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 situations like this, where some people are adamant that something was different from how others perceive it, you should just look at what was being shown on Eastenders in the 80’s 🤣

I remember Pauline was talked about for having a baby so late in life..she was only in her 40’s wasn’t she?
Don’t recall any unmarried couples living together? I was quite young so happy to be corrected.

I also remember reading an article about Scot and Charlene’s wedding in Neighbours and the producers decided to marry them off because a couple living together in 1988 was too shocking for viewers and I think they’d been receiving complaints.

So although I believe some of you and your parents were fine living together unmarried, I think broadly it was frowned upon in society.

Saying that, I had a friend whose parents never married, and this was the 1980’s. They were also a mixed race couple, and I think they got more grief for that than not being married.

So although I believe some of you and your parents were fine living together unmarried, I think broadly it was frowned upon in society.

You believe us? That's ban odd way if putting it. Like we may be lying?!?

EastEnders and Neighbours? Really?

Not Mork and Mindy? 😃

We are all telling the truth. But it seems clear from the discussion that the change has happened over a much longer time period than the 35 years that you first claimed, and that it also happened very patchily across UK society

Exactly.

In this economy it makes sense for people to cohabit with someone they like and/or love. Rent and mortgages are expensive in a decent area let alone in big cities and sometimes people don't feel comfortable living with friends or in shared accommodation so a partner feels better.

Marriage isn't important to some people. For me, it was important, so after cohabiting and having kids we got married. But we did live together and have kids for many years beforehand. We're one of the ones who have worked out but I know lots of friends who've had children and have been married and are now divorced alongside friends who were not married with kids and have broken up.

People may not have lived together before marriage in our time, but that doesn't mean that people didn't have sex or babies weren't born out of wedlock. It just means that the unmarried mothers were locked up in institutions (at least, here in Ireland) and their babies were sold for adoption. Leading to untold social problems down the line. The men who had fathered these babies just carried on with their lives.

As for marriage, I valued it but my Ex didn't. I did all the 'right' things but my Ex left me and I'm now a single parent. Marriage doesn't offer any guarantees.

I think there’s a class factor at play here from what you say - if you were middle class in the early/mid 80s it wasn’t unusual at all to live together short term before you married. It also wasn’t that unusual - although it was unconventional - for couples to live together longer term, although they were often older/post divorce. I don’t remember anyone getting excited or upset about this. Living in sin would have been an old fashioned jokey phrase. Illegitimacy was more of a thing, and it usually meant you’d had children too young and thus were perceived as screwing up your life.

So I think all that’s happened OP is a MC lifestyle has spread up and down (as often happens), marrying later, both partners wanting to develop their careers and the cost of housing will all play a part. Plus the fact that marrying someone before you’ve lived together would feel odd and high risk these days.

I’d avoid the phrase try before you buy BTW - I know you don’t mean it, but it does sound sniffy and judgey, as if people are selling themselves short or are commodities.

I situations like this, where some people are adamant that something was different from how others perceive it, you should just look at what was being shown on Eastenders in the 80’s

If it didn't happen on EastEnders it didn't happen! If you make drama about two people moving in together you either make it contentious - someone in the family says they are living in sin! - or to have a big family wedding. Just having them quietly do what everyone else does is not drama.

And when they are not out to make a high-profile plot point, mass market soap operas are usually more socially conservative than the societies they represent. Even more so if they have a huge international market or have sponsors.

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

On the contrary - I think putting that time in beforehand is about valuing marriage. It's about properly getting to know each other before you make such a serious commitment. Even when I lived with friends as younger I found it completely changed our relationships compared with simply seeing each other socially before. Some friends found they were simply not compatible when they had got on so well before.

Interesting thread, for revealing current atttitudes, as much as explanations for the past.

It is one thing to muse about the past or change over time, in an objective and observational way, and another to make judgements about behaviours.

My observation is that there have certainly been changes, but as with all things, it isn’t linear or constant. Change occurs gradually and not at a constant rate or in all places.

Some people have always lived together outside marriage. In the distant past they often pretended to be married when they weren’t. In some geographical areas or amongst some groups, doing this became more socially acceptable sooner, whilst in other areas it was frowned upon for much longer. And of course, even in one geographical area, some groups would be accepting and others less so. Even amongst class groups there will be variations in attitude. This could be for religious reasons or economic reasons or due to family attitude.

It is possible for generalisations to be true (as long as we accept they are generalisations and do t apply to everyone or everywhere) and also the more nuanced comments about places and times and groups to be true at the same time, even when they contradict each other. They are not commenting on exactly the same thing.

As I mentioned upthread, the thing I find more interesting what is happening now. Marriage is very widespread in some groups (mostly middle class and more educated) and far far less common amongst the working class and less educated. In the past, marriage was popular amongst all groups. Why the change?

So yes, marriage as a whole has declined, but when you break down the stats a bit more, you see it hasn’t declined much amongst some groups, but hugely amongst others. The causes and control sequences if this are interesting I think. It’s the kid. If thing the writers of Freakonomics might look at…seeing correlation rather than causation and consequence I suspect.

The comments about change happening and occurring patchily across the UK, apply to changes happening now too.

Think about attitudes towards race, or sexuality. We know change takes a very long time to become widespread. There are always some people in the vanguard of changed attitudes, who are criticised by the majority, but that gradually becomes the norm and those in the rearguard then get criticised.

Whether change is a good thing or not is a different issue…and that’s a value-judgement. Change in itself isnt necessarily good or bad. The reason this thread has become a bit heated is because people have shifted from our Ely looking at what has happened and why, to making judgements about if it’s a good thing or not. The variety of comments in itself shows how patchy changed attitudes are even today.

When Dh and I got together we weren’t thinking about marriage. We wanted to live together but marriage wasn’t on the cards. We eventually did marry.

And a massive one for us, we are not religious so living in sin wasn’t a thing. Technically I was already married so god probably hated me.
If I got struck down with lightning for having amazing unmarried sex so be it, it was worth it.

There's no real need to be so spiky about it!

I wasn't spikey at all. You said it didn't happen, I countered to say it certainly did where I lived.

Judgment I think had a lot to do with it.

@KatherineJaneway

There's no real need to be so spiky about it!

I wasn't spikey at all. You said it didn't happen, I countered to say it certainly did where I lived.

OK. The phrasing seemed a bit pointed. The curse of the written word and the difficulty inherent in a linear forum, when you can't see any indication what what a single poster has posted.

Apologies!

Like fuck would I marry someone without living with them first

Marriage has never been about protecting women and I’m surprised anyone still thinks it is. Marriage is a historical legal institution aimed at ensuring men’s ownership of their wife’s sexuality, their paternity of their children and therefore their patriarchal line of inheritance. Nowadays, for women married to high earning home owners, marriage may confer some property and spousal provision on divorce as a byproduct of the institution; women married to low or average earners and who rented during the marriage are almost invariably left with nothing on divorce. Their marriage hasn’t offered them any protection from anything.

Some people still marry without living together first.

Also, as I have said several times now, living together first doesn't particularly seem to make for happy successful marriages does it? The divorce rate is still pretty high.

The people who marry without living together first nowadays tend to be almost exclusively from religious and traditional backgrounds where divorce and single parenthood still carries enough stigma (and where women are more often expected to be financially dependent on their husbands) that we’d never really know if their marriage was happy and successful: the modern divorce rate reflects that people (and particularly women) have gained enough financial agency and that mainstream attitudes towards divorce have changed significantly enough that they see it as an option, rather than that not living together before marriage made for a more successful and sustainable pattern.

Good post, @ComtesseDeSpair.

it's far more sensible to check you're actually compatible with each other by living together before you get married isn't it