[MissTorrieIfYou'reNasty]

What do you think of cohabitation before marriage? Does it show a lack of commitment? Is it a sin? A sensible idea? Does is doom a marriage? What about the kids?

Moreover, what if a couple never plans to marry? Does it become "better" then?

[GinaB]

Nowadays, I think I would recommend my kids live with their so before marrying. I think it *might* help them get to know each other and learn how the other lives/acts before taking the plunge and it's alot easier to walk away. I will supply the bc

[**Badfish**]

I'll also be recommending it. At least until Lauren shows up with her pesky studies and statistics and uses them to brainwash me.

[Jintana]

My DH and I bought a house together before we made a decision to get married. It has worked out well for us. But for legal protection for offspring, preference is marriage first.

[RTMOM]

Dh and I lived together for a year before we married. Everything turned out fine .



We "lived" as married, shared an account. So all expenses were coming out of our account. We were already engaged, and it seemed pointless not to live together. So we got an apartment by ourselves for a year, then right after we married we bought our house that we are in now.


Eta: I think it can be a great thing for couples. It probably helps a lot realize that there are things about their partner they didn't know or might be annoying. Lol. Gives them a chance to get over those little things

[*Kiliki*]

honestly i think its a must...cause you never truly KNOW someone til you live with them...i mean what happens when its all good and what not you get married and finally move in together and realize you cant STAND that person??? i dont think its "sinful" either...i mean really?? do you see animals getting married??? NO!! and that is exactly what humans are ANIMALS...yeah we are higher up on the evolution food chain so to speak...but still we are animals just like any other creature on this planet

[blondie-lox]

I live in sin *gasp*. I also have two children out of wedlock *oh the horror*. I've got a one way ticket to see the man in red. lol.

DF and I bought our house when I was pregnant with our son, after we'd been together 2 years. We've been living together over 2.5years now and its definitely been for the best. Living together helped us learn to live with each other.

I think if people want to live together before marriage they can go ahead. Its personal choice and no ones business but the couples.

[AMDG]

I never would have done it. The temptation alone would have been too much to handle. My DH and I dated for 10 weeks prior to getting engaged and then we were engaged for about 9 months. We never did more than kiss prior to our wedding night. I think our marriage is stronger because of it and would have it no other way.
So I learned after marriage that my husband tends to leave his socks lying around. I learned he has no problem drinking 2 day old coffee rather than bother making a fresh pot. He learned I love to sleep with the windows open - no matter what time of year. of course we learned little things about each other after we were married - nothing that would have been a deal breaker and if it isn't a deal breaker than what is the harm in not knowing it ahead of time?

I'm sure we all learn things about our spouse after we have child together that we didn't know before. Heck, I learned things about myself that I didn't know before. That doesn't mean everybody should have a child together before marriage.

I think it's Ok to live together for a little while before the wedding, as long as they are already engaged. Or if they never plan to get married but are sure they want to spend the rest of their lives together in a solid commitment.
Basically what I don't agree with is "OMG I just met this totally great guy 2 weeks ago and he suggested we move in together to share bills so it will be easier on us, and he promises to get engaged soon!"
If you're committed and serious, living together isn't a big deal. Everybody's screwing before marriage anymore anyway. No sense bothering to hide it. lol

[Lash]

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

I'll also be recommending it. At least until Lauren shows up with her pesky studies and statistics and uses them to brainwash me.

In this one, I get attacked and dumped on after I post stats... they all of a sudden become incredibly personal, even when they are directed at no-one in particular. So sadly, I might just watch this one. It doesn't end well for the realm of science in this one. This is the topic that makes the board refute ALL studies because their anecdotal relationship all of a sudden somehow trumps science.

[Jenna]

Lauren, ARE there any studies done on this type of stuff? COOL! Either way, I'd be really interested in seeing the results of those studies. So please feel free to post merely for informative purposes.

FWIW, DF and I have been together for almost 6 years. We've lived together for 4 years. Not married. With a kid. I'll see you in Hell, Laurel! But I don't understand what the fuss is with people living together before marriage. For the folks who don't approve of pre-marriage cohabbing, is it a religious thing? (Not trying to be a jerk. Honestly curious!)

[tiredmom]

I’m of the school of thinking that there is not much point to marriage. If you love and are fully committed to somebody, what is the good of a marriage ceremony or certificate? DH and I got married after being together for 10 years, cohabitating for 5 of those years. We got married 5 years ago after we decided to have a child. And only then to avoid any kind of confusion or health care issues in the case of one of us getting ill. Even so, I don’t think it was really necessary as both parents would be on the birth certificate; and at our current jobs, we are allowed to place persons we cohabitate with on each other’s insurance. I still don’t wear a wedding ring (for a variety of reasons); and I kept my maiden name. So for us, the marriage certificate did not change much at all in our relationship. We had long before committed ourselves to each other and knew that we were going to be together in the long run.

That being said, most statistics would support that people who cohabitate before marriage will be more likely to divorce and more likely to have poorer quality marriages. However, I personally believe a lot of those stats are over-inflated by pro-traditional-marriage groups; and that as co-habitation becomes more and more the norm, the stats will continue to change (as they already are in some European countries).

[Lash]

One article. Just one. Just the tip

According to a new research study, living together before marriage may increase the chance of divorce. Cohabitation is a positive factor for divorce, which sounds good, but actually means that couples who live together are more likely to split up after marriage.
Living Together Before Marriage - Statistics

This information is based upon a 5-year study by Scott Stanley, a psychologist at the University of Denver. Stanley has been interested in the subject of cohabitation for the past 15 years, after he read a 1995 report on the subject.

Thirty years ago, apartment owners seldom allowed unmarried couples to rent a place together, but times have changed, and today, living together before marriage is a common occurrence. Often, the reason is financial, but sometimes people just live together out of loneliness.

The Denver study found that out of 1,050 married people, 19 percent of those who "lived together" before marriage had talked to their spouse about divorce. In the control group who did not live together, only 10 percent had brought up divorce. This means that twice as many people who cohabitated had wanted a divorce enough to tell their partner. These numbers confirm the outcome of the earlier, 1995 study.

Dr. Stanley concludes that many people, who lived together, are less dedicated to making the marriage succeed than those who never had the same premarital address.
Reasons Not to Live Together

Various studies have shown something called "The Cohabitation Effect". This includes:

* More negative communication in marriage
* Lower levels of marital satisfaction
* Higher marital instability
* Lower levels of male commitment to spouse
* Greater likelihood of divorce

Professor Stanley continues, “The problem is one of inertia.” Once a couple lives together, their finances are mingled together and it is more difficult for a couple to break up than if they had their own apartments. This causes a lot of people to marry because it is more convenient than putting a lot of effort into separating. Yes, getting a new place is a hassle.


Couples who moved in together, after making the commitment of becoming engaged, scored just like those who waited until after the marriage ceremony. And, this makes sense because both groups took a deliberate and serious step towards permanence.
One Person Doesn't Want to Get Married

Sometimes, one partner sees cohabitation as a step toward marriage and long-term commitment, while the other does not. It would be interesting to see if the man or the woman were statistically more likely to push for the commitment, but there is no data available to answer this question.
Does Cohabitation Lead to Divorce?

The real question is whether or not cohabitation leads to divorce, or whether cohabitation is practiced by people who are less stable financially or emotionally than those who live apart. Well, the answer is very difficult to discover from a questionnaire. This type of analysis requires in-depth study of individual couples, which was not part of the Denver study.

Stanley reasons, it could very well be, that cohabitation doesn’t weaken relationships and that the relationships at risk may have involved pregnancy or people who were too weak to be in a relationship, in the first place.
Is Living Together a Good Idea?

Many people believe that living together before marriage can be a good thing because it allows couples to “practice” being married before taking the final step. This may be true in some instances, but for many, who live together only to save money, the results can be disastrous. Also, some couples, who move in together, find it is just plain easier to stay together, even when others can see that the relationship is heading downhill.

According to Dr. Stanley, no matter what popular media portrays, all published articles that he has read over the years, point to the same conclusion: Living together before marriage has no benefit for a long term relationship, and may add risk.
How Important is Religion?

It is possible that people, who wait until after marriage to live together, are more traditionally religious and have skewed the statistics. Stanley says that this would explain part of the resulting outcome but not enough to dismiss the findings.

CDC stats on cohabitation, marriage, divorce and all the fancy stuff in between like race, gender, socioeconomic status. Settle in, it's 103 pages.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

Ok one more, and I'm done.

Research looks at cohabitation’s negative effects

Couples with no intention of marrying who decide to cohabit are forming unstable living arrangements that can have negative effects on their emotional, financial and sometimes physical well-being, according to University researcher Linda Waite, Professor in Sociology.

Waite also found that these social arrangements may cause serious problems for children raised in households headed by cohabiting couples.

Waite, an expert on family life, studied census reports, the National Survey of Families and Households, the National Health and Social Life Survey and other data to appraise the costs and benefits of cohabitation. She found that men and women who cohabit are more likely than married people to experience partner abuse and infidelity and less likely to receive assistance from family members than married couples.

“These tentative and uncommitted relationships are bound together by the ‘cohabitation deal’ rather than the ‘marriage bargain.’ But that deal has costs,” said Waite, author of “The Negative Effects of Cohabitation,” published in the current issue of the journal The Responsive Community. The “cohabitation deal,” she added, will have especially disappointing outcomes for people who expect it to deliver the same benefits the “marriage bargain” delivers. “People who cohabit often contend that marriage is just about a piece of paper. We’ve found, however, that there is quite a bit of difference between being married and living together,” she said.

Her research showed that 16 percent of cohabiting women reported that arguments with their partners became physical during the past year, while only 5 percent of married women had similar experiences. Although surveys showed cohabiting couples expect their relationships to be faithful, the surveys also showed that 20 percent of cohabiting women reported they had secondary sex partners, while only 4 percent of married women reported they did, according to Waite.

Cohabiting couples are disadvantaged financially with the lowest level of wealth among household types, comparable to families headed by a single mother. Intact, two-parent families and stepfamilies have the highest level of wealth.


Despite its disadvantages, people increasingly are choosing cohabitation over marriage. The latest Census Bureau figures show that 4 million couples live together outside of marriage, eight times as many as in 1970.

Waite found that two types of cohabitation arrangements exist: those in which the partners intend to marry and those in which they do not. Partners who cohabit with the intention of marrying share many of the characteristics of married people, she found. Those who cohabit without the intention of marrying often have short relationships with few benefits. Waite’s research also revealed that many of the people who choose cohabitation, particularly women with children, believe their partnerships will last.

Her research revealed a variety of other differences between married and cohabiting couples. According to the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, cohabiting couples have an average of about one additional sex act per month compared to married couples. But cohabiting men and women are less likely than those who are married to be monogamous, although virtually all cohabiting couples reported they expected their relationships to be sexually exclusive.

Married women spend 14 more hours per week doing housework than do their husbands, while cohabiting women spend 10 more hours per week doing housework than their male partners. Because men in cohabiting relationships are less likely to support their partners financially than are married men, cohabiting women are not compensated for their housework the way married women are, Waite said.

“The tentative, impermanent and socially unsupported nature of cohabitation impedes the ability of this type of partnership to deliver many of the benefits of marriage, as does the relatively separate lives typically pursued by cohabiting partners,” she explained.

In marriages, partners often specialize their skills; one does house repairs, while the other handles finances, for instance. This specialization helps married couples accomplish more as a team than they would if they were working independently. In cohabiting arrangements, this specialization rarely takes place, however, and the arrangement does not achieve the same work efficiency marriage does, because the partners choose to act more as individuals, Waite said.

Waite also wrote in her published paper that “marriage fosters certain behavioral changes––by both the couple and those around them––that cohabitation simply doesn’t encourage.” Family members are not likely to loan money to a relative in a cohabiting arrangement nor provide other kinds of support normally extended to a married family member.

Additionally, the parents of people in cohabiting arrangements who become attached to children of their child’s cohabiting partner may see that relationship dissolve if the cohabitation is short-term.

Marriage or the intent to marry, wrote Waite, makes that long-term commitment explicit and reduces the potential dissolution of relationships for families who incorporate a son- or daughter-in-law and stepchildren.

Look up the Cohabitation Effect. Put simply, there are higher rates of marital dissatisfaction and the data shows consistent results over 20 years or more of studies

The extensive research involving couples who cohabited in the 1970s and 1980s strongly suggest that marriage preceded by cohabitation has a detrimental effect on marital satisfaction and places couples at a higher risk of marital dissolution (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003, pg. 540). Depending on the specific statistical methods used it was found that couples who marry after a period of cohabitation are at a 35% to 50% greater risk of separating and/or divorcing than marriages without prior cohabitation (Seltzer, 2000; Teachman, 2002; Teachman, 2003).
One area of marriage that has been widely studied is marital happiness. It has been concluded that people who are married have better mental health and are generally happier than those who have never been married (Cherlin, 2002; Horwitz & Raskin-White, 1998). It has also been shown that depression decreases in those who become married; that is to say, marriage has a significant effect on reducing depression (Lamb, Lee & DeMaris, 2003). Results from a 2002 study found that neither entering into a cohabitation relationship nor moving from a cohabiting relationship into marriage decreases depression (Kim & McKenry, 2002). It was concluded that “marrying is associated with a significant and substantively meaningful reduction in depression, particularly if marriage is not preceded by cohabitation” (Lamb, Lee, & DeMaris, 2003, p. 961). Therefore, although cohabitation may not in itself cause depression, it may prevent the decrease in depression normally associated with marriage.

An identified predictor of marital instability is communication behaviors. It has been shown that communication skills account for greater marital outcome than do demographic characteristics, such as age, education, income and a parent’s divorce (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). Past research on marital instability has shown that destructive communication and ineffective support both contribute to marital deterioration (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002). Research also suggests that premarital cohabitation is associated with communication that is more destructive and divisive during marriage, and premarital cohabitors are less likely to receive support from, and also to provide support to, their respective spouses. Cohabitors scored lower on quality of marital communication and marital satisfaction than non-cohabitors (DeMaris & Leslie, 1984). In addition, marital problem solving and social support behaviors were more negative and less positive for those couples who cohabited before marrying compared to those who had not (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Thomson & Colella, 1992). This has been explained in part because cohabiters might differ in their belief about the permanence of marriage commitment (DeMaris & Leslie, 1984).
Another predictor of marital stability is sexual exclusivity. More than 90% of Americans surveyed by Treas and Giesen (2000) believe that it is wrong for someone who is married to have a sexually intimate relationship with someone other than their spouse. These high expectations for sexual exclusivity within the relationship were desired whether the respondent was cohabiting or married. This research also suggested that those marriage relationships not preceded by cohabitation tend to have greater sexual exclusivity than cohabitation relationships. In addition, premarital cohabitors had a 39% increase in marital infidelity. It appears that “compared to married couples, cohabitors are not as sexually exclusive consistent with their less conventional values” (Treas & Giesen, 2000, pg. 49). One theory is cohabitors may have a lower investment in their relationship (Treas & Giesen, 2000). One study showed that characteristics of people who cohabit are more similar to those of single people than they are to married couples in almost all areas that were studied (Seltzer, 2000).
The lower stability of marriages preceded by cohabitation is well documented and many areas that are less stable have been identified. The debate continues as to the reason cohabitation causes an increase in the risk of marital stability. Two perspectives have been proposed that attempt to explain this increase. These perspectives are 1) the selection effect perspective and 2) the experience of cohabitation perspective (Seltzer, 2000; Kamp-Dusk, Cohan & Amato, 2003). Both interpretations have been supported by recent studies.

The selection effect suggests that cohabitation and marital instability are linked by unconventional characteristics shared by those who choose to cohabit (DeMaris & MacDonald, 1993), or in other words “people who cohabit are different” (Seltzer, 2000, p. 1253). Some researchers believe that individual differences that are found in each of the couple’s backgrounds account for the greater instability and the higher divorce rates of the premarital cohabitors. These may include the individual’s attitudes and behaviors when compared to couples who did not cohabit before marrying (Seltzer, 2000; Tanfer, 1987), a more individualistic view of marriage (Thomson & Colella, 1992), and gender-role attitudes that are more liberal (Watson, 1983, Tanfer, 1987). Other characteristics include those who are not optimistic regarding marriage in general, are less inclined to have negative attitudes about divorce, those who have experienced a marital disruption within their childhood family, and who grew up in a single-parent family. Couples who are less educated, have a low religious orientation, and less economic resources are also more likely to cohabit (Seltzer, 2000; Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003).

The second rationale that many researchers have identified is the experience of cohabitation perspective. The experience of cohabiting by itself might affect an increased risk of divorce because it allows individuals to “learn about intimate living outside of a marriage relationship, provides information about alternatives to marriage, and acts to erode their belief in the permanence of marriage” (Teachman, 2003, p. 455) or “cohabitation changes people”. In addition there may also be apprehension that the transition from cohabitationto marriage might lead to a loss of autonomy. Research has indicated that “about one third of cohabiting men and one sixth of cohabiting women feel that they would have less autonomy if they marry their partner” (Wu, 1999, pg. 112).

Other research has looked at the importance of the transition to marriage, and argues that cohabitors have to make their behavioral adjustments and expectations after they are married, but the tendency for the couple to do that is rather weak (Schoenberger, 1992). One could presume that couples who previously cohabited would have already worked out most of the problems faced with setting up and the chores associated with a new household. They should also be more familiar with one another and would have worked out ways of dealing with each others emotions and most other adjustments that must be made when living in close proximity with another person. In these situations, transition problems should be minimal and differ from those couples who had not previously cohabited and would still have to adjust to these changes early in their marriages (Watson, 1983).

Watson (1983) also suggests an alternative explanation. “Far from being a mere rite of passage, the act of becoming formally married may have deep and quite different meaning for those who marry after cohabiting or after traditional courtship” (p. 146). For those who had not cohabited, the act of marrying is a new beginning with expectations and anticipations of new possibilities, such as setting up a new household. Since cohabitors have already established a common residence and have already defined their roles, this transition to marriage may not be seen as having the same “new beginnings,” but having to assume new responsibilities (Watson, 1983).

While no current study has determined if either interpretation completely explains the cohabitation effect (Seltzer, 2000), a 2003 study (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato) found the most support for the “experience of cohabitation perspective”. This was concluded because there was no change over time on the cohabitation effect that should have been evident due to the increased acceptance of cohabitation since the 1970s. This study also indicated that even after demographic variables were controlled for, premarital cohabitation remained significantly related to marital conflict and divorce, and negatively related to marital happiness which is consistent with the experience of cohabitation perspective.

Although much research has been done on the cohabitation effect, additional research is needed to better understand the reasoning behind decisions made by cohabiting couples to marry or separate. It “may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lastingrelationship” (Teachman, 2003). If these couples decide to marry, gaining an understanding of how and if their behavior and feelings change is also important (Seltzer, 2000).
Thus far, most research has focused on collecting data from couples and most information is collected from the female partner of the relationship. Several studies have specifically mentioned the lack of representation from the male partner (Thomson & Colella, 1992; Teachman, 2003). It is important that both males and females are represented because both have different roles, responsibilities and perspectives within a relationship. It is important to understand both the male and female point of view. In addition, “marital data (as well as other data) reported by men are considered less reliable and precise than marital data reported by women” (Wineberg, 1994, pg. 82). Since the lack of this information reduces the accuracy of relationship research, it is necessary to find a way to not only include the male perspective, but to increase the accuracy of the data collected as well.

Current evidence suggests that cohabitation changes people and those changes influence marital instability and incidence of divorce. The divorce rate is declining among first marriages but remains higher in premarital cohabitation relationships. This strongly suggests that there are significant factors within those marriages not preceded by cohabitation that cause them to be more stable. Cohabitation has become a common part of the courtship process. This process is most commonly intended to allow a couple to get to know each other in a less committed relationship, with less risk and commitment than marriage. The negative effect of cohabitation on marriage is counterintuitive, and the fact that cohabitation is so accepted is a good illustration of illusory correlation. Once again we are reminded that most intimate relationships are very complex and exactly what constitutes good marriage choices are as of yet unknown. Since we know there are many benefits associated with marriage, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the contemporary courtship process and attempt to find a more effective way to determine marital compatibility.

It has been suggested by some researchers that the cohabitation effect would decline as cohabitation became a more common part of the courtship process and began to carry less of a stigma. However, several recent studies have indicated that the cohabitation effect has remained stable over the past twenty years (Amato, Johnson, Booth & Rogers, 2003; Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). In addition, research has documented many other areas of marriage negatively affected by cohabitation.

Originally Posted by tiredmom

I’m of the school of thinking that there is not much point to marriage. If you love and are fully committed to somebody, what is the good of a marriage ceremony or certificate? DH and I got married after being together for 10 years, cohabitating for 5 of those years. We got married 5 years ago after we decided to have a child. And only then to avoid any kind of confusion or health care issues in the case of one of us getting ill. Even so, I don’t think it was really necessary as both parents would be on the birth certificate; and at our current jobs, we are allowed to place persons we cohabitate with on each other’s insurance. I still don’t wear a wedding ring (for a variety of reasons); and I kept my maiden name. So for us, the marriage certificate did not change much at all in our relationship. We had long before committed ourselves to each other and knew that we were going to be together in the long run.

That being said, most statistics would support that people who cohabitate before marriage will be more likely to divorce and more likely to have poorer quality marriages. However, I personally believe a lot of those stats are over-inflated by pro-traditional-marriage groups; and that as co-habitation becomes more and more the norm, the stats will continue to change (as they already are in some European countries).

And I refuted this already. The stats are collected by Universities and typically non-biased groups seeking answers, but not specific answers. They are not attempting to discover if cohabitation is "bad". They began by merely looking at CDC type info and began gathering more information from there. They had no agenda, but the research speaks for itself.

It also has maintained the same findings over a long period of time, since the 1980's when science began REALLY turning an eye to cohabitation and how it affects marriage.

[tiredmom]

I don’t dispute the prior statistics (though IMO, they are over repeated by traditional marriage groupds). I do believe that this is a moving target, and as I said, as co-habitation becomes more and more the norm, those statistics can and are changing.


In the highly reputable USA today there was an article addressing some of these issues.
Living together no longer 'playing house'

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.

"There's been a sea change in societal, cultural and individual acceptance of cohabitation," says Pamela Smock, a sociologist at the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. "A lot of the earlier studies were relying on data that may have been gathered in the late '80s and mid-'90s. We're talking about a moving target. The evidence is a lot more mixed."

CENSUS: More unmarried couples living together
Researchers say changing times have produced more extensive information about cohabiters and more sophisticated research methods.

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."

"Twenty or 25 years ago, if you were cohabiting and then married them, the marriage was more likely to dissolve and end in divorce," he says. "Today, that's not the case. You can cohabit with your spouse and not experience increased risk of divorce. We're making these finer distinctions that we didn't make before."

Teachman's analysis of federal data on 6,577 women whose first marriages occurred between 1970 and 1995 found that a woman who has lived only with her future spouse has no greater risk of divorce. But for women who lived with someone else in addition to the eventual husband, there is a greater risk of divorce, found the study, published in 2003.

Those aren't the only studies reflecting changes — researchers across the country, including at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota, Pennsylvania State University, Cornell University and others, are studying cohabiting couples. Among other recent findings:

• 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.

"We showed women who only cohabited with their husband had lower rates of divorce than women who didn't cohabit and went straight to marriage," Lichter says. "There seems to be less risk than if you cohabit many times or if you don't cohabit at all." An academic paper on that lower divorce risk for cohabiters is forthcoming, he says.

His research on serial cohabitation analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and found that women living with even one more man in a romantic relationship other than the eventual spouse increased divorce risk.

Sociologist Kelly Musick, also from Cornell, says the focus on cohabitation research is shifting.

"The emphasis in the cohabitation literature for a very long time was on trying to understand why couples who cohabit before marriage split up at higher rates than those who don't," she says. "More recent studies have tried to understand more about what it means and look at it more as a family form in its own right."

And I like this article:
Premarital Cohabitation’s Influence Upon Stability and Satisfaction in Subsequent Marriages

I'll just quote the end part, but the whole thing was interesting

Limitations

Constraints on previously conducted research hinder a greater understanding of martial outcome as predicted by premarital cohabitation based on methods of research, a lack of diversity in sample sizes, and perceived biases by researchers on the constructs of relationships maintained during analysis. The interpretation of cohabitation as a form of trial marriage in addition to the superficial living arrangements which mock that of married couples has produced a tendency for researches to interpret couple behaviors within the constructs of marriage instead of independently as a distinct institution. Criteria for the selection of research participants may exclude relationship factors, specifically as noted by Brines and Joyner (1999) where only legal marriages and cohabitating arrangements that survived at least one year were included in results. Additionally, individuals in their mid-thirties to late forties were excluded from much of the research and thus, because long-term cohabitation tends to delay age of marriage, the use of younger cohort samples may have produced an “upward bias in the positive effect of marital cohabitation on the risk of divorce,” (Brines & Joyner, 1999, p. 342). Also most of the data I was able to find provided no information pertaining to the development of relationship skills within cohabitation and marriage, and in the work of Teachman (2003), no evaluation of the premarital relationship histories of husbands in the analysis of effects of premarital relations on marital stability were included. Lastly, most data that I came across was confined to correlational studies on college student relationships or was based on large scale national surveys that limited the availability of attitudinal, behavioral, and basic sociodemographic variables.

Conclusion

Although a strong argument has been presented that cohabitation acts as a selective agent for people more willing to break social norms and less committed to marriage, it can be inferred that during the subsequent decades of the twenty-first century due to a rapid increase of premarital cohabitation, this institution will become less selective of people possessing specific characteristics related to martial stability. However, problems created during cohabitation pertaining to communication and division of finances and labor may continue to extend into marriage, creating an instability and dissatisfaction despite a hypothesized virtual elimination of selective agents. Overall, an emphasis on non-traditional experiences within the confines of premarital cohabitation, concrete differences in relationship dynamics that arise from marriage following cohabitation, and therefore a less predictable transition into marriage continue to shape successive satisfaction and stability.

[Lash]

Except that the last massive article I posted, with tons and tons of references were all 2002 and later.

This is all that happens. I can post hundreds of stats, articles, scientific journals, and everyone will come forward with "it's fine, I did it, you are an evil person and you must think we are all going to hell"

Cue the anecdotal stories of cohabitation

Cue the "how can you possibly ever know someone before you live together" spoken repetitively, despite the thousands of years that humans have figured out a way to marry and live "happily ever after" without cohabiting. Somehow we in the 1960's to present day can't figure out a way to do the very thing our ancestors did successfully for the last few CENTURIES.

[tiredmom]

I think there is good evidence to suggest a change in the stats:

Report: Cohabiting has little effect on marriage success 3/2/2010

Couples who live together before marriage and those who don't both have about the same chances of a successful union, according to a federal report out Tuesday that turns earlier cohabitation research on its head.
The report, by the National Center for Health Statistics, is based on the National Survey of Family Growth, a sample of almost 13,000. It provides the most detailed data on cohabitation of men and women to date.


Past research — using decades-old data — found significantly higher divorce rates for cohabitors, defined as "not married but living together with a partner of the opposite sex." But now, in an era when about two-thirds of couples who marry live together first, a different picture is emerging in which there are few differences between those who cohabit and those who don't.

Of those married 10 or more years, 60% of women and 62% of men had ever cohabited; 61% of women and 63% of men had cohabited only with the one they married. Meanwhile, 66% of women and 69% of men married 10 years had never cohabited.

Differences "are there, but they are not huge," says statistician Bill Mosher, the report's co-author.

Sociologist Pamela Smock of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor considers the data definitive. "On the basis of these numbers, there is not a negative effect of cohabitation on marriages, plain and simple," she says.

Paul Amato, a sociologist at Pennsylvania State University, says the new data suggest that "maybe the effect of premarital cohabitation is becoming less of a problem than it was in the past. If it becomes normative now, maybe it's not such a big deal."

The report takes a closer look at those who live together before marriage, including race and ethnicity, education level, upbringing and whether couples were engaged when they moved in.

"There's a real difference in the types of cohabitations out there," Mosher says. "We can show that now with these national data."

The data show that those who live together after making plans to marry or getting engaged have about the same chances of divorcing as couples who never cohabited before marriage. But those who move in together before making any clear decision to marry appear to have an increased risk of divorce.

Men who were engaged when they moved in with their future spouse had about the same odds that their marriage would last at least 10 years as those who didn't live together before the wedding: 71% for engaged men and 69% for non-cohabiting men. Among engaged women, the probability the marriage would survive for 10 years was similar (65%) to the probability for women who didn't cohabit (66%).

That's a finding Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, sees in smaller samples. For Stanley, the "nature of commitment at the time of cohabitation is what's important."

"There is a lot of interesting work being done on differences among different groups of cohabitors as to why, when and how they cohabit," he says.

But others who are firmly against cohabitation, such as Mike McManus, co-founder of Marriage Savers, a "ministry" that aims to reduce the divorce rate, calls the findings worrisome.

"I think it's going to lull some people into thinking there's no problem with living together," says McManus, co-author of Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers. "It appears to say you can cohabit and it doesn't matter, but it doesn't look at all the couples who begin cohabiting and how many of them are able to make a marriage last. It doesn't say how many marriages broke up" before 10 years.

Although the new federal data were from a 2002 survey, it's the most recent nationally representative sample of 12,571 people ages 15 to 44, including 7,643 women and 4,928 men.

Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University, says the report may quell fears of cohabitation "as a long-term substitute for marriage," as in some European countries.

"American cohabitors either marry or break up in a few years," he says.

ETA: date of publication

[Lash]

Honestly, I'm not even wasting my time on this one. I find hundreds of articles, and for some reason it's the sticky subject that never changes and this time I'm just not going through all the trouble. I'm just not. It's a subject that is a complete time waste for me to search and post. So I'll just go ahead and say "yep, you're right". This topic is the only one I find pointless to discuss on this board.

I post journal articles, you post USA today. And yet this is considered comparable and has the ability to "refute" journal articles.

I post the CDC stats, journals, and a history of science. UsaToday somehow refutes the findings of the CDC.

[*Dayna*]

I live in sin. Engaged with two kids. I'm not sure if we're going to get married, we have no plans for it right now, and we've been together for over five years.

[TheMrs]

Originally Posted by ~Dayna~

I live in sin. Engaged with two kids. I'm not sure if we're going to get married, we have no plans for it right now, and we've been together for over five years.

Doesn't being engaged indicate a plan to get married?

[Banned-magicalthinking]

DBF and I live together and have a kid a together and are not now nor do we plan to be in the forseeble future legaly wed. Is it a sin? I really don't know. So the wrong person to ask about sin. According to someone I know, it is. Though most things I do according to this person are sinful. She's got a nice long list going, and I'm pretty much going to burn. According to her.

For us, it's the right decsion. We actually didn't move in together until after I got pregnant. I was a few months along when I said "Hey, you think since me and the baby will be living here, you should live here too?", he thought that was a good plan.

I know I read an article recently saying that more couples who co-habitated prior to marriage were more likely to get divroced because they didn't take it seirously. It was just, the next step to their relationship. First you date, then you get serious, then you sleep together, then you move in. It wasn't treated seriously. For me it was actually a huge decsion to ask DBF to move in. Even though I did so casually, it was a big deal. I've never lived with anyone I dated before, and for me I take it as seirously as I would getting engaged. Which I do think happens too willy-nilly these days. I actually know someone who has been engaged four seperate times, none ending in marriage.

If my kid wants to shack up, then fine, I won't stop her...so long as she's out of high school at least. But I will talk about how seriously she needs to take the decison.