I've got a question and this seems like a good place to get well thought out ideas.
I'm curious about the harm that comes to a relationship when two people live together before marriage? I've heard lots of people say it's a bad thing, but I haven't really heard any reasons about why (though I haven't really looked too hard yet).
The main reason I'm curious is because I happen to live with my girlfriend. I, personally, have found living together to be a wonderful experience that has really helped us grow together (though we argued almost everyday for the first week or so). Please don't feel as though I'll be insulted if you think living together before marriage is a negative, though.
Oh, and if this topic has been discussed before, I apologies.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems to me that most negative feelings towards living together before marriage come from negative feelings towards sex before marriage.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My opinion is as follows:
When two people are married, they have decided to stay together no matter what they face. Two people who are living together haven't made the same kind of commitment. Not to say that you don't love each other or want to be together long-term, but there is SOME reason that an unmarried couple is, well, unmarried. For whatever reason, the two have not chosen to make that personal and legal commitment yet.
That colors the way you resolve problems, it really does. There is a significant difference between the way that arguments are resolved between marrieds and unmarrieds. When an unmarried couple makes a decision, there are fifty different factors to consider. (For the purpose of this argument, I am using unmarried to mean not married OR engaged. I think engaged falls more into the married category.) But when a married couple makes a decision, there are about five thousand. There are things like in-laws, children, future children, and whatever it is that made you choose to get married rather than live together.
I don't want to minimize the problems that unmarrieds face. Truthfully, I think that unmarried people encounter a lot of problems that married people don't. But I think that ALSO affects the way the relationship turns out.
All of my comments I want to especially direct to people who have a religious reasons for not living together, but do it anyway. I think they have the most difficult situation of all.
Oh, and is chungwa your real name, or is it a melon reference?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I should dig up some of my old threads on this topic. I've been with my bf for almost 5 years, lived with him almost 4.
From my research on the topic (and finding the links is a pain but they are there if you really want me to google the) the stats are such that once you have lived together for 5 years the dissolution rate between long term relationships and marriage is about the same.
One of the key staticstical factors that determines the sucess of either co-habitation or marriage is actually how long you knew each other before the onset of the cohabitation or marriage. Co-habitations often start after a shorter length of time than marriages.
Personally I do think pre-concieved expectations have everything to do with it. If the two parties have drastically different opinions on where they are going in life, it isn't going to work, either way.
AJ
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Thanks for the response. No, Chungwa is not my real name. I used to be part of an online community involved in a game (that probably will never be released). I used the handle Chungwa-wema and it stuck with me for a while.
My real name is actually Bryan.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
YMMV.
I lived with my first husband for a little over a year before we got married. I specify "first" because he's also now "ex".
Second husband, we didn't live together, though we did have sex before we were married -- a decision both of us regret. We wish we'd waited.
I can't sit here and say that living together first will definitively lead to relationship problems...I can't say it because it's not true. There are tons of people who never do get married, yet have a very deep, very loving, very long lasting relationship. And there are tons of people who get married and stay married for life after living together. Statistically they are the exception, though.
I think, however, there are reasons why the statistics show that living together puts you at higher risk for eventual divorce. My thought is that living together first illustrates a casual attitude toward commitment. I don't think you can be casual about commitment and actually expect to hold fast to those commitments when times get tough. I think living together indicates that while you may love that other person, you don't love them enough to avoid putting limits on it. Of course everyone has their limits -- I would probably divorce my husband if he cheated on me, for example -- but by choosing not to take the full plunge of marriage, committing with the belief that it is for life, those limits may well be at a lower standard than that of those who choose to marry. I don't think I would feel right about divorcing my current husband unless there was infidelity or abuse involved. Considering the statistics for second marriages, I think it's all that much more important that we continually reinforce our commitment to each other, and I don't think we could do that as effectively without being married.
But that's just my idea. Living together first has worked for a lot of people -- which to me means that the above theories either didn't apply to them, or (the less likely thought) my ideas are a bunch of hooey. I just know that living together first didn't work out so well for me, and waiting until we were married has so far.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Chungwa, I think it is perfectly fine to live together before marriage. I even think it is perfectly fine to live together without ever marrying if a couple is so inclined.
Note though that overall, Hatrack is more biased in the opposite direction (I think), which may not be representative of the general public opinion if such a thing exists.
What matters most (to me) is what you do, not what you say. Marriage is a borderline case, but (to me) it seems to involve a whole lot of "saying", expressing intentions and such. With a divorce rate of 50-60%, an unmarried couple that lives together happily and, perhaps, creates a healthy home for their kids, represents a much, much better situation than half of all marriages ending in failure.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'd agree that moving in with someone you've known for a month is probably not a good idea.
Personally, I'm not inclined to get into a relationship seriously without knowing both parties will be very happy with how things are heading (and that we both want things to head in the same direction).
One of my friends married someone who she knew (at the time) for only three months. I asked her why so early, but she ended up getting very defensive and agitated. I really didn't find any pleasure when she told me, after only another 4 months of being married, they were getting divorced. I think living together may be similar to this (or I could just be trying to tell myself that my current relationship is sure to last forever - which I actually do believe... I'm beginning to ramble).
Another question I have is, what problems might come from families within the relationship? I don't come from a very religous family (I was raised Anglican, but I don't really consider myself that). My girlfriend, while not very religous herslef came from a very religous family, and her father was not happy at all when we moved in together. I'm not especially concerned with her father liking me, but I really do want him to accept me. Hm, I'm not really sure if I'm asking a question or not...
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
If you are a couple engaged or intending to be married in a short while and are living together, I think this is okay and perhaps even good. I agree that unmarried couples living together haven't quite finalized the commitment, but I think this is a great learning opportunity where you can see what living with your intended spouse is really like and can work through some of the kinks.
However, statistics don't back me up on this, and I think the reason is that a lot of unmarried couples who are living together become satisfied with their unmarried and less committed status. They don't quite share the same future planning and family ramifications that married couples do and they aren't as supported by the community and family because they have not made that formal commitment and are not seen in the same light.
Tom and I lived together before we were married. We also wondered before the wedding why we were getting married and what really was going to change. To be honest, I don't think our personal relationship did change much with our marriage. What did change was the way we interacted with our family and how our family viewed and supported us. Marriage was an affirmation of the commitment we had already expressed to each other and agreed to maintain and further.
Edit: Chungwa, this is a hard one. My parents disowned me for a year when Tom and I moved in together. Time and patience were the only things that healed that wound. You have to respectfully stick to your guns and hope they will accept you as their daughter has.
[ April 08, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Christy ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm going to be a turd and fire at BannaOJ (and I know this is the second time I've done this this week, it's not personal, I hope) the same question that gets fired at conservatives. How can you be sure your way is equal or better if you have never tried my way? Well, at least I'll fire that at you immediately before you fire it back at me.
Though I am curious (sincerely). If there were a marriage proposal, would you folks who cohabitate hesitate to accept it? Would you worry at all that being married might damage your relationship? P.S. I guess what I'm asking is, how important is being unmarried to you? Is it just a matter of how your partner wants things to be, or a profound expression of your belief that love standing alone is more powerful than a contract?
[ April 08, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
My wife and I lived together a year before we were married. Honestly, though, we'd have been married first except for some family expectations of a big wedding (which had to be scheduled wayyy in advance). Also, darnit, my wife sure did deserve the big wedding and she was a princess like none other on that night.
But we'd already gotten married in our hearts before we moved in together. We didn't live together to "try it out", we were already completely commited to each other.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:living together first illustrates a casual attitude toward commitment
I've heard this a fair amount, but I just don't understand it. To me, if I had a casual attitude toward commitment, I certainly wouldn't want to live with that person. If I was only casual, and not serious, I wouldn't want them there everytime I turned around. Does that make sense to anyone, or am I just fooling myself?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This has been said before, but I don't agree that living together better helps a couple know if they are compatible. I think you can tell that just by your everyday communication.
A problem that exists might come out more strongly if two people live together (like a tendency for the man to put the woman down might develop into a mistrustful obsession) but I think that those things are visible beforehand, if only a bit harder to see.
Actually, saying that you are living together to see how things work out is a great example of why I think resolving issues is different for married people than unmarrieds. You are trying to figure out if things will work out, but the married couple has already decided that it WILL work out, it HAS to work out, so they might try more extreme measures to bring about peace in the family. I'm just sayin'.
As far as your "in-laws" are concerned, all you can really do is the best you can do. Either they will like you or they won't. I wouldn't alter my actions for family members unless it was really important.
Truthfully, if you're afraid (for example) that your girl's father won't respect you because you are living with her before marriage, NOT living with her won't fix that. Living together is representative of an entire worldview, and pretending not to feel that way won't change the fact that you really do. What her dad would actually be against would be the fact that his daughter has a guy that doesn't find religion as important as HE does. You wouldn't be able to pretend not to be that way, so the best thing to do would be to do what you think is right in each situation, and let him form his own opinions, whether or not you think they are fair.
If he's so religious, he will be kind to you regardless of how he disapproves of your actions. (Keep in mind that "kind" has different meanings for the boyfriend than for the father. You might think that "kind" should include letting you do what you want and still being your best chum. He might think it's extremely kind of him not to strangle you at Thanksgiving. He might also think that giving you advice EVERYDAY that includes the order to get married or perish in hell is very kind as well.)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Chungwa, not to be a complete pain in the butt, but my first question back to you is -- if you're so committed, why didn't you marry your girlfriend?
See, I think people say and probably even mean that "they are committed, so why go through the hassle of marriage", but there is a difference. At the very least, it's the difference between everyone else knowing you're committed (including the government) and just you and your partner knowing you're committed.
edited to add that the more people who support you in your commitment, the easier it is to find the motivation to work things out when there is conflict. At my second wedding, we put out a frame matte to be signed by the guests. It hangs on our walls. I figure that to get out of my marriage, I have an obligation to go to every one of those people and tell them why I'm breaking the solemn vow they witnessed. When my own strength of motivation fails, that thought should give me some oomph. (I haven't gotten to that point, thank goodness!)
[ April 08, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:When two people are married, they have decided to stay together no matter what they face.
Not necessarily true.
quote:Two people who are living together haven't made the same kind of commitment.
Also not necessarily true.
quote:if you're so committed, why didn't you marry your girlfriend?
An equally valid question is: if you're so committed, why bother getting married?
quote:At the very least, it's the difference between everyone else knowing you're committed (including the government) and just you and your partner knowing you're committed.
Why is it important if everyone else knows?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: if you're so committed, why didn't you marry your girlfriend?
I think he already answered this. It seems that people have different levels of commitment. Like, I'm committed enough to have to smell your nasty morning breath every morning, but not committed enough to file jointly with you. I'm committed enough to take your name, but not to share your toothbrush.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to be serious. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
One of the big reasons why Steve and I moved in with each other to begin with, was because financially we trusted the other person not to screw us over. In the past I'd actually been involved in the eviction of a previous roommate because of financial flakiness and his previous roommate was a shmuck like no other when it came to late rent. He'd spend the money on anime conventions...
At that point, while open to the possibility, we had no clue whether our relationship would be one we wanted to pursue, post-college or not. We figured it would be abundantly clear by the time we got to that point, and it was.
I don't *know* that my way is equal or better, pooka. The stats say that after 5 years they are pretty much the same statistically. Prior to that five year mark though, there is a higher dissolution rate among cohabitants. You can look at it two ways. People deciding that they don't want to be married before they get married, are actually valuing marriage more highly in a way, because they view marriage as a more permanent commitment. But if you believe that sex before marriage is abhorrent, then you are looking at it from a perspective where it is basically perpetuating of adultery and devaluing morality, I can't change your mind.
At this point what would the acutal peice of paper mean to me? I don't know. Tom and Christy say it did change things slightly so I believe it does. Would it actually change the level of trust between Steve and I? I doubt it. Commitment, maybe. Trust and commitment are two different things that can be separated from each other.
One area that Christy mentioned is familial sanction. I personally am so fed up with my family that half the time I think that if we *did* get married, I wouldn't tell my family. I would tell them years later, and then they'd have to realize they were treating people (lots of people not just me their daughter) based on their own personal biases, that have little basis in reality. To them, me getting married would be an admittance that I "toe the line" idealogically with them, when I don't and getting married wouldn't change that one iota.
AJ
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
There are a couple of reasons I haven't married her yet. First off, neither of us have very much money (we're both college students getting paid minimum wage) and we both agreed that we wont get married until after college. Second off, her family has a lot of... situations going on (I don't want to get into too much detail). The brunt of it is that her mother and father are divorced, and her mother wants nothing to do with her father, even being at a wedding with him. There's more to it than that, but I do think somethings should be kept private.
In regards to my girlfriend's father, I think he's accepting it. I would agree with everything you said though, changing my actions would be a farce and wouldn't solve anything. He lives pretty far away, so I only see him once a year or so.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
My wife and I didn't live together before we got married. To me, marriage is far more than a contract between. Marriage meant we were joining our lives together and if we had lived together before marriage, it would have detracted from that. Getting married then would have just been "making it official" and would not have meant much.
To continue what jeniwren said, I think couples that live together before marriage aren't generally as committed to solving problems as those who are married. It's easier to just end things and hope it works better the next time than to work things out. K and I had several problems when we first got married and I'm pretty sure we would have simply ended things if we hadn't already been married. As it was, we worked things out and I couldn't imagine not being married to her now.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
On the other hand, our level of commitment is such, that Steve is still with me, even though in the last week he's recieved a dislocated toe and a black eye from me even if both were accidental.
All of the injuries I've inflicted on him over the years have been accidental and I do inflict about as much damage on myself, but if you actually documented all his bruises I'd probably be facing abuse charges.
AJ
[ April 08, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh and PSI as far as Steve and I go, until the tax changed last year from a financial perspective we would have lost thousands had we been married.
I'm the one who does our finances and both of our taxes because I like that sort of thing, this year he didn't even sign his name since it was autofiled, so I really don't think he'd have a trust problem filing jointly with me.
AJ
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
saxon, see the edit I added to my post.
Chungwa: What does money have to do with marriage? (Unless one or the both of you have debts you need to pay off first, which IMO is an honorable thing to take care off before you marry.)
The thing about her family.... what about that is going to change so that you will feel that it's time to get married? Do you expect something to change? (No details necessary...I have had two sets of inlaws, and in both sets my MiL was/is "interesting". So I know how it can be with family. ) Just wondering what you expect will change so that you *can* get married someday. If that's what you're hoping to do.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I think couples that live together before marriage aren't generally as committed to solving problems as those who are married
There is probably a high degree of correlation here, but not causation. To my mind, the reason that people who are married are committed to solving problems is because they are committed to the relationship. But they are not really committed to the relationship because they are married. They are married because they are committed to the relationship. I completely disagree that the same level of commitment cannot be achieved outside of marriage as can be achieved in marriage. (Not sure if anyone's actually said that, but I disagree with the principle.) I also don't think that marriage causes commitment, and I think the high divorce rate tends to support my position.
Take all that together and to me that means that a couple who are committed to the relationship will work things out and a couple who are not committed to the relationship will not, independent of marital status.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Oh and PSI as far as Steve and I go, until the tax changed last year from a financial perspective we would have lost thousands had we been married.
Well, you don't HAVE to file jointly. I was just trying to think of things related to marriage at the spur of the moment. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
PSI, I think whether you file jointly or seperately, the so-called marriage penalty tax still applied.
saxon, I'm curious what you think about the importance of having others support you in your relationship commitment. Helps? Doesn't help? Makes no difference?
[ April 08, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay, I have a question. Let's say you have a situation where two people are living together and have decided to stay together until they die.
My question is, why? Is it because they love each other? If they had to sit down and think of the exact reason that they are together, what would it be?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:the more people who support you in your commitment, the easier it is to find the motivation to work things out when there is conflict.
What does it mean for people to support you in your commitment? That they say, "Right on, you're in a relationship!" or "I think you two are a good match" or some such? Because you can get that without being married. Is it someone saying, "You're married, so you need to work it out." How is that better than "I know you really love her, so you need to work it out."? Do people really say things like "Heck, you're not married, you might as well move on."? My friends don't. Does that make me anomolous for having such good friends?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI, I think whether you file jointly or seperately, the so-called marriage penalty tax still applied
What is this marriage penalty tax? I don't pay one. I actually pay less taxes because I'm married.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
jeni, to make it a bit more personal, I can honestly say that if one of my friends had told me that I needed to work things out with my girlfriend (back before we got married), I would have said something along the lines of, "Duh." Maybe a bit more tactfully. Maybe not. And if one of my friends had said something along the lines of "Just break up with her," I would have said, "I sure hope you're kidding because if you're not then I want you to get out of here right now."
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Okay, I have a question. Let's say you have a situation where two people are living together and have decided to stay together until they die.
My question is, why? Is it because they love each other? If they had to sit down and think of the exact reason that they are together, what would it be?
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I think the most general answer is that they are together because they want to be. This could be made more specific by saying that they would rather stay together than go through a divorce, or they love each other, or they find it financially expedient to be together, but it all boils down to the fact that they want to be together.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I wasn't really going anywhere. I think I'm trying to determine what motivates the married people to stay together versus the unmarried people who stay together.
I know that for married people, wanting to be together isn't enough. Sometimes they really DON'T want to be together, but they stay married anyway. I can understand what motivates married people, because I AM married. I can't understand what motivates the unmarried people because I've never done that.
[ April 08, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I meant more of the second kind, saxon. I have friends who would lovingly kick my butt if I started tanking my marriage.
My best (at the time) friend, when I was in the midst of breaking up with my first husband, said, "Well, I only figured you'd make it a year, so you should consider yourself successful that you made it 7." Not coincidentally, he and his wife lived together for almost 9 years before getting married. Last I heard they were getting divorced.
I do believe that friends and family make a difference in how hard you keep working when your own energy for working at the relationship is depleted.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI, taxes only go down when one person is making significantly more than the other and the latter can be viewed as a dependent and the former as "head of household". If you are both making nearly the same amount and that amount is significantly above the poverty level, if married you were screwed prior to last year, whether filing jointly or separately because your combined income was *too* high. This year they have removed the marriage "penalty" and the married filing separately rates are the same as filing singly.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and saxon75 I love your points, they strike to the heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to be gone this afternoon so I won't be posting again until this evening.
AJ
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: There is probably a high degree of correlation here, but not causation. To my mind, the reason that people who are married are committed to solving problems is because they are committed to the relationship. But they are not really committed to the relationship because they are married. They are married because they are committed to the relationship. I completely disagree that the same level of commitment cannot be achieved outside of marriage as can be achieved in marriage. (Not sure if anyone's actually said that, but I disagree with the principle.) I also don't think that marriage causes commitment, and I think the high divorce rate tends to support my position.
I don't disagree that you can't have the same level of commitment outside of marriage as you do inside. The fact that people who are married don't have that level of commitment means they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, IMHO.
I think part of it depends on how you view marriage. To me, it's sacred. When we had problems, divorce was an option that was so far away we didn't even consider it. The only thing that could make me consider it would be infidelity I think.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
As a conservative Christian, I believe it is wrong to live together prior to marriage, because it involves sex outside of marriage.
...now that I've gotten that statement out of the way, let me get realistic....
I have (in the past) been married to someone who I think (probably) I would NOT have married if I had lived with him first. Really. The mis-fit of the relationship was so bad, a week or so with him in the same house (with sex) I'm sure I would have run screaming in the other direction.
But that just shows that we weren't ready to get married in the first place. It was a rash decision on my part.
And I have, in the long-ago past, lived with a guy that I SHOULD have married. He was great.
But que sera sera
Farmgirl
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Paula, what I meant by "wanting to be together" was that the reasons they have, if any, for being together are greater than the reasons they have, if any, for being apart. Any couple still together must have that, even if their reasons for being together are simply inertia or laziness.
------------------------
jeni, there are several questions here. For one, are relationships intrisically valuable--that is, is a relationship valuable simply because it exists--or does their value come from what a person gets out of them? How often does it happen that someone's friends know what he wants and what is best for him better than he knows himself? Is a relationship that really depends on outsiders telling the participants to motivate them to work out their problems a successful one? I think the answers to questions like these are going to be highly personal.
And despite all that, I really think that it's possible to get the sort of support you're talking about from your peers even if you're not married. If your friends really do know what you want and what's best for you better than you do in such instances, then if they are good friends they won't be giving you different advice based on your marital status.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
To me, the bottom line is that if marriage will not add anything positive to your relationship, there's no real reason to get married. I should point out, though, that this does not at all ignore religious considerations. If you believe that sex or cohabitation before marriage is wrong, then you will obviously be getting something out of marriage.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: If you believe that sex or cohabitation before marriage is wrong, then you will obviously be getting something out of marriage.
Truer words were never spoken.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: This year they have removed the marriage "penalty" and the married filing separately rates are the same as filing singly.
Well, that's good.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Paula, what I meant by "wanting to be together" was that the reasons they have, if any, for being together are greater than the reasons they have, if any, for being apart. Any couple still together must have that, even if their reasons for being together are simply inertia or laziness.
Well, I think this is obvious. I'm just wondering what those reasons are.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess the only benefit I can see of not being married is ease of exit in case you break up. That is why it may seem that I always expect that to happen.
quote: But if you believe that sex before marriage is abhorrent, then you are looking at it from a perspective where it is basically perpetuating of adultery and devaluing morality, I can't change your mind.
And the straw man rears his head. But I guess you're basically right. Still, I wouldn't not rent to you, or not hire you for a job, same as with a gay person. I merely reserve the right to have my own opinion.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Sax, I'm not going to disagree with you. I'll point out that in my first post, in one of the first paragraphs, I wrote that living together is not a guarantee for eventual dissolution. It can work out. Can. But statistics say that you're playing better odds by getting married. For the reasons I laid out.
I'm not one for playing the odds, but since I know what the stats are for second marriages, I wanted to make sure we were one of the exceptions. So we're doing everything we can think of to make sure we are. So far, so good.
Measures for upping the odds: Making sure we have the same ideas about commitment and marriage. Making sure my family likes him (they hated my first husband). Making sure my *son* likes him. Surrounding ourselves with people who believe that marriage is for life except in cases of abuse and infidelity. Having a regular date night. Making sure that our roles as husband and wife are more important than our roles as parents. Etc.
Can I say that the same "raising the odds" methodology wouldn't work for just living together? Of course not. But I think that actual marriage gives that extra edge that *I* wouldn't want to be without.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: And the straw man rears his head.
I'm not sure it's fair to call a statement a "strawman" if it accurately represents how you feel.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He's not describing how he feels. He's describing how she feels - he may sincerely think that's how she feels, but that doesn't mean it is.
My thoughts on this are on PWeb. Where is that thread...
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Don't forget that there is a great deal of selection bias. The population of people who live with their significant other before marriage, and the population of people who don't, are very different populations. There are definitely similar people on both sides, but the demographics are not identical.
Do what you think will suit you. If you don't think living together would do any good, then it likely won't do any good.
Marriage means different things to different people. God means something different to each person, why can't marriage? For one person, it's death-til-part-no-matter-what. For another, it's not. As far as I know, there is no national definition of marriage that includes things like, "what do I do if I'm unhappy," and "what if I haven't lived with the person yet?" Until there's a governmental FAQ on marriage, it's a completely personal decision within the confines of legality.
The fact that someone's idea of marriage is different than your own does not mean it deserves any less respect.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kat, I know what a strawman is...I just thought that Pooka agreed that what was said agrees with how she feels.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wouldn't have used those words, PSI. But I guess now I have. Though I assume most cohabitors are not married to someone else, so it is fornication and not adultery. At first I thought she was saying that people who get married just so they can have sex promote adultery somehow. That really puzzled me. But she's not going to be around so it's not really fair to keep ruminating on the meta-argument.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Does adultery not include all extramarital sex?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, adultery is sex by a married person with someone other than his/her spouse. Sex when neither is married is not adultery.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Sax, I'm not going to disagree with you.
I appreciate that.
It sounds to me like you have a good marriage, and that's a wonderful thing. I hope no one thinks that I am against marriage, because in fact I am married, and I like being married, and I love my wife.
Maybe I'm just being naive, but I don't believe in "odds" when it comes to relationships. For one thing, statistics don't really apply to individuals, they apply to aggregates. And they don't really speak to causes at all. But more than that it just doesn't appeal to the romantic in me. I know that relationships take work, but I want to believe that, at the core, my marriage works because my wife and I are compatible, because we love each other. That we interact with each other in the way that we do, not because we want to avoid divorce, but because it makes our lives better. That we are together not because we want to make our marriage last, but because we want to be. That we are married not because we want to be married, but because we want to be married to each other.
Relationships take work, and I work at mine. But talking about it in terms of odds just makes me depressed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: That we are together not because we want to make our marriage last, but because we want to be.
In my way of thinking, part of making a marriage work is staying together even when you don't want to be together, and then working on it so that you get back to the point where you both want to be.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Mike, I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that my wife and I worked on our differences just to avoid divorce. We did it because, down deep, we did still love each other very much and wanted it to work. We were married because of that love and our commitment to each other. We got married when we decided that we wanted that commitment.
I guess it keeps coming back to what marriage means to a person. To me, marriage IS that commitment.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Suneun, the greatest problem with defining marriage as less than "for life" is the effect it has on children. It's very convenient to say "do whatever you think suits you", but there are people who are affected by those decisions, most especially any children of that union.
I have a real problem with people, whether they married for life or not, who discard their marriage thinking "Oh, kids are resilient, they'll get over it." (and to make sure we know I'm not being a hypocrit about this -- I was such a person...I told myself the same lie, and yeah, my son seems to do fine, but he'll never "get over" that he doesn't know his dad as a Dad. Having learned the hard way, I try to be very clear with parents I know who are considering divorce. It is a lie.)
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
But not every marriage consists of children of impressionable age. I'd say a large percentage of marriages consist of couples without children, or couples with children past 18.
And not every child is better off with their parents still together. It's not a blanket statement one can make lightly.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Saxon. I think I talk about "raising the odds" because I am intrinsically a very lazy person, and knowing that the odds are against my marriage working gives me the kick in the butt I need. For whatever reason, making my life better just doesn't seem to be the motivator that potential failure is. When I perceive that I'm slacking off, hanging on to a grudge, in general being a pain to live with, I remember how awful divorce is. Suddenly picking back up, letting that grudge go, and forcefully improving my attitude seems a lot less effort.
I think it's wonderful that you don't have to stick yourself with a cattleprod to get motivated. I wish I were the same way.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Zan, no, definitely not. No one in this thread has left me with that impression. If I came across otherwise, I apologize.
-----------------
quote:he'll never "get over" that he doesn't know his dad as a Dad
You know, my parents got divorced when I was quite young, and even though my Dad has always been around, he has never really filled the "Dad" role in my life. And even though I'll never "get over" it, in the sense that some day I will know him as a real father figure, at the same time, I don't view this as some huge tragedy. I like who I am, and I am that person in large part because of the way I grew up. I love my dad, and I'm comfortable with the relationship I have with him.
I know this is not the scenario you were talking about, either, but I really believe that divorce is sometimes better for kids, even if it doesn't involve actual abuse. One of my best friends in college had parents that to all outward signs hated each other but were still married and I think a lot of his problems stemmed from growing up in that environment.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I don't know that I could have gotten married without the living together first bit. I think of marriage as a BIG thing, one so big my parents failed at it more than once each. It was a commitment I didn't know if I could make ever. I certainly have issues with trust. I certainly am not an easy person to live with.
The whole living together thing was because I was taking marriage so seriously. I wanted him to have every opportunity to run before him doing so would leave each of us with that label of divorce, before I let myself commit all of me, and before I let him commit all of him. To me at least.
To him, it was all so much simpler. To him, he already knew he could spend the rest of his life with me, but I couldn’t believe that without seeing it. I certainly tried to hit him with everything I had, just to see. But he stuck around.
I don’t think it’s for everyone. I certainly know people who’ve totally messed up relationships by doing just that. I just don’t think it could have worked any other way for me. Even if I'd married him, having not lived together, I would always have been waiting for him to leave.
----
saxy, i love every post you've made in this thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
celia, I actually completely and utterly agree with your post. I also agree with the other people. I have little doubt that if I hadn't been born into the family I was, I'd have lived with someone before marrying them.
It certainly wouldn't have been right for everyone, and I doubt I'd advocate it. But it would have fit my own slow-to-trust personality.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
celia, it sounds like he did commit all of himself to you before you married.
Do you think you are more fully committed to the relationship now than when you were living together?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
By the time we got around to the married part, we were both already there. I would say we are more committed now than we were when we started living together, but we were just as committed the day before the wedding as we were the day after as we are today.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Isn't it funny how "celia" and "committed" go together so well?
I'm not sure whether I would say my marriage is more committed now. It's definitely stronger and I love her more now than before, but I don't know if I would say more committed.
We just celebrated our 5 year anniversary. She gave me a new wedding ring since we got very plain bands when we got married til we could really decide what we wanted. We were at an outdoor concert when she gave it to me. I lost it within 2 hours. That's how committed I am.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today. With no-fault divorce etc, there really isn't all that much difference between living together and getting married with the option to dissolve the marriage any time either party feels like it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Sax, the difference is in perspective. You, I think, have a wonderfully healthy attitude from the perspective you have. I genuinely hope that my son has the same outlook someday.
How do I say this? I'm really struggling with it, because I think it's important.
*grumble* *drums fingers* Okay...
See, you're looking at it from the child's perspective. You're a forgiving, thoughtful kind of person, and the way you grew up didn't devestate you down to your shoes so you can't see that it's so bad, really.
Look at it instead from the parent's perspective. In the name of justifying what we want, we can go through amazing mental gyrations to say it's better for the children that we seperate. The one I used was "I don't want my son to grow up thinking that this is what marriage looks like." My solution was divorce rather than working to make it into a marriage worth modelling. In all honesty, it never even occurred to me that the second option even existed as a way of resolving that supposed imperative. Really, I wanted divorce because I hated my life, I felt hopeless, and everything my husband did made me crazy. When he left, I didn't feel any of those things anymore, so when he wanted to come back, the entire idea was unthinkable. Do you see that ultimately, it was all about me, not about what was best for my son?
When we start blurring the definition of "better for the kids", the temptation to use that as a "legitimate" excuse for divorce becomes overwealming. Who gets divorced saying "I am doing it because it's what I want. I don't care that it will hurt my kids. It won't kill 'em"? No one. Instead we think of reasons why getting divorced is better for the kids, to not only mask the fact that we couldn't be bothered to really work at it or figure out a different solution, but to assuage our own guilt.
Sure, they might turn out okay, but except in cases of abuse (and it sounds like in your friend's case, it was abuse, even if it wasn't physical), how can we possibly say with certainty that they were "better off"?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today.
The problem with the arguments in this thread is that y'all are assuming that we hold marriage in the same sacred regard as you. And you look upon it as immoral and irresponsible and immature if we don't.
That doesn't lead to understanding on either side's part, does it?
Personally, I don't see marriage as a sacred commitment. I see being in a relationship with my significant other, and promising to myself and to him to be faithful and honest and work through our problems for life as the heart and soul of any good couple. I think looking to marriage to provide that "ultimate commitment" as unecessary in my world, in my life, and i think treating it as a final relationship goal is foolhardy and encourages couples to wait to work on serious problems until that "serious" commitment is made.
[ April 08, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: And not every child is better off with their parents still together.
Well, I can say that I was better off with my parents divorced than together.
But, I would have been FAR better off if they had cared enough about each other to actually work their problems out instead of abusing each other and me the way that they did.
So, I guess I'm saying that divorce may end some of the terrible things that a child is going through, but in the end that still isn't the most desired outcome.
Just making a commitment to "stay together" isn't good enough. You have to love each other enough to be respectful and caring as well.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: The problem with the arguments in this thread is that y'all are assuming that we hold marriage in the same sacred regard as you. And you look upon it as immoral and irresponsible and immature if we don't.
I don't assume this at all. What I do assume is that in the past it was much more difficult to get a divorce, though you are no doubt right that the reason for this was the view of marriage as a sacred institution.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Yes, Jacare, that was exactly what my post meant. In fact, I'm thinking next month, I'll trade Bill in for a younger, blonder woman.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Celia- ???
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Did I need sarcasm tags?
quote: I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today. With no-fault divorce etc, there really isn't all that much difference between living together and getting married with the option to dissolve the marriage any time either party feels like it.
If I honestly had your opinion of what my opinion is, why wouldn't I just marry him on the first date? Or why would I ever bother to get married at all?
quote: The whole living together thing was because I was taking marriage so seriously.
And I know I shouldn't take a sweeping generality personally, but I do. Especially when it's 5 after possibly the most personal post I've ever made.
[ April 08, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Celia, don't do that! Let me cancel the purchase of a ring I ordered the other day first! I can be casualler than you!
-Bok, living with significant other first, and a fornicator to boot, kind of guy
EDIT: Consistent tense is good.
[ April 08, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Sure, they might turn out okay, but except in cases of abuse (and it sounds like in your friend's case, it was abuse, even if it wasn't physical), how can we possibly say with certainty that they were "better off"?
We can't say with certainty that our children will be better off if we get a divorce. But we also can't say with certainty that they will be better off if we stay married. I don't mean that children should not be a factor in deciding whether or not to stay together, but since we can't say with certainty what the outcome will be either way I don't see how it can logically be a deciding factor either way. Not that relationships or the way they end have much to do with logic.
quote:See, you're looking at it from the child's perspective.
Yes, I am looking at it from that perspective. I can hardly do otherwise at this point in my life, not having kids and all. I think that in most cases, divorce is, as you say, all about the couple, with kids being a secondary concern or a rationalization. And people should own up to that. But even if people shouldn't use their kids as an excuse, it doesn't change the fact that it sometimes is better for them, and even if it's not "better," that doesn't mean it's bad. A person who legitimately doesn't like or love his or her spouse is not necessarily doing his or her kids any favors by staying married.
I hope I'm not out of line, and maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're carrying around a lot of guilt. From what I can tell you're a good mother and a good wife. You can't go back and change what happened, and even if you could you don't know that things would have been better for anyone. All you can do is try to make the best of the situation as it is, and it sounds like you're doing that. I'm sure your son will be alright.
----------------------------
quote:But, I would have been FAR better off if they had cared enough about each other to actually work their problems out instead of abusing each other and me the way that they did.
The thing is, though, that you can't make people care about each other. Sometimes people get married and have kids who shouldn't have, but that doesn't change the fact that they did, and that no amount of counseling or other work will give them a happy or even tolerable marriage. It's easy to say that these people are irresponsible and shouldn't have gotten married, but they did, and people will always do this. You're right when you say that divorce is not the most desirable outcome, but sometimes it may be the most desirable outcome that is possible.
[Edit: Well what do you know, that was my 3000th post.]
[ April 08, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The thing is, though, that you can't make people care about each other.
You cannot force others to, but you *can* force yourself to. It seems to me that in many cases saying "we just don't love each other anymore" might as well be saying "we don't want to love each other anymore".
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Saxon, congratulations on 3000.
You're not out of line, and I could see where you might read "still carrying guilt" into what I wrote. I'm really not. Every once in a while, I take a trip down memory lane and find I don't like what I see. But for every pain I caused someone else where I learned from my mistake, I became the sort of person who didn't continue causing the same pain for other people. I think I'm a better wife now because I wasn't such a good wife before.
It's hard to tread the line of seeing the mistakes of the past as clearly as possible without having it come out sounding like guilt. I made mistakes, I own them, I've done what I could to make it better, and now I try to help others see those mistakes so *they* don't have to make them too.
It doesn't work very well, I admit, but it's better that watching a slow train wreck in motion, without at least *trying*.
My whole point in refuting "it's better for the kids" is that WAYYYYYY too many people think they're doing it for the kids when the kids just want Mom and Dad to get along and quit fighting. It becomes an almost ironclad excuse to give up on the relationship when the feelings that held it together have faded.
I've got two girlfriends right now who are seperated from their husbands. No question, there are issues there, ones that existed before they married and that have now grown to gargantuan proportion. In both cases, the kids are really suffering. In both cases, I, albeit from the outside, cannot see any true impediment to reconciliation, except that the parties involved are too tired, too fed-up, and too hurt to do the hard work it takes to fix the relationship. I'm empathetic -- I remember how it felt very clearly -- but I encourage in whatever way I can that they keep working at it, become more selfless, figure out what the communication problems are, see where they are hurting themselves by not letting stuff go, etc. I try to encourage them to be a better partner. Usually they're so focussed on what is wrong with him they can't even start to see what their contribution to the problems are. In that state, they really can't see what is better for the kids. I have no doubt at all that the kids would be better off if they work out salvaging the marriage.
OTOH, there was a couple in our step-family group that had I been asked, I'd have told them "get divorced". (My husband disagreed, btw...he's even more of an optimist than I am that people *can* work things out when they really want to.) Their kids (7 between the two) were suffering because they got married. They're seperated now, and I seriously hope they do not get back together without becoming healthier people as individuals first. Their kids had already suffered so much, suffering a new spouse and step-siblings was beyond capability.
Hmph. Okay, now I can see one additional reason where it could be "better for the kids" outside outright abuse. Both parents being so unhealthy they shouldn't even be parents, let alone married with kids.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
sex when neither party is married is fornication.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
It seems that a lot of people are pointing out exceptions to try to prove that the rule is wrong. That's not how it works. There are exceptions to every rule, especially when we're talking about generalities, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from what is generally true. And taking general statements personally is also counterproductive, as someone pointed out.
Just because divorce is sometimes the best option does not mean that it usually is. Just because kids can and do grow up without being screwed up from a divorce doesn't mean that it's usually the best thing to do. Jeniwren doesn't think that it's never the best thing to divorce, just that a lot of people are much too quick to think of it as a solution. And given current divorce statistics, does anyone really disagree? When nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, is anyone really going to say that this is a good thing? I repeat, just because in some instances divorce may be the best option doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make it less necessary for most people.
And as far as Jacare's statement:
quote:I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today. With no-fault divorce etc, there really isn't all that much difference between living together and getting married with the option to dissolve the marriage any time either party feels like it.
I think the arguments against it are another case of taking a generality personally. He did not say that everyone who lives together has a casual commitment towards marriage. But I think that it's fairly self-evident that our society in general does have a more casual attitude towards marriage than it did 50 years ago. He did not say whether this was good or bad. You guys(Leonide and celia) made your own assumptions in thinking that he looked down on you for living together.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: I think the arguments against it are another case of taking a generality personally. He did not say that everyone who lives together has a casual commitment towards marriage. But I think that it's fairly self-evident that our society in general does have a more casual attitude towards marriage than it did 50 years ago. He did not say whether this was good or bad. You guys(Leonide and celia) made your own assumptions in thinking that he looked down on you for living together.
Um, didn't I say I was taking a generality personally? (Sometimes I wonder why I bother to post at all.)
And you're assuming I think he's looking down at me, when I'm more concerned with being misunderstood and unintentionally marginalized.
If you look at Mama's Divorced Kids thread and read the first link, you'll see a bit about the only way to end the effects of divorce are to decide to pursue healthy relationships. For all of my bits of personal insanity, that is what I am trying to do. Having people sweep my motivations into generalized statements is exactly the opposite of helping me acheive my goals. It is propogating an attitude that failure is inevitable, which only supports more divorce.
Honestly, is it so hard to say "statistically likely" or even "the majority of" when you make a generalization? Is it so impossible to acknowledge the exceptions? Discussion in terms of inevitability instead of high probability are more than a little demoralizing.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: You guys(Leonide and celia) made your own assumptions in thinking that he looked down on you for living together.
I live with celia?
No wonder I'm feeling so evil today
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Totally missed that!
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:Um, didn't I say I was taking a generality personally?
Yes, I know you said you did that, and I said I think it's counterproductive.
quote:And you're assuming I think he's looking down at me, when I'm more concerned with being misunderstood and unintentionally marginalized.
Okay, thanks for clarifying, that's not the sense I got from reading your posts. Leonide did make that assumption, however.
quote:Having people sweep my motivations into generalized statements is exactly the opposite of helping me acheive my goals. It is propogating an attitude that failure is inevitable, which only supports more divorce.
You're doing it again, taking it personally. Nobody swept your motivations into a generality, he just stated a generality. And you totally lost me with the logic of that last line. How does saying that divorce is too high make divorce inevitable? We were arguing that people shouldn't get divorced as much as they do.
quote:Honestly, is it so hard to say "statistically likely" or even "the majority of" when you make a generalization? Is it so impossible to acknowledge the exceptions? Discussion in terms of inevitability instead of high probability are more than a little demoralizing.
Is it so hard to assume that most people on this board are intelligent enough to understand when a generality is being discussed? When did anyone say there were no exceptions? And who exactly was discussing this issue in terms of inevitability?
I'm really not trying to be offensive here. I just don't see what it is on this thread that's putting you on the defensive so much. Maybe you can point out specifics.
The reason for my first post was that the effect of refuting every statement of a generality with an exception leads to the impression that you're arguing that the generality is not true at all. Maybe that's not what you're trying to do, but that's what it seems like.
And here is a part of my post that you can take personally: I think it's great that you do value your own relationship so much, I don't think you're a bad person and I do think you may be a tad bit touchy about this issue. But then, you probably have your reasons, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Edited after seeing Leonide's post: I missed that too. Good catch!
[ April 08, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Kamisaki ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I take generalities personally because, believe it or not, that's how they are "generally" meant on this board. If someone starts a topic about wanting to go jump off a bridge, someone else is probably going to say, "you know, statistics say that 85% of people who jump off bridges die..." And they mean: "yeah, don't do that, because chance are you're going to die."
You don't bring up statistics just for the sake of pretty numbers. People bring them up to say "Hey, look, generally this thing doesn't work out for people, so if you were smart you wouldn't even attempt it."
I'd love to see what would happen if i pointed out the "1 in 3 relationships have to deal with infidelity at some point" statistic. Why even bother dating anyone at all, if chances are they're going to cheat on you? Statistics Shmatistics. They work in persuasive essays in college, but they, like (saxon?) pointed out earlier, do NOT apply to individuals
[ April 08, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Leonide, the topic starter asked for reasons why people thought that living together was bad in general. So people stated statistics and generalities.
Yeah, they don't 100% apply to individuals, but that doesn't mean that they're entirely useless. Using you're bridge analogy, it would be entirely logical to deduce from that statistic that, in general, it's not a good idea to jump off a bridge. Of course there can always be exceptions, once again, it is an exception. Expecting people to never use statistics and generalitites is expecting them to ignore every observation of the world around them.
If someone here has ever said that there are no exceptions to any general rule, please point it out to me. Most of the people who have been arguing that living together or divorce is bad have also stated that there are some cases where that is not true.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: Yes, I know you said you did that, and I said I think it's counterproductive.
Um, we're stopping the
celia: I know I shouldn't take it personally Kamisaki: You shouldn't take it personally celia: I said that Kamisake: You shouldn't take it personally
train right now. It is not productive.
quote: You're doing it again, taking it personally. Nobody swept your motivations into a generality, he just stated a generality. And you totally lost me with the logic of that last line. How does saying that divorce is too high make divorce inevitable? We were arguing that people shouldn't get divorced as much as they do.
When he does it 5 posts after mine, he is. But that's a conversation to have with Jacare, not you. And the last line is more with reference to the last time celia got upset over a sweeping generalization that included her than to this thread, but it's the same principle. Assigning a motivation to my actions that is totally wrong in order to support a premise that sets me up for failure. (and don't tell me i'm doing it again, i'm just trying to answer your question). I don't think I'm reading too much into this when I say that the generalization breaks down to:
- marriage is less valued than it has been - people who live together don't value marriage - people who don't value marriage get divorced
Which is to say that people who live together will get divorced. That's a lovely stigma to have to live with.
quote: Is it so hard to assume that most people on this board are intelligent enough to understand when a generality is being discussed? When did anyone say there were no exceptions? And who exactly was discussing this issue in terms of inevitability?
I can't tell you how much I love having my questions answered with questions. Yes it is. It that those exceptions aren't acknowledged. That is how a rule works.
I'm not trying to argue that a generality isn't generally true. I am trying to point out that it isn't true of me, and that I, a real actual individual as opposed to a statistical majority, am hurt by it when the ability for exceptions to exist isn't acknowledged. Reguardless of whether or not you think I should be, I am.
I'd prefer to not continue to argue the intent of one poster with another. I would prefer that intent be addressed by Jacare.
If you'd like to have a discussion about the actual topic of this thread, please feel free.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I know it's a little late in the thread to go back to the original question, but I'm going to do it anyway. Almost every argument that I've heard against living together implies that there will be sex. Yet, I have 2 friends that currently live with their boyfriends without having sex and have known people that lived together without having sex while they were engaged. So, I'm curious, are there any moral, ethical, religious objections to living together with no sex?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
About the same problem as wearing a swimsuit, getting an lounger on a pool on a 100 degree day, and resolving to not get wet.
You sure you're not being had?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:I'm curious, are there any moral, ethical, religious objections to living together with no sex?
I'd say that depends completely on the people involved. If both parties argee, than no. But then, I also don't think there are any moral or ethical objections to living together with sex before marriage (I'll also say that my religious beliefs have no problem with that either).
And, about your friends, I'd congratulate them. If I believed that living together with sex before marriage was wrong, I think my only solution would be not to live with that person until after marriage.
[ April 09, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Chungwa ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I'm curious, are there any moral, ethical, religious objections to living together with no sex?
My only answer to that is that *I* would never do that. Maybe it's part of that whole "avoid even the appearanc of evil" thing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
m_p_h
I have so many personal issues about the "Avoid the appearance of evil" bit that I don't know where to start.
I know they are personal issues. But sometimes I can't divorce my logic from them.
Let's just say that I have heard the "avoid the appearance of evil" statement used to justify that men and women should never have friendships with the other gender outside of the person they are married to.
To use a rebuttal inside the Bible itself. Were the Israelite spies wrong for visiting Rahab a prostitute while in Jericho? And if they were why did God honor Rahab and put her in the line of Christ?
Sorry I know this doesn't quite belong on this thread, but I just have a real problem with the 'avoid the appearance of evil' statement used out of its own context in most other contexts. While not "scripture" and realizing you are LDS, St. Augustine said "Fear God and sin boldly." This whole ball of wax creates nice little moral dillemas like, if you were hidig Jewish friends, would you lie to the Nazis since lying is wrong?
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You use the word "justify" as though it is obvious that it is a stupid/evil thing to do. I disagree. I don't think that it is generally a good/smart/appropriate thing for a married person to have a close, personal friendship with a member of the opposite sex. That's how I feel, and that's how I live.
About your situation with hiding Jews from the Nazis -- if I had decided to hide Jews, it would mean that I had already decided that hiding them was better than obeying the Nazis.
And yeah, Augustine saying something gives it no more weight to me than if anybody else had said it. It's a guy that believed something, just like everybody else, and his thoughts need to be examined according to what they said, not according to who said them. But I do not understand at all what Augustine could have meant by that saying.
[ April 09, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I don't think her use of the word "justify" implies what you say it does. To me it looks more like her use of the word "justify" implies that she thinks it is obviously not bad or evil for people of the opposite sex to be friends, but that some people do think that and use the concept of "avoiding the appearance of evil" to support their position.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
"avoid the appearance of evil" doesn't mean what almost everybody who says it thinks it means.
One of my pet peeves.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Yeah, someone should start a thread or something....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
BTW, the reason that I don't think that close, personal friendships with a married person of the opposit sex is a good idea isn't because of the "appearance of evil" -- it's more about the avoidance of evil/problems.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, and about the word "justify" from what you said, it *does* mean what I think it means, although I probably didn't express myself too well. You say that somebody had to "justify" something that you think is wrong. It seems that AJ was implying that that action (avoiding those friendships) is not good. You seem to agree with me.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
ching ching.
That's me throwing my two cents in.
As a person who only lived with his wife before he was married for a few days when her house was washed out in the flood, and we were at my parents house, and I slept on the couch, I can't tell you the good or bad of it.
I can tell you the biggest abuse of this phenomenon. It is when one person in the couple believes that the relationship is more stable and deeper than the other. Joe gets Jane to move in. There is lots of sex, but there is also the splitting of assets, the division of labor in the home, and the usual sharing of stuff. Then one day Joe leaves, cleaning out the bank account, taking the TV, and the Dog.
What can the broke Jane do? The rent money is gone with Joe. Jane has been royally---put out. She has no legal recourse but to suffer.
Or, as has happened to a coworker, Joe comes home and finds Jane is turning tricks in the living room. Since the apartment is in Jane's name, Joe must either move out or learn to endure Jane's new occupation. (Of course, when you date a stripper, things like this happen)
If the relatioship is stable and deep, then moving in together is not a problem. Jumping in too quickly can be.
Now, as far as this whole idea that we don't take marriage as seriously as they did 50 years ago--Ha!
Every couple that has commented here has decided not to rush into marriage because they hold that institution at a higher level than just casual sex and live in maid service.
50 years ago marriages were more often family arrangements where the husband was shopping for a good breeder, and house frau. The woman was looking for security. After the wedding, the woman's place was to be servant and obediant follower of the husband. The husband was happy that she followed his orders, made his dinner, and if he wanted some extra affairs, well she would forgive him or be kicked out of the house pennyless.
While the divorce rate is higher than it was in the 1950's the amount of abuse allowed to be inflicted on wives and children is down per capita.
With the emancipation of women in the past 100 years, the role of Wife has only grown and become more integral in modern marriage.
Finally, for the idea of "not even the look of sin."
My wife worked for a while making glasses at Lenscrafters. One of her co-workers was a devot muslim. One day he got jostled while working on a machine and cut his thumb nearly off.
My wife was the only one on site with a car. There was an emergency room a couple miles away. The wrapped up his hand and started to drive him to the doctor.
He refused.
He would rather loose his thumb, risk his own life, than get in a vehicle alone with a woman other than his wife.
I think that "Not the appearance of sin" can be taken a bit too far.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Porter and I both believe in avoiding situations that lead to trouble where the dangers outweigh the benefits. We both interact with men and women, but I don't think either of us would seek to become "close buddies" with someone of the opposite sex. We might both be friends with them, though.
Here is just an example: We have a couple of friends who married each other. Porter has known both of them for a long time. He and she were talking on the phone once, talking about the summer jobs they had gotten. The places of work were close enough to each other that she suggested they might carpool together. Porter thought about it, and declined saying that he didn't think it would be wise. Both of them knew what he was talking about, too much time alone together. She agreed that it probably wasn't a good idea despite the convenience. I felt very proud to have such a wise, trustworthy husband.
Basically, we try to avoid situations that (we think) make it easier develop feelings for someone else. Is this what you mean about "avoiding the appearance of evil"? I don't think either of us has missed out on anything significant living this way. And since we both feel the same way, it hasn't come up much as an issue between us.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: 50 years ago marriages were more often family arrangements where the husband was shopping for a good breeder, and house frau. The woman was looking for security. After the wedding, the woman's place was to be servant and obediant follower of the husband. The husband was happy that she followed his orders, made his dinner, and if he wanted some extra affairs, well she would forgive him or be kicked out of the house pennyless.
Wow, that is an amazingly cynical view of life 50 years ago! I suspect if we had a flux in the time continuum and there were people on the board from 50 years ago, they would be as offended as celia and Banna are by this discussion.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dan, do you even know any women that have been married for fifty years? Go talk to some old ladies. Some of them might say that they were abused, but not most.
quote: 50 years ago marriages were more often family arrangements where the husband was shopping for a good breeder, and house frau. The woman was looking for security. After the wedding, the woman's place was to be servant and obediant follower of the husband. The husband was happy that she followed his orders, made his dinner, and if he wanted some extra affairs, well she would forgive him or be kicked out of the house pennyless.
This is PAINFUL. I'm sure all the elderly women would be disturbed to know that you think their husbands treated them like cattle and slept around whenever they felt like it.
[ April 09, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
beverly part of the reason (on the other thread) why I have such a major problem with this, is because I don't think automatically limiting your friendships to 50% of the population is healthy. Plus I am a female (as is celia) in a "man's profession" if we didn't make friendships with men at both a professional and personal level we would be completely worthless at the jobs we do.
To tell me that I can't make friends with the guys in my calculus class, when I'm the only female in said class, seems rediculous and excessively prohibitive.
AJ
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
celia,
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it so hard to assume that most people on this board are intelligent enough to understand when a generality is being discussed? When did anyone say there were no exceptions? And who exactly was discussing this issue in terms of inevitability? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't tell you how much I love having my questions answered with questions. Yes it is. It that those exceptions aren't acknowledged. That is how a rule works.
Sorry for not conforming to your preferred debating style. I think this just comes down to different assumptions about the people on this board. You and I disagree as to how pure their motives are in general.
quote:If you'd like to have a discussion about the actual topic of this thread, please feel free.
Good point. I've said all that I need/want to about this.
As far as "avoiding the appearance of evil," of course it can be taken to extremes, as can everything. But that's not to say that there's no virtue in the concept. Really, at the core, it's just the idea of protecting yourself. Is it a good idea to have an open beer bottle in the car if you're driving, even if you're not drinking it? No, it just adds to the evidence against you if you're pulled over. You weren't really doing anything wrong, but it sure looks like you were. As long as you have some common sense and know when the exceptions are justified, it's a good principle to keep.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Please don't get the wrong idea.
I am not saying that 50 years ago most women were in abusive relationships.
I am saying that those who were in abusive relationships had no way out. To even think about a divorce was against many Church's law. To leave a husband for adultery was neither financially viable (woman held little capital in their own names and had poor job choices) or religiously tolerable in many conditions.
Many woman married the people her family told her to marry, or the man who got her drunk and pregnant. Communications between the man and the wife were more often one way. Then again, many of them were not.
To say that 50 years ago things were perfect, that all marriages were long thought out callings from God, where both the bride and the groom came to this sacred moment with full understanding and love in their hearts, equally commited, is to put an impossible goal for us to reach with today's society.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dan -- you obviously disapprove of that man's decision about his thumb. He would rather sacrifice his body than his convictions. While I wouldn't make the same decision, I greatly respect him for making it.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Dan, my parents were married about 45 years ago. I can tell you with no hesitation that, where they are concerned, your ideas of marriage at that time was not theirs. They got married because they fell in love.
I think maybe you need to go back another 50 years or so.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have read the journals of ancestors of mine that lived 200 years ago. They also got married because they loved each other, so I don't think another 50 years is going to do it. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and from all accounts I've heard my grandparents were married because my grandmother seduced my grandfather into sleeping with her and he felt guilty.
Oh yeah and she was into seducing men because she was too lazy to finish college and wanted a way out.
yeah, true love
AJ
[ April 09, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Many woman married the people her family told her to marry, or the man who got her drunk and pregnant.
I think you are very wrong. Sorry.
(Maybe 2000 years ago you would be correct. Maybe not.)
[ April 09, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI have you no grasp of history?
I think 100 years ago he would have been totally correct. Or do you not realize how much you reap from the benefits of women's sufferage?
100 years ago, you were your husband's property. You could be returned like a runaway slave if necessary even though slavery was over. You could be beaten as long as the stick was smaller than his thumb.{apparently this is untrue according to Stormy see below, but I still stand by the returned runaway bit}
No wonder the old time feminists are ticked off at the younger generation that takes their freedoms for granted.
AJ
[ April 09, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Kathrina-
I am positive that I'm not being fooled in at least two of the relationships (the other one there's a possibility). In those, at least one member of the relationship has strong religious convictions and does not (or did not in one case) want to have sex until after they are married. The funny thing is that the parents of the unmarried religious couple share your view and don't believe them when they say they don't have sex. But these two are my best friends and I know that they wouldn't lie to me.
As for the "appearance of evil" of the situation (even though I don't think that premarital sex is necessarily wrong), I think that if conviction is strong enough than temptation can definately be avoided. There's no need to sacrifice things that you find worthwhile if you trust yourself enough to follow through with your convictions.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Even today, in the countryside, you marry the man your dad drank vodka with, thus arranging for your marriage.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
AJ- I thought it was obvious that I was being extreme.
quote: You could be beaten as long as the stick was smaller than his thumb.
Just because they COULD doesn't mean they DID, to all women. Even my great-grandmother, who died at ninety-eight five years ago, felt like a partner with her husband. She told stories about the two of them doing hilarious things together, and she never seemed opressed by him.
I'm trying to say that, sure, women were oppressed, but that doesn't mean that women were treated horribly by their unfeeling, SOB husbands. I'm sure SOME were, but not all. I don't know any old women who have anything but kind words to say about their husbands, although it's possible that some of them just choose not to talk about it. But it's a far cry from saying "Women could be beaten! Women were slaves!" to the REALITY of it, that all the women I know, at least, have beautiful memories about their marriage and felt like they could be themselves.
I know that's a kind of anecdote, but I've never understood why anecdotes don't seem to be viewed as viable, in some situations. If I have 100 bald people standing in front of me saying that they took Aleve and the next day their hair fell out, and then an article is published saying that no link is found between Aleve and hairloss, I'll probably still believe the ones who lost their hair. Why? Because, no matter what you hear, what matters is the actual thoughts and experiences of the real people around you. And I never meet old ladies who are glad their oppressive husbands are dead, because now they are FREE!
Again, I'm not saying they NEVER existed, I'm just saying they don't even make up a fraction of the people I know.
quote: No wonder the old time feminists are ticked off at the younger generation that takes their freedoms for granted.
I don't know any, do you? Do you have angry old ladies in your family?
Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate all the strides feminists made in this century. Things like the vote, alimony, child support, equal pay, and making wife abuse illegal can be directly attributed to them. I am NOT saying that women have not been oppressed.
I AM saying that a LOT of them don't see it that way.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
About the rule of thumb. (I apologize for the partisan link that attacks feminists, but I think it does a good job of debunking that particular myth.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
grin PSI, obviously you haven't read much feminist literature. The older generation of femminists are distinctly going through a period of self-examination in what they write.
The have been trying to figure out why the next generation isn't as activist because the couple before them were for the most part. IT is because things have reached a more equal state, and the younger generation takes it for granted that it always has been that way.
Maybe overall the repression wasn't there. But the entire culture was such that it was far more societally acceptable than it is now. Obviously there were happy marriages then and there are happy marriages now. I doubt the actuall percentage of happy marriages vs. unhappy ones has actually increased much, even if the number that end in divorce has risen.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Storm thank you for that, I'd read about it in some non-feminist sources as well. BUt it must just be an old urban legend.
However, I'm wondering at the actual freqency of domestic violence charges back then too. I know in Oklahoma what does go unreported and it isn't pretty. And there are far more places that a battered women can go for help too and they still are underutilized.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The have been trying to figure out why the next generation isn't as activist because the couple before them were for the most part. IT is because things have reached a more equal state, and the younger generation takes it for granted that it always has been that way
I know why I am not more activist. Because if women get anymore equal, we're going to be better than the men.
No, that's not really true. It's more because I don't agree with most of the things that newer feminists want to do. It all seems to be much more extreme now than it was decades back.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Banna, I would guess that women were much less able to report, or get away from, domestic violence up until fairly recently. After all, how would they support their children when the law was so lax on child support and women were very much discouraged from having any kind of career outside of the home? Without shelters, where would they run to that their husbands couldn't find them? In those halcyon days when to be divorced was a badge of shame, what woman would want to be divorced?
edit: What I'm trying to say is that I wasn't trying to say domestic violence didn't happen or that it was prosecuted even remotely like it is today.
[ April 09, 2004, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI you should know that the most angry old lady matriarch in my family, my grandma, is trying to beat me into a "Traditional" model into which her own daughter barely fits and feels that the fact that I am an engineer and have a career is rephrehensible. Perhaps this is why I have feminist leanings though I agree that many of them have gone to a fringe that doesn't quite make sense to me.
Studies have shown that if you survey women about what they actually believe, most (my psycho grandmother excluded) will agree to the original feminist premisies. They just don't agree with the most modern and vocal feminists. THis has also caused some self examination in the self-identifying "feminist" community as they grow older.
My mother *was* told by her father what she should be majoring in in college. She wanted to major in chemistry, he told her that "girls do biology" and she switched. I would have thrown Marie Curie in his face but Marie Curie was a strange bird herself, and isn't a great role model as far as fitting in to society goes. Then when she hated biology because it wasn't chemistry, rather than going to her first love, she switched to teaching, because that it was a traditional job that her father would approve of and she knew she could graduate with in a short amount of time.
AJ
[ April 09, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And actually I was compliant in that regard as well. Maybe because of my mother, I wanted to major in chemistry. Though I loved the subject as much as she did I think.
Anyway I was told, "No don't major in chemistry, you can't get a job, major in chemical engineering because that is useful" you can fall back on that when your husband dies.
I am proud to have completed engineering school, and proud to be an engineer. I'm extremely lucky because I have a job that a chemistry major could do just as well as I do, for half the pay. Most people after getting to know me wonder why I'm not a research scientist going for a PhD. Well I didn't love engineering and it burned me out in gradschool. I honestly don't think I would have burned with pure chemistry, the love that was there (and still exists) would have helped get me through that burnout slump that most grad students go through.
AJ
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Sexism still exists. Women on average make 75% less than what men make for the same job.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
The appearance of evil thing really gets me going. Isn't there some rule about not making assumptions. I lived with a guy last year. We weren't dating we just shared an apartment and rent. I had my own bedroom and he had his and that was that. The only difference between having a female roommate was the level of bathroom cleanliness.
I know some of my really religious friends really looked down on me for that. They know that I don't plan on having sex before marriage, but it was the appearance that bothered them. According to them I was giving off an appearance to people who didn't know me that it was okay to live together before you get married. Argh. I mean I *suppose* it is true but if someone's actually stupid enough to not even talk to me and then base some decision on what I believe I'm not sure that the fault lies with me. Doesn't that somehow fall into that thing about not judging others.
Argh. I mean if I could have found a female roommate I might have. But I, much like celia and Banna, work in a "guys" field. And when I tried to find a roommate none of the girls responded to my request from 1300 miles away. I live alone now but the whole thing still bothers me. (Decides to not talk about having more guy friends that female friends.)
Posted by Dreamwalker (Member # 4189) on :
quote: It's more because I don't agree with most of the things that newer feminists want to do. It all seems to be much more extreme now than it was decades back.
What??!! MORE RADICAL than the vote, or financial independence, or the right to work, or to have custody of your own children, or that spousal abuse be made illegal or .... *splutters* no wonder there ARE angry older feminists out there @#$$ you think this stuff wasn't radical!!! Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Or that staple of 19th century philosophical discussion, "The Woman Question", which means, roughly, Are Women Really Sentient Creatures?
<laughs>
Not radical!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I would not live together before marriage.
If I were in love, and the guy loved me back, then I would want to stay together forever, and I'd expect he would too. If one of us didn't, I would think it meant something were wrong. That the commitment wasn't there.
I don't mean I should be making these decisions for others, though. If my children wanted to do this, I would counsel against it but then support their decision. I would treat their partner as their spouse.
My brother did this, and now he's divorced. He's just one case, and yet the two things do seem related to me.
I don't think I would ever get divorced except for infidelity, abuse, or drug or alcohol addiction.
I can really see AJ's decision, though. It's as though her family by being so coercive makes it nearly impossible for them to marry, even if they wanted to. How could you knuckle under to granny and her bribes and threats? <laughs> I couldn't do it! That would totally keep me from marrying too. Even though paradoxically, that's letting her influence the decision. Still!
And the thing about being friends with guys, I feel the same way as AJ. I have lots of friends who are guys. I always have and always will. My best friend when I was pre-kindergarten age was a guy, my interests and hobbies tend to be things that mostly guys like, and I work in a field dominated by men.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
First of all, Dan qualified his position.
quote:I am not saying that 50 years ago most women were in abusive relationships.
I am saying that those who were in abusive relationships had no way out.
zgator, m_p_h, and PSI, I'm glad that your ancestors had loving relationships, but that doesn't mean that that was the norm, any more than abusive relationships were the norm.
Let me give you some anecdotal evidence from much less than 50 years ago. My mother was widowed very young (from doctor #1). She had been raised to marry well - she was told that since she was so beautiful it didn't matter than she was stupid. She married her second husband (my father) with the overwhelming approval of her family - he was chief of cardiology and that was all that mattered to them. It didn't matter that he wasn't Jewish and that he had a little drinking problem and a small problem with drugs. Oh, and he also had an explosive temper and was violent while intoxicated. It never occurred to my mother to divorce my father - she knew her society lifestyle would be over. They didn't let divorcees sit on the board of the ballet or chair the Junior League flower show. She finally had to do it when he broke my nose so badly that my septum was smashed and gave me a concussion. We were fine until my father decided to skip town and stop making alimony and child support payments. My mother was left with no skills and no way to support her child.
My paternal grandfather refused to let his wife work outside of the house. He also refused to let his daughter go to college b/c he said it was a waste to educate women. Of course, he also refused to pay for my father to go to medical school b/c he wanted him to be an engineer.
BTW, women do NOT have equality in the workplace. Most entry-level positions in large corporations for women are still secreterial, regardless of whatever degrees they hold. Most entry-level positions for men are lower to middle management. When I was VP of a mid-sized company, we had vendors and clients who would insist on dealing with the CEO (male), rather than me or the President (female). If you want more anecdotal evidence, I can regale you for hours with stories of my girlfriends' struggles in their fields.
Look at Martha Stewart. She gets reviled and called a witch when a man in her position would be admired for being assertive and savvy.
---------------------
About living together before/instead of marriage...
I don't see the harm. Andrew and I lived together for 6 months before our wedding. I graduated and got kicked out of the dorm and it just didn't make sense for me to go through the huge hassle of finding a place in NYC for 6 months and having to move all my stuff twice. I had my first post-college job and I was planning a wedding. Our families were supportive, but then we were engaged. I think that living together before marriage ultimately strengthened our relationship.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I think this just comes down to different assumptions about the people on this board. You and I disagree as to how pure their motives are in general.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)