Meeting DD's "partner" before they have even slept together?

[EAC12]

I realise this might sound a bit personal which is why I'm asking on an anonymous forum vs irl friends as it isn't something I would usually discuss with anyone. However I have 3 adult children and this is quite odd compared to the other 2. DD has just met her "partner"'s family (she is 23) and we are due to meet him next week they have been "dating" for about 5 months now. A joke was made with her from her sister very casually and DD replied with "oh we haven't slept together yet". Obviously that is entirely up to her but it feels quite serious to be calling him a partner and meeting each others family when they aren't even at that stage yet, surely? They went to Rome last week so I think we all assumed it was quite serious. I'm unsure if I should be encouraging her to maybe wait for the official meets and maybe not portray it in the way it is? I just worry about if it doesn't work out and it's all out in the open as much as it is. AIBU?

I agree with this. I also think one of the reasons is just the normal tendency for things to pendulum swings from one generation to the next. For our parents generation it was still rather risqué for many. Ours it was standard as the pendulum swung through the mid section, and now there is nothing exciting or trendy for the next generation about it so they tend to focus more on reasons why they might do things differently from their parents - as most generations have done for, well, generations. The sexual compatibility argument was going strong when I was at that age. Now I’m a bit older my peer group are starting to realise that actually you need a whole lot more besides for the phase of partnership where uteruses start dropping, hormones go haywire, erections flop, balls sag. And as we live longer the post sag-flop-drop phase is a bigger and bigger proportion of our lives.

Exactly. Some people still get married without having had sex. Bet that blows your mind @EAC12.

This!

/boak

There is a lot of peer pressure from when you're teen to have a boyfriend/girlfriend and to have sex. My daughter has her first boyfriend at 19 and she has abstained because she just wants to have fun and get to know him. Which is nice for her because she can figure out whether she likes him or not without getting too emotional. Who knows he might be my future son in law.

@Calliopespa

Now I’m a bit older my peer group are starting to realise that actually you need a whole lot more besides for the phase of partnership where uteruses start dropping, hormones go haywire, erections flop, balls sag. And as we live longer the post sag-flop-drop phase is a bigger and bigger proportion of our lives.

Nail on the head. Far too many people based their relationships and marriages on the "early days sex" and ignore all the other aspects, such as reliability, honesty, integrity, morality, etc. There's so much more to a lifelong relationship than the quality of the shagging in the first couple of months/years!

By 23 my DD had been on holiday with her school boyfriend, her uni boyfriend and her after uni boyfriend, who she was with a few years before breaking up. It doesn’t mean they’re getting married!

I knew them all well. Obviously she lived at home when with the first. Her uni one I met the first time I visited her, along with a lot of her new friends, and her later one just started being with her when she called in so no big “meet the parents”.

She’s 23. She probably won’t end up with this man, just accept him and make him welcome without thinking anymore about the future, no one can know if their relationship will last and you meeting him is really not a big deal.

😂

I don't think their sex life is any of your business. Maybe he's religious, and doesn't feel he wants to - or maybe they've just not been ready. I used 'partner' for my serious boyfriend at Uni, despite us NEVER sleeping together in 18 months. We went on holidays, spent nights in the same rooms, but he was a devout Catholic, and didn't want to sleep with anyone he wasn't marrying.

I'd say butt out, and if she wants you to meet him; meet him.

Nail on the head. Far too many people based their relationships and marriages on the "early days sex" and ignore all the other aspects, such as reliability, honesty, integrity, morality, etc. There's so much more to a lifelong relationship than the quality of the shagging in the first couple of months/years!

This is totally true. But to restate a point someone made earlier, the point at which you start shagging has no bearing on whether or not the relationship will survive beyond the point where you want to shag every five minutes.

A couple who shag on the first night are just as likely to remain together for 70 years as one who keep themselves as virgins for years until marriage. Despite the best efforts of moralists for decades, there is no connection whatsoever between these points.

A couple who shag on the first night are just as likely to remain together for 70 years as one who keep themselves as virgins for years until marriage. Despite the best efforts of moralists for decades, there is no connection whatsoever between these points.

Not directly but there's probably a connection between how early people shag and how likely they are to cohabit instead of/before marriage, because it implies they have less traditional values. Cohabitation before marriage is more likely to lead to divorce. Marriages between devoutly religious people (who are more likely to try and abstain before marriage) also have better outcomes.

A couple who shag on the first night are just as likely to remain together for 70 years as one who keep themselves as virgins for years until marriage.

How on earth would we know that? The number of couples who are together after 70 years is vanishingly small and out of those the number who had sex on the first night virtually non existent. Nice girls didn’t have sex outside marriage in 1953.

Meeting the family doesn't have to a big deal. My nephew met his girlfriend's family almost immediately.

Agree. I met dd's bf very early on in their relationship and she met his family very early on too. It doesn't have to mean that it's super serious!

Sleeping together does not mind either partner or the relationship is remotely serious, you sweet summer child.

Is there any evidence of those cohabiting prior to marriage being more likely to divorce? In my circle, the happy marriages are all those of us who lived together for a while first. The divorced / unhappy marriages some did, some didn't. I would think it'd more likely be the other way round, as if you live together first you already know if you actually can stand to do it long long long term.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos

Is there any evidence of those cohabiting prior to marriage being more likely to divorce? In my circle, the happy marriages are all those of us who lived together for a while first. The divorced / unhappy marriages some did, some didn't. I would think it'd more likely be the other way round, as if you live together first you already know if you actually can stand to do it long long long term.

I'm also slightly suspicious of the idea that cohabitation prior to marriage means you are more likely to lead to divorce. Where has this come from?

If this is true, and it may be true as I've heard it before, I would guess it's more reflective of attitudes to marriage and divorce than something inherent about cohabitation. It probably includes a lot of older couples for whom cohabitation pre marriage wasn't an option.

I am in my early 50s and I know literally no one who married and had kids without having cohabited first. And honestly I would strongly advise my daughter (should she want to marry) not to do so without having lived with her partner first. It seems absolutely nuts to me that you would make a theoretically lifetime commitment to live with someone and raise children with them without testing out whether you could live with them first. Being able to cohabit well is probably even more important than sexual compatibility and personality/values etc.

@porridgeisbae

Marriages between devoutly religious people (who are more likely to try and abstain before marriage) also have better outcomes.

That's probably true but it's a not a good thing as a rule. A couple in a devout religious community will face a huge amount of pressure to remain married and their personal feelings about one another are largely irrelevant. It doesn't tell you anything about the happiness of the marriage.

@Thepeopleversuswork I think the same, I'll be advising my DC the same. Seems much more practical to make sure you should commit before you do. I also know several people who married the only person they've ever slept with, a mix of before marriage and waiting until they were. There's definitely something in "try before you buy" in all aspects of life!

I totally agree on the religious pressure to remain married too. You often hear older family members (who also are often the ones who attended church regularly) saying divorce isn't the done thing. I'm not religious and personally would never have made the commitment of marriage flippantly, had to be sure about my choice of man. But, you don't know what life might throw at you, or control what your chosen partner might do, so options need to be available and not "taboo".

Good on her, it's refreshing to see.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos your Dc might only want friends with benefits and live their lives as bachelor's or spinster's.

@Carpediemmakeitcount and that'll be fine. I thought I would be that crazy lady with a lot of dogs and some "friends" til I met DH. And tbh, we both went into our relationship as a "bit of fun" then realised we actually really worked.

But if they want to get married, I'll be advising them to live together first to make sure they actually want to.

But if they want to get married, I'll be advising them to live together first to make sure they actually want to.

They'd be more likely than those who don't do that to get divorced though. So it's not a good predictor of who are suited as husband and wife.

@porridgeisbae I asked earlier if you have any evidence of that, as I'm not sure that's right, but you didnt respond that I could see. It could be one of those things where correlation is not causation. Could be nothing to do with them living together previously and everything to do with a more lax attitude to marriage. Or even just the fact there's now less stigma around divorce and "living in sin" than there used to be.

I'd be genuinely interested to see the research though. Just seems to be completely the opposite of my experience from the relationships of those in my life (and my own).

That's how it should be you can learn a lot about a person when you live with them.

@porridgeisbae yes I'm also interested in your statistic. And the 'fact' that those who have not lived together prior to marriage have better outcomes-better for who? Do you mean they are more likely to have prolonged marriages? Because I don't think I would consider that a better outcome.