Should Couples live together before marriage?
Wed, 2004-06-09 20:24
#1
Should Couples live together before marriage?
Wed, 2004-06-09 20:24
#2
I am putting this question in the Feminist thread because I want to look at it from a feminist perspective. ( really I want to look at everything in a feminist perspective )
I have been living with my boyfriend for 4 months. It just sort of happened. We were dating for a year and and then he worked out in the oil patch for 6 months. I missed him so much so when he came home, he moved in and we vowed to stay together forever.
We plan on getting married maybe in a year and a half or two years. We've talked about it many times.
My godmother and other Christian friends think this is a bad idea. Aside from the religion, they said that statistics show that the divorce rate is higher for people who lived together prior to marriage.
I personally don't care about divorce rates. I think I have a grip on my relationship and I prefer to live with my man first so I can see how things are, and build on our relationship in a semi unified manner.
My godmother suggested that when you live together before marriage, you don't share financially 100%, but when you get married, you should be sharing everything, but having lived together prior, you never get used to that change.
Comments please [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2004-06-09 20:58
#3
You should have asked auntie this question. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 09:30
#4
Every couple should live together for a year before deciding to get married.
.
The divorce rate would plunge to an all-time low. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 09:38
#5
Not necessarily.
Thu, 2004-06-10 09:41
#6
That isn't neccessarily true.
Evidence suggests couples who live together before marriage are more likely to experience problems and divorce after marriage.
The reasons for that are not clear. Some suggest the evidence would be different if cohabitation before marriage was more wide spread but that is speculative.
Thu, 2004-06-10 09:44
#7
My understanding is that if a couple moves in together with a clear expectation of marriage(especially with rings, wedding date, church booked)then the subsequent divorce rate is no higher than the population at large.
Thu, 2004-06-10 09:51
#8
What about if they move in together without the expectation of marriage? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:02
#9
Sine, Fang and I lived together for almost three years before we got married -- well, the first of those three years was sort of patchy, since I'd kept my own place. Anyway, we got married in 1988, but we always celebrated two anniversaries, the wedding anniversary of '88 and the Entanglement anniversary of '85. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
What can I tell ya? It worked for us. I don't think that either of us ever felt less than 100 per cent commitment, and even before we got married, we'd already figured out what sharing equally meant. Neither of those things happened in a light-bulb moment -- I guess we slid into them over some months towards the end of the patchy year -- but we had definitely made both the emotional and the practical commitments some time before we got married. And for us, they just held true -- still do, although health problems complicate the story at this point.
All the same, I would never claim that we were a model for anyone. I married Fang not because I wanted to get married in the abstract but because I felt the way you're feeling right now. I don't think that thinking about marriage in the abstract makes much sense at all, really -- it happens when two real, particular individuals just suddenly feel that they are [b]there[/b] anyway, if you know what I mean.
The divorce stats and the living-together stats probably do mean something, but something fuzzier than your elders are suggesting -- just that many people are finding traditional commitments harder to keep up, or are questioning traditional commitments. That doesn't especially bother me, although it wasn't true of me, either.
There are arranged marriages, of course, and many of those work very well, apparently -- the partners really do come to love each other, and I believe that that can happen, although you may need a supportive culture for that. I think it's true, though, that people become especially tender towards one another simply by virtue of spending a long time together -- well, either that, or they grow to detest each other, or just bore each other.
So, Sine: I take it that this means you're dropping out of BWAGA. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:02
#10
Living together with no expectation of marriage: then they would just be normal Quйbйcois. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] . Amazingly, two friends of mine actually got married last year. Both were Canadian citizens; it was not a wedding that was also for immigration purposes. Nor did they happen to be gay (as in having the right to marry denied to them for so long).
But here, where cohabitation is so prevalent, no it hasn't led to a drop in the divorce rate among couples who do wind up getting married, and marriage or not, among long-term couples or families with children.
I don't necessarily agree with your godmother that couples should necessarily share everything financially after marriage. It is important to be fair and kind but I don't think fairness and kindness necessarily mean sharing everything.
[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: lagatta ]
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:11
#11
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]What about if they move in together without the expectation of marriage? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Hmmn. Are we talking Peter Pan Syndrome here, josh?
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:16
#12
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[b]Hmmn. Are we talking Peter Pan Syndrome here, josh?[/b]
Skdadl...does that mean that people who want to live together for good instead of getting married at some point are doing so because they don't wanna grow up? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
If I were going to cohabit again, I'd do so without marriage, at least for the first year or two. And maybe for good. It's much easier, legally speaking, to go back to single again from a cohabiting relationship than it is from a marriage, should that step be necessary.
Also, in the first living-together arrangement I had, it gave me a chance, before I got married, to realize that I didn't want to spend the rest of my life with him, and therefore we didn't go through with our planned wedding. But with my husband, by the time we realized we were bad for each other, we were married with a child.
Of course, that doesn't mean that people won't live together first and still get married even if they're not well suited. It's not a surefire cure for divorce. Nothing is.
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:25
#13
My husband and I lived together as renters for a while, and then bought a house together before we were married. It wasn't getting married that altered our relationship, it was the financial committment of home ownership and joint accounts that requires a whole other level of negotiating and intimacy, that you just don't get living together. I think that altered our whole relationship and took some getting used to. I wonder if this is a big factor. Living together, you often retain, mine and yours.
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:26
#14
Yes, skdadl, I did find that an odd comment. I think the reason the "not getting married at all rate" is so much higher here than just about anywhere else in the world is a long term reaction against the Church. Certainly, if people have a child together or material commitments, it is not a case of not being "serious".
The only reason I'd get married is for immigration purposes - not talking about a phoney marriage but since it would be just about the only way either the other person or myself could emigrate/immigrate at our age. If not, with no child involved, it just strikes me as a hassle if things don't work out. But it depends on the social context - here not getting married is so widespread that a non-married spouse is really seen in the same light, in terms of matters of medical consent and such.
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:27
#15
Yeah. It's that "maintaining mine and yours" thing that I find the most charming about cohabiting, actually. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:30
#16
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[b]Hmmn. Are we talking Peter Pan Syndrome here, josh?[/b]
No. Just curious as to whether there are any divorce statistics on people who move in together without marriage being on the table, and then end up getting married.
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:38
#17
1. Make SURE about medical consent and such. Believe me, you don't want that left fuzzy.
2. Michelle, it's true that to women of my and lagatta's cohort (and gee, josh, that would be your cohort too, eh? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ), that expression, when first it was used, was applied almost exclusively to the guys. The assumption was that it was the guys who commonly had cold feet, feared commitment, etc, while the grils were just so eager to be nest-building right after the first kiss. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Yes, those are stereotypes and sexist -- except we all grew up with those stereotypes in a culture drenched in sexism, so to a considerable degree, they were self-fulfilling prophecies about the roles people really played out. I mean, I did know guys who were cartoon-perfect Peter Pans. We all did.
And those are the guys who suddenly discovered, in their mid-forties, what one of them called (in a G&M column about ten years ago) his "bread-winner instinct" (yee hee hee hee hee hee) -- at which point they all went out and married thirty-yr-old women, since their contemporaries were ... etc etc etc.
I mean, it was a syndrome. Pretty much. I tend to assume that you younger chicks are much more liberated than many of us were, so you tell me: is it true that those stereotypes just don't make sense any more?
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:39
#18
I think statistics on whether people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce later are meaningless anyhow.
I don't think it's just the act of living together that makes a couple more likely to divorce later, and I don't think divorce is the big tragedy it's made out to be anyhow. I think it has more to do with the person's attitude toward relationships. I think people who are open to living together before marriage are people who are less traditionalist about relationships. They're less likely to be people who think it's their holy duty to stay in a miserable marriage for the rest of their lives because "we vowed it before God". They're probably more likely to see relationships as things that grow and change and sometimes need to end.
I think that has more to do with why people who live together first might have a higher rate of divorce than people who live together only after they get married.
Thu, 2004-06-10 10:40
#19
Mrs. Magoo and I moved in together out of necessity — her lease was up, she was short on cash, we'd been dating (etc.) for quite a while, and our apartments were within 2 minutes walk of each other. So we said "why keep two apartments if you're always here or I'm always there?".
14 years later and we're still living together. Will we marry? Maybe, just for the fun of it. But at this point it's not going to be a big event, culminating in consummating the relationship or anything. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
And as for sharing, I think we do things exactly as we would if we were "officially" married as opposed to C-L. We have separate bank accounts, but we move money around as needed. I think we file a joint tax return (or else swap credits) and everything else falls where it may (chores, groceries, etc.)
Thu, 2004-06-10 11:41
#20
Personally I wouldn't live with anyone beofre marriage - I did it the first time. But then right now I'm not sure I want to live with anyone. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] I am enjoying my own space so much.
But I think your godmother is right about thinking about the financial arrangements. It seems that in a lot of incidences women end up paying 100 per cent (I know 3 women who did that or are doing that) of house, groceries etc., In one case, the minute the guy moved in he quit his job - looking ofr something better yah right. Anyhow, it took her 5 years to see that she was just being used, and the loser she was with wasn't going to ever get a job, and kick his sorry butt to the curb.
Not to say your guy is like this. But I think that you have to be very clear about the financial arrangement from the beginning.
Thu, 2004-06-10 13:02
#21
Timebandit
My feeling is that this question depends a lot on how you define marriage.
When the blond guy and I decided to cohabit, there was a very practical reason -- her name is Ms B, and we found out she was on the way about 6 weeks into our dating relationship. Since we both wanted to be parents and were pretty compatible (not to mention dippy about each other), moving in together seemed like the most sensible and natural thing to do. The idea of marriage came up briefly, and we decided against it, for the time being.
We got married when Ms B was about 10 months old. For us, the marriage began a year and a half before the wedding. We just formalized it, and had a really nice party. It's not the trappings, it's the commitment.
We also shared a joint bank account and the house I had bought when I was single. We've always shared all the financial stuff. I think that if you can't entirely trust somebody with money, you shouldn't marry him/her.
This is the second marriage for both the blond guy and I. We both had ill-advised but brief marriages in our early twenties. We both left with our previous marriages with very little -- he, what he could load into his van (this included his motocross bike and gear, so there wasn't room for much else), and me, a VW beetle, my grandfather's desk and a wicker chair. Neither of us really cares about stuff enough to be dangerous in the money department.
I will say this: My first marriage, we didn't live together. That was a mistake, because I likely wouldn't have gotten married. I stayed two years longer than I would have if there hadn't been a ring and a public commitment -- that's too long to spend with somebody who really doesn't like you. I think living together is a good idea for some people, as long as both of you are up front with your expectations and needs. But then, that also works in the context of dating and/or marriage.
Thu, 2004-06-10 13:22
#22
Kuba, what I found is that if you get stuck with a dud like that, it's a lot easier to "kick him to the curb" when you're not legally married to him. So really, I think your story supports common law rather than legal marriage.
Thu, 2004-06-10 13:37
#23
In B.C., and probably in other provinces, the useless bum you've lived with (or the useless floozie or whatever) is deemed to be a spouse under the Estate Administration Act. So, if you've got a couple million tucked away, don't die without leaving a will. Otherwise that useless bum whom you were about to kick out will get all that money. And even with a will, that useless bum would be able to contest the will if his common law spouse left him out.
Thu, 2004-06-10 13:42
#24
I was under the impression that division of assets was different with CL spouses than with married spouses.
Thu, 2004-06-10 13:49
#25
Minimal and Michelle,
I believe that in most provinces after a certain number of years the useless bum or bummette becomes a spouse for the purposes of the law. I've heard 6 months and one year alternatively thrown around. Of course, the in house lawyer would know more than me.
The woman I know in Alberta has checked with a lawyer, and he is a spouse, as they've lived together for 3 years I believe. And if I heard her right he's entitled to half of her condo in Whistler, and half of her house in Calgary. Of course, she would get half of his business but since he doesn't work at it its not worth much anyhow. But I think she may be responsible for his debts too. Also we pals were wondering if he could sue for child support (he he - I mean spousal support -- they have no kids - but he's a 12 year old in my opinion). She's a Dr., so she could end up supporting him we were thinking. All very sad. But she hasn't left yet, so .... ????
I think married or common law you have to keep your financial head up.
Thu, 2004-06-10 13:53
#26
Yes, but here in Ontario, if you dump the bum or bummette, and you've been supporting him or her as their common law spouse, the division of assets is not 50/50. That is a commonly held misconception, that the laws for married people "kick in" after a period of cohabiting.
For instance, if I own a house, and some guy moves in with me, and I continue to make all the payments on the house, and he does not contribute to the upkeep of the home or to the financial end of the relationship, then when we break up, he doesn't get 50% of our assets accumulated. Whereas if we were married, he would.
Wilfred Day can correct me if I'm wrong - I think he knows something about it, we were discussing this in another thread at some point as well.
Thu, 2004-06-10 14:01
#27
This is a direct quote from the B.C. Estate Administration Act:
"common law spouse" means either
(a) a person who is united to another person by a marriage that, although not a legal marriage, is valid by common law, or
(b) a person who has lived and cohabited with another person in a marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender, for a period of at least 2 years immediately before the other person’s death;
Thu, 2004-06-10 14:06
#28
Michelle is right, at least for Ontario couples. My mate and I have been co-habiting for 10 years. After a little bit of real estate shuffling, our lawyer informed her that her ownership of anything has gone from 50% to 0. We will be getting married in August to remedy the situation.
Thu, 2004-06-10 15:00
#29
quote:
After a little bit of real estate shuffling, our lawyer informed her that her ownership of anything has gone from 50% to 0.
WOW. Marital laws are different everywhere and everyone's circumstances are different. Best advise see a lawyer probably before you cohabitate so you know exactly where you stand. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 15:51
#30
My partner and I have been together for 2 years but only fully living together for a couple of months. I think it's important to live with someone, even for a short period of time, before tying the know, to find out if you can actually stand one another. Think about every good friend you've had who, once they became a roommate, became intolerable. Then multiply that by the emotional intensity of a love affair. It doesn't matter how much people love one another, if they can't stand being under the same roof, it may not be a match made in heaven.
That being said, I'm prodding my beloved towards formal marriage. Partly because I'm a sucker for a poofy white dress but ultimately because, as others have described, the rules for common law and legally married spouses are different. A legally married spouse has more rights in the relationship. If, God(s) forbid, something dreadful happened to my partner today, her parents would have me out the door in less time than it takes to say "homophobia". I'd have no power over what happened to her, no access to her, nada. She wants to put it all in writing, have a lawyer write up our wills, our power of attorney, etc...but I don't think that all the papers in the world carry the weight of one certificate of marriage.
Thu, 2004-06-10 16:22
#31
quote:
I believe that in most provinces after a certain number of years the useless bum or bummette becomes a spouse for the purposes of the law.
For some purposes, but not for others. Supreme Court said last year in a decision called Walsh that each one of the provincial matrimonial property acts applied only to married people and not co-habiting bums and bumettes. As to the date that you get to divvy up the matrimonial loot, that DOES differ from province to province.
[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: beibhnn ]
Thu, 2004-06-10 17:15
#32
My partner and I have co-habitated for 13yrs now as common-law simply on principle. We both see marriage as a tired old (however valid or legally binding) patriarchal institution based on outdated religious dogma and/or ideals that simply have no bearing on our personal lives whatsoever. We know who we are (a big reason it works for us) and have a relationship based on trust. It works for us.
There are legal considerations as we have 2 children. Any assets to divide or secure would be done in good faith. That's not to say this good ol' patriarchal system can't or won't screw us in the end, but like I said, it's the principle of the thing. And it's what we're comfortable with. Aside from some of Michelles insightful comments, one could easily forget that this is a thread devoted to feminist issues. (Sorry - this coming from a priveledged white middle class rabble-rouser). But as someone who supports feminism and believes in change, I'm a little shocked that no one here seems to have a problem with marriage on principle?
(that goes for same sex coupling as well, although I do support it.)
Thu, 2004-06-10 18:00
#33
Timebandit
I look at marriage as a partnership of two equals. One can have a marriage in the traditional, patriarchal way, or one can create a less traditional partnership. I don't see marriage and patriarchy as inextricably entwined.
The blond guy and I are both the marrying kind -- we strongly believe in the legal bond, as well as wanting the kind of public declaration of the commitment we've made to one another.
I also think that if one chooses a traditional relationship, as long as it is an informed choice, that this is no less feminist than choosing to have a non-traditional relationship. It is having the choice, not the pattern chosen, that relates to feminism.
(edited for typo)
[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]
Thu, 2004-06-10 18:20
#34
quote:
If, God(s) forbid, something dreadful happened to my partner today, her parents would have me out the door in less time than it takes to say "homophobia". I'd have no power over what happened to her, no access to her, nada. She wants to put it all in writing, have a lawyer write up our wills, our power of attorney, etc...but I don't think that all the papers in the world carry the weight of one certificate of marriage.
Yup.
And that is just the practical side. (NEVER discount the importance of the practical side.)
Only once in my life have I ever met anyone who could make me feel freer living with him than I could feel on my Peter Pan own, and Reader, I married him. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
I know that that's lucky. Maybe because I was so prickly for so long, I made part of that luck -- ie, I resisted even living with anyone until I already knew that it would make me even freer.
To me, love should make you freer. Get married; don't get married -- that's not the deep spiritual issue (although it may be a political and/or an economic issue). The great secret of freedom, I think, is that it is great when you get it for yourself, but if you can find it with someone else, it is great great greater!
Thu, 2004-06-10 18:22
#35
PS: Do get the PA. When someone gets sick, the marriage certificate isn't enough. You need the PA.
Thu, 2004-06-10 18:53
#36
Yes yes the PA is essential. But then in BC I think its called something else. And depending on the PA's wording it might not help if he gets sick. Some have no force after a person is not mentally fit.
Marriage, PAs, death its all so confusing. Sometimes I think if the government wasn't involved in people's lives so much things would be simplier, or more complex.
Thu, 2004-06-10 18:58
#37
Well, there is indeed a further step after someone becomes (in Ontario) "incapable," but that process is done with the person who has the PA.
Doctors don't like to do these things, and I don't blame them -- these forms and categories are legal ones, not medical ones, and a lot of doctors will not help when you need them to. But some kinds of social workers can do the declaration of "incapacity." And if you've already sat down and talked through the PA with the person you love and a lawyer, then it becomes that much easier to take all further steps.
Yes, it is awful to have to do these things. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2004-06-10 19:16
#38
Skdadl folks who do the hard things, earn a great deal of respect in my eyes. In my past life I saw so much abuse of seniors and the disabled it made me terribly sad. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Sometimes it could have been prevented with a PA, sometimes not. Relatives, you can't pick 'em -- lock the little old lady up and take off with the cash. The home would phone us to see what we could do. Unfortunately the RCMP in all the cases I ever worked on refused to take any actions against the one who took the money.
Thu, 2004-06-10 19:28
#39
I know, kuba. I know. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Some of what I've watched over the last year or so has made me think very very seriously about whom I give my PA to. I still haven't made up my mind.
Sometimes, even love isn't all you need. You need to find someone who is both smart and loves you unreservedly. Unfortunately, ... [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 10 June 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
Thu, 2004-06-10 21:28
#40
Or, find someone whose life is guided by principles you respect, and who's had the conviction to adhere to them under pressure. Principles, whether they come from religion or reason, work when intelligence and love falter.
This is one of the reasons I so appreciated [i]Les Invasions Barbares[/i].
Fri, 2004-06-11 00:30
#41
In Ontario, there is NO legislateed sharing of assets without marriage.
Rights to support kick in afer 3 years of co-habitation or the birth of a chile of the union.
People have these vague notions about "common-law marriage", (there is no such thing) and "legal separation" (again, no such thing, but neither is there such a thing as an illegal separation).
I find it amazing that there is so much mistaken "wisdom" that continues to float around out there.
Fri, 2004-06-11 01:33
#42
Thanks for all the thoughts. That's the best thing about rabble.
Skdadl said
quote:
I mean, it was a syndrome. Pretty much. I tend to assume that you younger chicks are much more liberated than many of us were, so you tell me: is it true that those stereotypes just don't make sense any more?
I think the "stereotypes" are still live and kicking. Why? I am not sure. Media? Friends?
I am at the age where a lot of my friends are getting married. The ones who aren't engaged yet are green with envy and pushing their spouses to pop the question. Women still don't want to do the asking. It seems less romantic.
I did tell my boyfriend that I do not want to buy a condo with him until we are married but the temptation is high. The buying is good right now and together, we can make it happen. Single, we can't really.
He has the downpayment money, I have the stable job to pay the mortgage if he loses his job in the oncoming volatile oil industry...
I don't want to be one of those women with a house, wondering when she will be proposed to.
It seems like if we lived in the old fashioned world, the whole "proper" courtship of dating, no pre-marital sex ( as if that really ever happened ), proposal, marriage, children thing would be so easy.
Nowdays it is so convuluted.
I am trying to do what I want to do, with a little advice. I think marriage is rather patriarchial, but it is also hammered into our young minds when we are playing with the God awful barbie dolls. Why can't I shake it?
Fri, 2004-06-11 09:23
#43
You're in love -- first thought that pops into my mind. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Love can be dangerous, but it's so wonderful when it's going well. I hope you are mostly enjoying it right now, even as you work through these issues. As Michelle says, nothing is a guarantee against the collapse of a relationship/marriage, and ending a relationship/marriage isn't even necessarily a bad thing, or always an excruciating thing ... although I suspect it's that more often than not.
It is hard to see clearly when you're "in" love. But you're doing your best, it seems to me. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2004-06-11 10:02
#44
Thanks.
Fri, 2004-06-11 10:14
#45
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[b]As Michelle says, nothing is a guarantee against the collapse of a relationship/marriage, and ending a relationship/marriage isn't even necessarily a bad thing, or always an excruciating thing ... although I suspect it's that more often than not.[/b]
Oh, it's excruciating, but when you're ready to get divorced, then divorce is a good thing.
Fri, 2004-06-11 10:52
#46
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Aside from the religion, they said that statistics show that the divorce rate is higher for people who lived together prior to marriage.
I think this is very easily explained. The more liberally-minded people who would consider living together are also those who are more open to the concept of divorce.
My lifemate and I lived together for six months before running off to elope on vacation. And though we are approaching seventeen generally blissful years of marriage, the topic of divorce has come up a couple of times when we hit an impasse - always by my wife. Why? I believe it's because it's worked for her in the past. She's been previously (unhappily) married and (happily) divorced, and it's always an option for her.
Luckily for us, it's not that easy for me (and in case you're wondering - yes, she has told me she's glad of that).
Fri, 2004-06-11 11:54
#47
quote:
I am at the age where a lot of my friends are getting married. The ones who aren't engaged yet are green with envy and pushing their spouses to pop the question. Women still don't want to do the asking. It seems less romantic.
I know of two women exactly like that. In one case, she had to be the first in her high school class to get married. I thought that ridiculous, but admit I don't like him.
The other couple is getting amrried July 3. He says she pressured him into the ring, and now the marriage. Well if you're so spineless!!!!!!!!! Oh, and he's telling everyone he doesn' t love her. What a catch. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
As for me the first time I married for love, the next time I fully expect to marry for money. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Which considering none of the men I am attracted to have any --- how much are those lottery tickets now. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2004-06-11 14:20
#48
kuba, my mother always said that it was just as easy to love a rich man as a poor one. I've failed to demonstrate that myself (by loving a woman!) so you'll have to get back to us with the results of your research.
Fri, 2004-06-11 14:29
#49
I wonder if its because society drums it into women that we have to look after men, and men without money need so much more looking after.
Fri, 2004-06-11 17:30
#50
I suspect that the reason for getting married has more to do with divorce rates than anything else.
Arborwoman and I lived together for 5 years before getting married. Others do it quickly.
Some couples live together, hit a rocky patch and think marriage will solve that. It won't. A depressingly large number of women I have known still seem to think that a wedding and a husband will solve all of their problems. Men are sometimes similar, but I guess I can't be sure (cause men never tried to ensnare me).
This is not to say that all women, or even most, think that way. I have no idea. Just that many of the otherwise quite aware and feministic women I have known go bananas for a wedding dress, as if it has meaning in itself. Depressing because it shows how far feminism, and society, has a long way to go before we see and treat marriage like what it is, rather than a chance to be royalty for a day.
No way would I have ever married someone without seeing how we do in close quarters over time. But I'm cautious by nature.
Fri, 2004-06-11 21:01
#51
Agent 204
My ex often said that it should be made harder to get married and easier to get divorced. Maybe she's right; apparently a marriage license is much cheaper than a divorce, thus making it a lot easier to make a mistake than to correct it.
Then again, maybe I should have taken the hint and not moved halfway across the country for the sake of the relationship... [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]