Why have things changed so much (relationships)?

[NewUser2022]

Genuine question. Not being judgy but would love to know why!

When I got married, 35 years ago, no one lived together before being married (or very few.) It was called 'living in sin' if you did.
Because of circumstances, I had to end the lease on my house and move in with my fiance for a few weeks before our wedding. My parents were ashamed and didn't even like telling people.

I know this is hard to believe.

But now, the pendulum has gone the other way.

None of my friends sons or daughters get engaged while living apart in their own places, then marry. They all live together and then an engagement and wedding (might) follow at some point, even after a child arrives.

If you are under 55, you might not be aware of how dramatically things have changed over 30 years.

But what I'm asking is why?

Why does no one live separately any more and then buy/move in once they are engaged or married?

Is it really all about try before you buy, as well as not placing any value on marriage any more?

I think this is a very interesting debate.

Having lived with someone before marrying, I’m not sure of the ‘try before you buy’ argument. I think it’s far easier to fall into the trap of staying in a mediocre relationship because you live together, share a home etc etc.

I do think things are much better now though- women aren’t seen as some tragic figure if they’re divorced or unmarried.

I think it’s all related to women having more choice in how they live their lives, so it’s really just people doing what suits them, rather than adhering to social norms.

I'm glad it's changed. My mum had her first baby out of wedlock over 50 years ago. She had a terrible time as she kept the baby and never married the dad. My siblings life was impacted by this. I had my first DC out of wedlock and it was celebrated (married DH after our second child). No one should have gone through what my mum went through and others similar with many unable to keep their babies. Times had to change.

Interested to know where you grew up OP? We married in 1987 after living together. It really wasn't unusual and nobody judged us. This was in Worcestershire so not the permissive SE. Your mother's attitudes probably have far more bearing on how you felt judged, rather than society as a whole.

I have 2 adult DDs and would be concerned if they didn't live with partners before making such a huge commitment as marriage.

It’s very amusing the way the OP says she wants a conversation, but has completely ignored all the posters having an interesting and reasonable discussion and focused on picking a fight.

The pill and relatively easy and confidential access to abortion changed everything.

Before that, the risk of falling pregnant and trying to raise a child u supported was just too great. It took society a while to adapt to the new status quo.

*unsupported. Sorry!

@Bostonbullsmumma

I'm glad it's changed. My mum had her first baby out of wedlock over 50 years ago. She had a terrible time as she kept the baby and never married the dad. My siblings life was impacted by this. I had my first DC out of wedlock and it was celebrated (married DH after our second child). No one should have gone through what my mum went through and others similar with many unable to keep their babies. Times had to change.

It is so awful so many women went through this, OP.

It is also interesting (and fantastic) that the whole concept of ‘illegitimate’, a big thing for hundreds of years, people not being eligible to inherit etc, just disappeared completely.

If a royal is unmarried and has a child, are they now in the line of succession (because obvs they should be before this is misinterpreted!)

That was not my experience.

Where do you live? Or where did you live 35 years ago? Was it in a very strictly religious area?

Dh and I married in 1974 but had lived together for a couple of years previously. My parents were pretty much dyed in the wool, very traditionalist, Tory voters, but even they wouldn’t have called it ‘living in sin’ - not to me, anyway. And very likely not even between themselves. They never tried to dissuade me.

This was also in the SE.

I want to now why younger people would never do what we oldies did which was date for a while, get engaged and live apart, then marry.

Actually, it's a good idea to do that, as long as you don't move straight from parents' house to husband's (or partners'). I think everyone should have the experience of living independently before committing to live with someone.

But you seem to have confused "living with" and "having sex with". You can date someone and have sex with them and not live together.

No way would I want to marry someone who I hadn't lived with! I don't want to get married at all, but that's a different point.

Same sex marriage wasn't even possible until 2014, but I don't think you're talking about all people here, are you? Just the heterosexual ones?

I think it’s the combination pf feminism giving women options, and men still clinging on to patriarchal ideas so trying to limit women by refusing to commit as much as they can.

And it’s not just living together before marriage. In the past decade or so dating has completely changed and now includes so many mini milestones: casually dating or netflix and chill, dating but not exclusive, having sex but not exclusive, exclusive but not official, BF/GF for years, living together and having kids etc without talk of future. you get the picture. Marriage has become the last prize rather than the starting point. It feels like a woman has to prove herself at every stage in order to be promoted.

It's all been said in a variety of posts but I think it is.

1. Things are more equal now. Women are more likely to go to uni and live alone, rather than staying at home until they marry. As such it's easier and more natural to move in with a partner (without being financially reliant on them).
2. Housing is expensive and sharing is necessary. So why not share with a partner.
3. Religion has less of an influence now and the stigma around divorce has ended.

Re point 1. When me and my husband met we ended up spending every night either at his or mine as we both lived alone - so there was always an empty house and it got logistically complicated. It then makes so much more sense to just move in together - but most people would rather pay a deposit than save for a wedding than try to pay for two expensive things at once. (Assuming you have the luxury of buying).

@AmaryllisNightAndDay

When I got married, 35 years ago, no one lived together before being married (or very few.) It was called 'living in sin' if you did.

I don't know what what remote and backward corner of UK society you lived in 35 years ago, but for the rest of us, oh yes we did, and oh no it wasn't

What @AmaryllisNightAndDay said. Even though some of us have shared the opposite experience OP seems to be continuing with her narrative of it being unheard of and the comment about virginity being a 'prize' is archaic!

Your op explains why though. It was public shame.

I am older than you OP and got together with DH in the 1980s. We lived together for many years and didn't marry until well after we had children, as did many of our friends. I can't remember anyone calling it living in sin (perhaps in the 70s?) and nobody really was fussed about it. Was your family/friendship group particularly religious?

To the posters asking where I lived it was the far north west. It was a working class area, the goal for many women was to get a ring on your finger and be married. Some of us- about 20%- went to uni. I went to uni and moved many miles away, where I lived independently till I was 30. Education, being able to access uni and other training has changed things a lot for women.

But you have to take me at my word when I say that in the late 70s and early 80s, living together was frowned upon. I had no friends at all who did that, even those who went to university. It was usually date for 2- 3 years, engaged for a year or so, then marry. Yes, they were having sex, but they weren't living together.

Unmarried women we having babies in 'homes' until around 1974, so what I'm saying stacks up.

I was curious why not many still go down the 'traditional' route.

As a younger person myself, I think the traditional route sounds highly risky - I would have been much more anxious about the idea of getting married if I knew it was something that would be very hard to undo. As it stands, I am fully committed to my husband, and genuinely mean to stay married to him for life but it is reassuring to know that if he morphed into a violent drunk or started sleeping with other people that I would have the option to leave. There are many things I would work through - those are not on that list. Equally I like knowing that we actively choose to stay together. I would not want to be in a relationship where one person felt they would prefer to be alone but stayed out of a sense of duty.

It is my understanding that the "traditional" model is based around land ownership and titles, more than any sense of family stability. I don't value an emotionally unstable/unhealthy marriage, I don't believe marriage in itself lends stability to anything (except for the legal status which is important) and think it is more important for children to be in a stable, safe home with people who love them in their lives, however that looks/is structured, than it is for them to live with their biological mother and father who are married to each other. (Of course, it is nice and simple when they can have both at once).

The big, main difference I see between my parents' generation and my generation is that in the older generation (and even more so those before them), emotions are considered a personal and private matter and it is considered extremely self indulgent to allow one's emotions to affect other people, including expressing them/talking about them at all. But in my generation we don't see it like that any more - I think we have a better recognition that whether we like it or not, our emotional state has a knock on effect on our actions, it is not possible (or desirable) to keep one's emotions completely to oneself. We recognise that it is actually important to process and work through emotional baggage in order that it does not adversely affect other people, because "stiff upper lip" doesn't actually work, and our cultural understanding has changed so that talking about emotions is not making them someone else's problem. As a part of that process it means being honest about things, and that means that things like relationships sometimes won't work out because in actual fact the two people involved are happier alone. Now to my grandfather - that would be a great shame and scandal, that people let emotion get in the way of a marriage, but to me, I would celebrate (and have celebrated) when a friend has the courage to be honest and leave an unhappy, not working relationship.

Was your family/friendship group particularly religious?

Not at all. My family had 'working class values' or 'standards' as my mum used to call them.

You may not be older than me.

I was married by the early 1980s.

Unmarried women we having babies in 'homes' until around 1974, so what I'm saying stacks up.

Not where I live they weren't! I was born in 1875 to an unmarried mother. My cousin was born in 1971 to an unmarried mother. As I said in my first post many of my parents long term friends had their children before marriage/lived together. It certainly wasn't seen as sinful nor did they have their babies in 'homes' or adopted out. I'm sure it DID happen, but you're applying it to everyone and it's just not the case

Divorce rate increased rapidly from late 70s/80s. When I was at school in the 70s it was unusual to have a divorced parent, now it is entirely normal. With so many people experiencing divorce as children, no wonder they are more cautious about committing to marriage. My parents are divorced, of course I wanted to live with my husband before I married him, living through a divorce is hell.

Born in 1975, not 1875. Although there are times when I feel that old

@KurtWildesChristmasNamechange

Unmarried women we having babies in 'homes' until around 1974, so what I'm saying stacks up.

Not where I live they weren't! I was born in 1875 to an unmarried mother. My cousin was born in 1971 to an unmarried mother. As I said in my first post many of my parents long term friends had their children before marriage/lived together. It certainly wasn't seen as sinful nor did they have their babies in 'homes' or adopted out. I'm sure it DID happen, but you're applying it to everyone and it's just not the case

Are you in the guinness world records by any chance?

🤣

@Simonjt wouldn't that be something 😂

Sadly just typing without my glasses 😂

Because it's a lot cheaper to separate, if you're not compatible, if you only live together first/rent a property etc.

Nothing wrong with 'try before you buy'. And where do you live tjat nobody lived together before marriage 35 years ago? I'm 52 and lots of people did. It was quite common in 1987!