crazy thinking), knowing that a person is there everyday because they choose to be and not because a piece of paper forces them to be means a lot more to me.
Which is it--a piece of paper that doesn't guarantee the marriage will last, or a piece of paper that forces someone to stay?
I don't think cohabitation makes breaking up any less complicated. As time goes on, there are fewer instances of "your stuff" and "the other person's stuff." Some people are very guarded and keep clear lines of demarcation, which works for them but not marriage so much. The more a person wanted to prepare for a hasty exit, the less I'd expect marriage or even long-term commitment.
Today a relative said something to me that rubbed me the wrong way. Basically just because a man may not want to marry he might want to live together. While I know people who live together this isn't something I am open to at my age UNLESS we are engaged with a set wedding date. I have seen far too many people live together for years and eventually break up because one of them (usually the woman but not always)thought they would eventually get married. In this respect I'd rather just date then get married versus anything else. I am not interested in living with a guy nor am I interested in long term dating. For me personally I would give up so much as I'd be kicked out of the church choir and being a religious ed teacher. Living together has a lot of negative aspects to it including the fact you aren't legally a family.
8-10 year relationships usually don't work out best for women. I know several that moved in with a man had kids and never received a ring. It may work for some, but that is not a relationship that I am interested in having with anyone. Just ask the many single 40 and 50 year old women who wasted the best years of their lives living with a man who never fully committed to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
