Just a thought on relationships - do we commit too soon?

[Leopardino]

I was reading Women in Love on the bus on the way home, and I had a thought on the pattern of relationships we see today, and I wonder whether we've lost something that was positive about relationships in the past.

I'll make some sweeping generalisations about how relationships were and are.

In the past, if you wanted to move in with your partner, you had to get married. Before people married, they were largely financially independent of each other. However, when people were married, divorce was frowned upon, and many people stayed in unhappy marriages. Another negative of this pattern is that you may not have known your partner as well as you might today if you'd lived with them for a few years before marriage.

On the other hand, today, many people (perhaps most) move in before they ever think of marrying, but by doing so, couples are far more committed to each other financially (they pay joint rent, or may have joint mortgages) before they're formally committed. In doing so, there's a danger that people sleepwalk into commitment. Inertia can set in, and it becomes difficult to leave an unhappy relationship.

So, I do wonder whether by losing the stigma attached to living together (a good thing), we've sleepwalk into unhappy relationships, rather than positively choose our relationships as people did when they married in the past.

Any thoughts?

How far into the past are you talking about?

Well DHLawrence I should imagine which was (his dates) 1885-1930.

It's an interesting thought. I love those books. Have you read his selected essays though? Women need to be given a pattern, they like being told how to behave, it makes them feel secure.

(Completely generalising) but I'm thinking pre and post 1960s, although I appreciate Women in Love was published in 1920ish. The point I'm making is whether we sleepwalk into our relationships, rather than make a more positive choice to commit to someone

Oh! Okay.

DH and I were engaged after 2 months, we married 18 months later (biiiiig wedding!) and moved in together when we married. Neither of us had had a serious relationship before and, although we'd bought a flat in the intervening 18 months, we didn't move into it until we were married. Both of us were still living with parents. Surely that's a bigger recipe for disaster?

It wasn't for us, 11 years and going strong but the potential was there.

i'm just picking the 1960s as the point where many liberal (and good) reforms took place in society

You might have a point, I have read studies in the past that show you are far ore likely to divorce if you live together before you marry.

I don't know, my parents were married in the 1970s (but perhaps following a more traditional paradigm) and didn't move in together until they were married, and 36 years later, are happily married.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where people moved in together soon, and are still happily married, but I wonder whether there are many in unhappy relationships who "just sort of moved in, and x years later, we're unhappy", whereas perhaps if they'd had to ask the question before they moved in "is this who I want to spend the rest of my life with?", they might not have moved in with each other

I'm not sure how financially independent women were in the 1960's. I would have thought many would still give up work once married. I feel the opposite to how you feel. I think in the 1960's women had far more pressure on them to marry (and men as well, although I think women's position in society has changed far more than men since the 1960's) I think these days people have more choice - to marry, stay single, co-habit, be in civil partnerships and probably put more thought into marriage.

My parents married in the 1960's because they were in love and wanted to have sex. To me that seems like a crazy reason to make such a bit commitment, but it made sense to them.

AKiss,

I kind of agree, I'm sort of proposing we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater, i.e. by getting rid of the stigma of living together, and having more freedom, we've paradoxically lost the sense of making positive choices

I'm not suggesting the pre-1960s were better overall

'You might have a point, I have read studies in the past that show you are far ore likely to divorce if you live together before you marry.'

People who don't live together before marriage are more likely to be religious/traditional and therefore also more likely to not believe in divorce. So rather than co-habiting being a recipe for disaster, it's down to the beliefs of those who choose not to co-habit.

i have been married 3 times, hte first 2 were far too hasty and tbh, i didnt give anything enough thought - my 3rd marriage came about 5 years after we had met, 2 years after we had begun living together, i know i got it right 3rd time!

my dm, who is in her 70s now, has told me how after she met my df, she knew she liked him but made sure he had a bit of ambition and a few goals in life before she really commited herself - i dont think this was mercenary, just practical, she came from a background where women became secretarys before marriage, then had dcs and stayed at home! thank god i wasnt bought up in the same way, i know she always resented being so dependent on my df and wanted me (as did my df!) to have a far wider life experience. my parents have now been happily married for 50 years, so maybe there was something in it!

in many ways i kind of looked at my present dh with the same eyes as mother would have done, although i have always worked, i knew he would look after me if i couldnt have done so for any reason, i knew he would treat me as an equal and a partner, we have been together for 15 years now and it looks like we will be together for a good many years yet!.

plus - my dm would never have had sex outside marriage, it was too risky pre-pill - she thinks that although the pill gave women the choice to plan their babies and gave them a freedom from erternal childbirth, that it went so far that 'young girls dont value themselves enough' - i think she may have a point but i have absolutly no idea how to redress the balance.

'I kind of agree, I'm sort of proposing we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater, i.e. by getting rid of the stigma of living together, and having more freedom, we've paradoxically lost the sense of making positive choices'

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by positive choices. Do you mean that because we now have more choices in how to live our lives that we are more likely to make a 'wrong choice'?

I do agree that women having more autonomy over their lives has led to higher divorce rates, but surely in the past women just had to accept abuse/violence/affairs/marital rape because divorce was unacceptable.

AKiss,

What I mean is that on one hand we have more freedom to make whatever choices we want (good thing).

However, because of the lack of pressure to get married, lack of stigma attached to living together before marriage (which I think are good things), a great many people don't actively positively choose "this is who I want to spend the rest of my life with", but passively move in, and then a few years down the line might be unhappy. If they'd positively had to choose their partners, they might not be together.

What I'm really advocating is

a) the freedom to make choices
b) taking on the responsibility of actively making those choices

tmmj

that's what I'm getting at, many women in particular are let down by men in this regard

Hmmm, interesting.

I think what you're saying may apply to some people who continue in long term cohabiting relationships without getting married.

However, I feel that deciding to get married is very much a positive choice, whether you are already living together or not. I don't see how people "sleepwalk" into getting married. You have to get up and make a commitment for life.

Personally I would not have wanted to marry someone unless I had lived with them first. I'm a pretty cautious person and wanted to make sure we'd seen all sides (or as many as possible) of each other before committing for life. So I would definitely not return to the days of having to get married before living together.

Minipie

I'm not advocating having to get married before living together, and I think I'm more thinking of people of might be in LTRs without marriage, but actually, I think one can sleepwalk into marriage to an extent

"well, we'd been living together for years, and it just sort of seemed the next step..."

Leopardino I never get married I always prefer to just live together. I don't think it's really that people sleepwalk into commitment. More that they cherrypick the bits of commitment they like but with an 'emergency exit' available if things go tits-up!

I also looked at this recently somewhere, with regards to women often putting up with wholly unsatisfactory relationships because they don't want to admit failure.

The whole olden day women must have virtue, we ought not to have sex with many men seems to shape the way we live, even today.

A man can go through the entire female population of a small town without any comment. he can be a bit of a bastard, a love em and leave em kind of guy and it's broadly accepted.

If a woman has A relationship and it fails, for whatever reason, even if he cheats on her or abuses her, the pressure to make the NEXT relationship work is increased, and if THAT too fails, she can often be trapped in it regardless of whether her life is in danger. Cos she can't be seen to have too many unsuccessful relationships, as it'll prove that there is something wrong with HER, even if there really isn't.

If we don't look at educating our youth as to the effects of domestic abuse, what it is, how it's done and how to spot and prevent it, our DC can be stuck in relationships, having their self esteem drained away. There was talk the other day on a thread somewhere about how Lundy Bancroft ought to be taught in schools, to increase awareness and remove the shame and secrecy that abuse needs to thrive.

All the professional couples I know who are cohabiting with children out of choice are the children of divorced parents, (usually just one of them).

I would say they are committed and loving parents but having been in the middle of horrible family break ups as children has influenced their adult choices.

Sorry -- i really like this thead! but this that's what I'm getting at, many women in particular are let down by men in this regard is niggling me.

Women are not being let down by men! They're letting themselves down if they move in with a man they'd actually rather marry. Why is it the bloke's fault??