Co-habiting (unmarried ) couples are..

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2007
Co-habiting (unmarried ) couples are..
11
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 8:17am

'just roommates with sexual benefits'.


What do you think? Is this true?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 10:13am

Do you wanna explain further your stance on the question? I'd like to know where YOU are coming from on that. Granted everyone is gonna have an opinion, but it's yours that matters.

That really depends on the couple to be honest. Personally that kinda of comment is more for younger couples, than older.. more established ones. If you are cohabiting, and if both parties are perfectly fine with where the relationship is, then great. But if one party isn't getting what they want out of it (i.e. marriage, engagement, etc), then there's the problem.

That comment sounds more like a situation where the girlfriend isn't happy with where the RL is going, and it's become more of a roommates /w benefits kinda deal. Either she can't afford to live on her own, doesn't have a place to go back to, is needy and defendant, or just doesn't have the guts yet to leave.

Some are gonna come at the angle of "I would never let that happen to me", or others outside of that RL are gonna assume "well that RL isn't gonna go anywhere if there's no marriage or engagement". Keeping in mind that society has become more acceptable of that co-hab w/o marriage and kids out of wedlock.

For me, personally I haven't gotten to that point yet nor would I put myself in that position w/o some sort of engagement first. I'm not that type of person to rely on someone else, or shack up for the hell of it.

Bottom line at the end of the day, you need to know what you want and like where you are and what you are getting out of it. If you aren't then you are in it for the wrong reasons.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2007
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 11:11am

I find the statement to be infuriatingly untrue, judgemental and generalised, not to mention simply not very clever. To claim that a long standing happy couple of 3-5+ years who have a wonderful fulfilled shared happy

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2009
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 8:44pm

Well I know someone who would agree with this statement LOL I'm sure she'll make herself known!!

It depends on what your goals are and how realistic you are.

I've lived with a guy in college and looking back, we were young and stupid and lived together because we thought it would be fun and romantic. We ended up taking one another for granted and fighting all the time. We had no idea what we wanted, marriage wasn't going to happen because we were too young. Yeah, that was a mistake.

But do I think "roommates with sexual benefits" is an appropriate term? No, I think that's intentionally trivializing a relationship that MAY ACTUALLY HAVE DEPTH even though they aren't married yet. I find that term to be really offensive when I'm looking at an engagement realistically within six months. We've been together over four years, living together for two, and marriage has ALWAYS been the plan but we moved to a new city together to start over, knowing NO ONE, and wanted to live together to see how our relationship would grow. This second time cohabitating for me was a really informed decision and it's working out well.

NO ONE has the right to judge the depth of anyone else's relationship. Dansfoxywife is entitled to her opinion and I agree with her most of the time but I can't agree that people are just roommates when they don't have a ring yet. That's a REALLY ignorant thing to say.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2007
Fri, 05-01-2009 - 6:40am

Thanks very much for your response!


It is one thing to say 'I believe a relationship should eventually lead to marriage for it to be considered a 'real' thing' or smth along those lines; it is quite another to

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2008
Sat, 05-02-2009 - 4:04pm
Not necessarily - it really depends on the couple.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2007
Mon, 05-04-2009 - 4:09pm

I find that statement annoying as well.

I feel, it's the people involved, not the presence or lack of a marriage ceremony that makes the difference. Not everyone can want or need the same things to be happy & healthy.

'I believe a relationship should eventually lead to marriage for it to be considered a 'real' thing' ... No, that wouldn't make it sound any better. Every day is real, so whatever we do is the real thing. ;-)

Good distraction frees us from emotional pain, bad distraction gives you a mouth full of whizz. ~~~ Guru Tugginmypudha
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 10:34pm

In my experience (not personal mind) - most cohabitating couples are in serious long term relationships that are probably headed towards marriage - BUT - neither party in the couple is in any rush to marry.


If marriage is what you have in mind I would recommend NOT cohabitating, as it makes your relationship LESS likely to end in marriage, and IF you defy those odds and actually do ended up getting wed - your marriage is MORE likely to end in divorce.


If marriage is not what you have in mind, or you really aren't even sure, there are definitely some perks and financial benefits of cohabitation. Just be warned that break ups don't always land at the most convenient times for your lease! :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2009
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 9:29am

"If marriage is what you have in mind I would recommend NOT cohabitating, as it makes your relationship LESS likely to end in marriage, and IF you defy those odds and actually do ended up getting wed - your marriage is MORE likely to end in divorce."


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2007
Thu, 05-07-2009 - 9:46am

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm

A generation ago, unmarried couples who lived together were often derided for "shacking up" or "playing house." Studies in the 1980s supported those negative stereotypes, suggesting that cohabitation could doom a long-term relationship, substantially raising the risk of divorce.

While researchers say the overall divorce rate is higher among those who lived together before marriage, now they don't blame cohabitating.

... Census data out today show 9.6% of all opposite-sex couples living together in 2007 were unmarried. "Cohabitation has become a common experience in people's lives," Smock says.

"The nature of cohabitation has changed," says Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham. "Cohabitators 20 years ago were the rule breakers, the rebels, the risk takers — the folks who were perhaps not as interested in marriage, and using cohabitation as an alternative to marriage."

... • The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

• Divorce rates for those who cohabit more than once are more than twice as high as for women who cohabited only with their eventual husbands, says Lichter's study, to be published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in December.

• Cohabiting between a first and second marriage doesn't raise the risk of divorce — unless the woman brings a child into the marriage from a previous relationship. A man with a child from a previous relationship does not raise the likelihood of a second divorce, finds a study in the May Journal of Marriage and Family, in which Teachman analyzed findings on 655 women from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

Other recent studies have shown that certain subgroups don't appear to experience negative effects from cohabiting, such as engaged couples who move in together or those who have already decided to marry in the future.

Some new research goes further, suggesting that living together may reduce risk of divorce.

Good distraction frees us from emotional pain, bad distraction gives you a mouth full of whizz. ~~~ Guru Tugginmypudha
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2009
Wed, 05-13-2009 - 1:14pm

"...'just roommates with sexual benefits'.


What do you think? Is this true?"


Not true, because that either over simplifies and/or cheapens the feelings involved of

Pages