Blackteeth:
It is not OK for the girl to be his "house maid" but its OK for the guy to spend on her while she is with him right? You sound crazy.

You sound crazier who said he should spend on the gal

Americans often talk as if marriage were a private, personal relationship. But when two
people live together for their own strictly private reasons, and carve out their own, strictly
private bargain about the relationship, we call that relationship not marriage but
"cohabitation." In America, it is now more popular than ever. More men and women are
moving in together, sharing an apartment and a bed, without getting married first. The
latest Census Bureau figures show four million couples living together outside of marriage
(not counting gay couples), eight times as many as in 1970. And many more people have
cohabited than are currently doing so; recent figures show that almost two-thirds of
young adult men and women chose to cohabit first rather than marry directly.
Most cohabitations are quite short-lived; they typically last for about a year or a little
more and then are transformed into marriages or dissolve. Although many observers
expected the United States to follow the path blazed by the Nordic countries toward a
future of informal but stable relationships, this has not happened. We see no sign that
cohabitation is becoming a long-term alternative to marriage in the U.S. It has remained
a stage in the courtship process or a temporary expediency, but not typically a stable
social arrangement. Thus, by resembling marriage in some ways and differing from it in
others, cohabitation brings some but not all of the costs and benefits of marriage.
The Cohabitation Deal versus the Marriage Bargain
Cohabitation is a tentative, non-legal coresidential union. It does not require or imply a
lifetime commitment to stay together. Even if one partner expects the relationship to be
permanent, the other partner often does not. Cohabiting unions break up at a much
higher rate than marriages. Cohabitors have no responsibility for financial support of
their partner and most do not pool financial resources. Cohabitors are more likely than
married couples to both value separate leisure activities and to keep their social lives
independent. Although most cohabitors expect their relationship to be sexually exclusive,
in fact they are much less likely than husbands and wives to be monogamous.
A substantial proportion of cohabiting couples have definite plans to marry, and these
couples tend to behave like already-married couples. Others have no plans to marry and
these tentative and uncommitted relationships are bound together by the "cohabitation
deal" rather than the "marriage bargain." In fact, couples may choose cohabitation
precisely because it carries no formal constraints or responsibilities.
But the deal has costs. The tentative, impermanent, and socially unsupported nature of
cohabitation impedes the ability of this type of partnership to deliver many of the
benefits of marriage, as does the relatively separate lives typically pursued by cohabiting
partners. The uncertainty about the stability and longevity of the relationship makes both
investment in the relationship and specialization with this partner much riskier than in
marriage. Couples who expect to stay together for the very long run can develop some
skills and let others atrophy because they can count on their spouse (or partner) to fill in
where they are weak. This specialization means that couples working together in a long-
term partnership will produce more than the same people would working alone. But
cohabitation reduces the benefits and increases the costs of specializing-it is much safer
to just do everything for yourself since you don't know whether the partner you are living
with now will be around next year. So cohabiting couples typically produce less than
married couples.
The temporary and informal nature of cohabitation also makes it more difficult and
riskier for extended family to invest in and support the relationship. Parents, siblings,
friends of the partners are less likely to get to know a cohabiting partner than a spouse
and, more important, less likely to incorporate a person who remains outside "the family"
into its activities, ceremonies, and financial dealings. Parents of one member of a
cohabiting couple are ill-advised to invest in the partner emotionally or financially until
they see if the relationship will be long term. They are also ill-advised to become
attached to children of their child's cohabiting partner because their "grandparent"
relationship with that child will dissolve if the cohabitation splits up. Marriage and plans
to marry make that long-term commitment explicit and reduce the risk to families of
incorporating the son- or daughter-in-law and stepchildren.
The separateness of cohabitors' lives also reduces their usefulness as a source of support
during difficult times. Julie Brines and Kara Joyner, writing in the American Sociological
Review, argue that cohabitors tend to expect each person to be responsible for
supporting him or herself, and failure to do so threatens the relationship. The lack of
sharing typical of cohabitors disadvantages the women and their children in these
families relative to the men, because women typically earn less than men and this is
especially true for mothers.
Another drawback of cohabitation is that it seems to distance people from some
important social institutions, especially organized religion. Most formal religions
disapprove of and discourage cohabitation, making membership in religious communities
awkward for unmarried couples. The result is that individuals who enter a cohabitation
often reduce their involvement in religious activities. In contrast, people who get married
and those who become parents generally become more active. Finally, while young men
and women who define themselves as "religious" are less likely to cohabit, those who do
cohabit subsequently become less religious.
Cohabitation has become an increasingly important-but poorly delineated-context for
child rearing. One quarter of current stepfamilies involve cohabiting couples, and a
significant proportion of "single-parent" families are actually two-parent cohabiting
families. The parenting role of a cohabiting partner toward the child(ren) of the other
person is extremely vaguely defined. The non-parent partner-the man in the substantial
majority of cases-has no explicit legal, financial, supervisory, or custodial rights or
responsibilities regarding the child of his partner. This ambiguity and lack of enforceable
claims by either cohabiting partner or child makes investment in the relationship
dangerous for both parties and makes "Mom's boyfriend" a weak and shifting base from
which to discipline and guide a child.
What Cohabitation "Produces"
As the previous section showed, marriage fosters certain behavioral changes-by both the
couple and those around them-that cohabitation simply doesn't encourage: each partner
can specialize; in-laws can get involved; children and their parent's spouse can invest in
a mutual relationship; and so on. What, though, are the empirical results of these
behavioral changes, and of the many other ways in which the two options differ?
Before seeking to answer this question, it must first be acknowledged that cohabiting
couples, especially those with no plans to marry, tend to differ from married couples even
before the cohabitation begins. Living with someone rather than marrying attracts people
less committed to marriage, and less likely to be successful at it. Thus, selection of
people with less to offer a partner and less to gain from marriage accounts for some of
the poorer outcomes of cohabitors. But, as we shall see, at least some of the evidence
suggests that cohabiting itself also contributes to those outcomes.
Domestic Violence . A recent Census Bureau report speculated that perhaps so many
children were being born to unmarried mothers because women were avoiding marriage
out of fear of domestic violence and child abuse. Is this a reasonable fear? My own
analysis of data from the 1987/88 National Survey of Families and Households shows
that married people are about half as likely as cohabiting couples to say that arguments
between them and their partner had become physical in the previous year (eight percent
of married women compared to 16 percent of cohabiting women). When it comes to
"hitting, shoving, and throwing things," cohabiting couples are more than three times
more likely than the married to say things get that far out of hand. One reason
cohabitors are more violent is that they are, on average, younger and less educated. But
even after controlling for education, race, age, and gender, people who live together are
1.8 times more likely to report violent arguments than married people.
It matters a great deal, however, whether cohabiting couples have definite plans to marry.
Engaged cohabitors are no more likely to report violence than married couples, but
cohabitors with no plans to marry are twice as likely to report couple violence as either
married or engaged couples. Women in uncommitted cohabiting relationships seem to be
especially at risk of violence directed toward them. The well-being of married and
engaged cohabiting couples is substantially higher on this dimension than uncommitted
cohabiting couples. Some researchers suggest that commitment to the relationship and
to the partner reduces violence. These differentials seem to support that view.
Sex. Sex appears to be a key part of the cohabiting "deal." According to the 1992
National Health and Social Life Survey, cohabiting men and women make love on average
between seven and seven and a half times a month, or about one extra sex act a month
than married people. But cohabiting men and women are less likely than those who are
married to be monogamous, although virtually all say that they expect their relationship
to be sexually exclusive. Renata Forste and Koray Tanfer find in the National Survey of
Women that four percent of married women had a secondary sex partner compared to 20
percent of cohabiting women and 18 percent of dating women. Women's behavior
changed dramatically when they married, with a huge decline in the chances of having a
secondary sex partner. Forste and Tanfer conclude that marriage itself increases sexual
exclusivity; cohabitation is no better than "dating" on this dimension.
Housework. Women who are living with men tend to do more housework than women
living alone or with other women. A recent study by Scott South and Glenna Spitze shows
that once they take into account the presence of children and others and characteristics
of the partners, married women spend 14 hours more than married men do. Women who
are cohabiting spend about ten hours more on housework than cohabiting men. On this
dimension, then, cohabitation would seem to be a better deal for women than marriage.
Some economists, however, would argue that husbands compensate their wives for their
time in work for the family by sharing their income with them, while cohabiting women
generally don't share their partner's earnings, so they may be doing extra housework
without extra pay.
Wealth . Married couples link their fates-including their finances. This is a more attractive
proposition if one's intended has a decent income and few debts. But if not, living
together is a way to avoid taking on the debts-current or future-of the partner. It also
allows couples to avoid the "marriage penalty" in tax code-an issue for two-worker
couples with fairly equal incomes (but couples with unequal earnings could see tax
benefits if they marry and share income). Since the income of one's spouse (but not one's
cohabiting partner) is counted in determining eligibility for benefits under government
programs like Food Stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit, the implicit tax on
marriage in these programs can be very high, as Eugene Steuerle, writing in this
publication, has pointed out.
Selection of those with few resources into cohabitation-and/or the negative effects of the
cohabitation bargain-combine to leave couples who are living together with relatively
little money. LingXin Hao, writing in Social Forces, shows that among all families with
children, cohabiting couples have the lowest average level of wealth, comparable to
families headed by a single mother. Intact two-parent families and stepfamilies have the
highest level of wealth, followed at a distance by families headed by a single father.
Unlike single-parent families, cohabiting couples have two potential earners, so their very
low levels of wealth are less expected. But expected or not, they are a cause for concern,
especially for the children living in these families.
Emotional Well-Being . Marriage is, by design and agreement, for the long run. Married
people, thus, see their relationship as much more stable than cohabiting couples do. And
for any couple, thinking that the relationship is likely to break up has a dampening effect
on the spirits. The result: cohabitors show lower psychological well-being than similar
married people. Specifically, cohabitors report being more depressed and less satisfied
with life than do married people. And according to sociologist Susan Brown, worrying
that one's relationship will break up is especially distressing for cohabiting women with
children, who show quite high levels of depression as a result.
Perhaps, however, cohabiting people are more depressed because depressed and
dissatisfied people have trouble getting married. Not so, says Brown. She found that
cohabitors' higher levels of depression are not explained by their scores before the start
of the union. Rather it is a person's perception of the chances that the relationship will
break up that seems to be the chief culprit in his or her poor emotional well-being.
Divorce. People often believe that living together in a "trial marriage" will tell potential
partners something about what marriage would be like. The information gained could
help couples make good choices and avoid bad ones; cohabiting before marriage could
lead to better marriages later. Evidence from the National Survey of Families and
Households shows how widespread this belief is. Most cohabitors say that making sure
that they are compatible before marriage is an important reason that they wanted to live
together.
But a large body of recent evidence now shows quite consistently that people who
cohabit and then marry are much more likely to divorce than people who marry without
living together. An initial conclusion might be that cohabitation changes people's
attitudes in ways that make them less committed to the institution of marriage. However,
research conducted by Lee Lillard, Michael Brien, and myself shows that people who
cohabit have other characteristics that both lead them to cohabit in the first place and
make them poor marriage material. Thus, in the case of divorce, selection would seem to
account for the differences between marriage and cohabitation.
Recovering the Wheat without the Chaff
The cumulative evidence clearly suggests that compared to marriage, uncommitted
cohabitation-cohabitation by couples who are not engaged-is an inferior social
arrangement. Couples who live together with no definite plans to marry are making a
different bargain than married couples or engaged cohabitors. The bargain is very much
not marriage, and is "marriage-like" only in that couples share an active sex life and a
house or apartment. Cohabiting men tend to be quite uncommitted to the relationship;
cohabiting women with children tend to be quite uncertain about its future. Levels of
domestic violence are much higher in these couples than in either married or engaged
cohabiting couples. Children in families headed by an unmarried couple do much worse
than children in families with married parents. Uncommitted cohabitation delivers
relatively few benefits to men, women, or children. This social arrangement also probably
benefits communities less than marriage.
Clearly, the men and women who choose uncommitted cohabitation do not have the
same characteristics as those who marry without first living together or who live together
while planning their wedding. This selection into cohabitation of people less likely to
build a successful marriage seems to account for their higher chances of divorce should
they ultimately marry. But cohabitation itself seems to cause attitudes to change in ways
inimical to long-term commitment, to damage emotional well-being, and to distance
people from religious institutions and from their families. There is also some evidence
that cohabitation is less beneficial for children than marriage is. And there is some
suggestion that marriage-but not uncommitted cohabitation-reduces domestic violence.
If cohabitation is inferior to marriage, then we as a society would benefit from more of
the latter and less of the former. Encouraging marriage over cohabitation involves
undoing a whole series of legal and social changes that have undercut the privileged
status of marriage. This doesn't mean we should encourage a return to the old model of
marriage and the family. But in the justified effort to overcome the sexism and inflexibility
of the "1950s" marriage, we may have been too willing to throw the baby out with the
bathwater. If we wish to retrieve for more people the benefits that marriage delivers that
cohabitation does not, it is important to begin the process of re-privileging marriage

Life is full of choices and decisions. The
decisions you make can positively or
negatively affect the rest of your life. Back in
October 2007 I was hospitalized with
complications after giving birth to my
daughter. I had never been hospitalized before
and was not expecting a roommate. To my
surprise I had one. At first there wasn't much
conversation between the two of us, but
eventually this older lady began to open up
about her medical history and life. She began
to tell me how she doesn't have a real family.
She had been living with a man for 20 years
without the benefit of marriage. She became
sad as she described how this decision
became a reproach to her. Her partner's
children did not consider her to be their
mother figure and she does not have legal
rights to any of his benefits should he die. She
felt alone and unprotected.
Her story is like many other women in varying
degrees and situations who have given their
life to men without being legally married only
to realize that in the end they could be left
destitute. As attitudes about marriage are
forever evolving one thing remains true there
are benefits to being married and
disadvantages to living together before
marriage.
Divorce
Cohabitation , shacking up, living together,
living in sin, common law marriage; however
you call it today's younger generation view
living together as an alternative, an answer
even to the growing divorce rate in America .
Most now believe that a marriage license does
not constitute marriage. Without saying “I do”
they take on the responsibilities of married
couples such as dividing bills and household
duties.
While some couples are deciding not to get
married others are deciding to live together
before marriage to get to know their potential
spouse first. The problem with this approach
to marriage is that it is leading to more
divorces when avoiding divorce is the reason
for cohabiting in the first place. The chances
of divorce for couples living together before
marriage are 50%. Some believe that the
research is old, but with the high percentage
of divorce rate cohabiting couples are among
the 50%.
The Ring Makes All the
Difference: The Hidden
Consequences of Cohabitation
and the Strong Benefits of
Marriage
Amazon Price: $5.99
List Price: $14.99
Stop domestic violence
Source: Hibr, CC, flickr
Domestic Violence
The unfortunate state of this country economic
crisis has unmarried couples living together to
survive. Although I understand why couples
would want to live together studies show that
women are at greater risk for abuse in a
cohabitated relationship. Sometimes without
thought women are shacking up with men that
they do not know well, that have less
education, and are in bad economic
situations. The vast majority of these men do
not have the ability to be husbands even
though the women are hoping the
cohabitation would lead to marriage.
Unfortunately, studies have shown more
aggression in men in common law households
making their women partners more susceptible
to abuse in their relationship.
Breakdown of the Nuclear Family
Children that are born to cohabited parents
are more likely to become cohabiters
themselves just like their parents. The chances
that their parents will marry decreases and if
they do marry 40% end up divorce before the
child is 16. The children in this situation are
the biggest losers because they miss out on
the cohesiveness of a nuclear family unit.
More than likely they will miss out on having
fathers as the women are left to raise the
children on their own.
Depression
The National Institute for Mental Health
concludes that women cohabiters have higher
rates of depression. Worrying about the break
up of the relationship causes distress and
ultimately depression. Without the stability of
marriage women with children in this situation
are less likely to be happy with their
relationships. There is no real commitment,
which in the woman’s mind means that the
relationship could end at any time.
The benefits of marrying outweigh the
disadvantages of cohabitation. Benefits such
as true commitment, stability regarding your
relationship, spiritual unity, better mental
health, and overall happiness are far better
than the turmoil one can feel with a live in
lover according to all the studies.
It was evident in the conversation I had with
my hospital roommate; it is better to be
married to the one you love than to not have
any beneficial marital rights and the security
that marriage brings.
The Demise of the Traditional Family
More and more there appears to be a demise
of the traditional family. I personally know of a
woman that has been less the self-sufficient in
her life due to learning disabilities. She was
married twice, and now lives with her
boyfriend of more than 20 years. Her story
lends itself to a woman that wanted to be
married, but the boyfriend continued to put off
marriage.
During the more than 20 year relationship,
this woman has broken up with her partner
several times and suffered bouts of depression.
She was later diagnosed as a manic
depressive. During her brake-up she thought
she could get alimony, but there are no
common law marriage benefits in Michigan.
Truth be told, I am a realist. I recognize that
everyone does not believe in traditional
marriage as I, but I believe the benefits of
marriage outweigh the benefits of
cohabitation.

Living together before marriage means free sex. You don't need to coax her into coming over or stress yourself convincing her after taking her out to retire to your place.

That's why you have to marry her to enjoy all these benefits.

I can remember a thread that one guy was talking about his girlfriend. He said she has been crying all day since he told her that he can't marry her since she didn't get pregnant all this while they've been living together. I can't imagine the state of her kpekus.

Back when I was in school during my final year, my next door neighbor was a pre degree student and her boyfriend was living with her. The only time they didn't have sex was when one of them wasn't around. She owned the apartment. She would cook, clean and service him. I don't pray for that kind of life for my daughter.

Elantracey:


You sound crazier who said he should spend on the gal

I wonder which girl on earth will be happy with a boyfriend who refused to spend a kobo on her.
Keep deceiving yourself.

@ artisticallyart What's with the prose? Just because you're trying to prove a point?

@artisticallyart

Why that epistle above?
Ok, fine, agreed! I will not cohabitate.

If I have to read those to know why I shouldn't ... Then you win.

Chai...

sexyseun: The truth is even though majority of us here criticize it, over half of unmarried couple cohabitate. I remember when i was in school i was living with my BF, staying with him gave me a sense of direction as he was a serious and focused guy, Damn!!! that guy get principle sha.. we would wake together, pray together, go to the library together, he fixes my assignments, he advices me, he was like my elder brother,i couldnt even think of cheating on him because i had it going well, as soon as he graduated things changed and then i became SEXYSEUN.
My point is, it all boils down to the individual you are cohabitating with, marriage doesnt change anybody its just a way of telling people officially that we are cohabitating for life. I have got many couple who initially lived together and ended up as lovely husband and wife and same i had couple who went straight into marriage(after normal dating iissh) and now headed for divorce....













It all boils down to what you both decide and not Nairalander's comments

This is the only near reasonable thing u have said since u join NL. Nice one

I see nothing wrong with that...I have done it before and we lived fine it was when we were away that the problems even started...

ayoku777:

As a christian, Christ and the scriptures should be our standard for defining what is good. We just don't ask if something is good, but also if it is godly. Godly is the believers' definition of "good". And scripturally, having a "live-in" lover is wrong.

Even Jesus Christ that has paid the ultimate price for His bride, the church, with His life, and has given her the earnest of the Spirit (first gift of commitment); has not brought her home yet. They are not yet living together bodily.

It is after the wedding feast of the lamb, that Christ and His church will officially live and be together bodily through the milenial and for eternity.

I believe its best to learn the values of marriage from the one who instituted it in the first place -God; and not from what society deems acceptable now.

So living together with a partner, even a fiancé is wrong and not godly.

Are you living in 21 century or stone age? Just wondering

I support it not...just like having a birthday present weeks b4 ur birthday...marriage seals the deal

Its smh...so he wunt b eager for marriage after we've spent enof tym living 2geda shey! Nah! Nah! Nah!!

chy22:

Are you living in 21 century or stone age? Just wondering

Shuuu!! @ artisticallyart...

MOBBDEEP: Hmm, I didn't want to comment before until I saw these posts.
At least, the 2 of you were a bit objective.
People just facetiously condemn a situation, an event or act with no facts except the delusions of religion & norms, some of which ought to be scrutinized deeply to determine its essence.
After all, has the religion & norms helped in the advancement of humanity?
I'd say, with some measure of certainty, no!

This is a gray area with its pros & cons.
I remembered reading some researched papers presenting some surprising & fascinating facts about cohabitation ( can't provide link for those who would requested because it was a part of a big Psychology textbook ) :
* Divorce/Separation rate was lower among cohabiting couples compared with those who married straight in the 1st 5yrs of marriage.
* Adaptability, survival strength & maturation of characters were better among there cohabiting partners supposedly.
* It brings about stability & better support for people involve which translated to being a bit happier in reality.
Now, there will be a lot exceptions.

I'm not supporting cohabitation.
It's just that I want us to be balanced in evaluation of our beliefs & behaviours.
FEW THINGS in life & reality are OUTRIGHT COMPLETE GOOD/BAD.

And as they say, this is one of the dimensions of life where no particular route/way/belief system works for all.
Co-habitation will be inimical to some people's existence just as it brings bliss for many.
Some also have had it rough & unpleasant with starting out straight.

It seems to me that what matters most is the set of people involved.
If the people involved are supposedly GOOD (now, this is a broad definition), whatever system they use works for them. Be it cohabitation, straight-marriage, celibacy, asexual etc.
So, rather than focus on the system, we centre on the people involve.

By the way, I sense a lot of people saying bad about the cohabitation are being hypocritical.
Àbí, who are the cohabiting couples you & me see everyday?
Are they aliens? Or they don't use IT?

I put it to you it is a lie. You remember the content of the book but can't provide a link. Reasearches are not done in the air. And several other references must have been quoted.

Define objectivity for me. They shared their personal experiences, that is what is called in the academics subjective (personal involvement).

If there are delusions from the religious perspectives and you that has no delusion can't give me a source, I doubt the genuineness of your intentions and contributions to this forum.

I am for absolute abstinence. Just as I did not defile(that is the name) anyone's daughter, I would not want another person to defile my daughters(I have got a beautiful girl).

Tell me from the depth of your heart, will you want your daughters to be treated as prostitutes are treated? (No respect, no regard, no honour or glory or value attached and sometimes killed after being used).

Jesus has helped a thousand more to stay true to what is morally upright and praise worthy, get Him and get help. God bless you.

sexyseun: The truth is even though majority of us here criticize it, over half of unmarried couple cohabitate. I remember when i was in school i was living with my BF, staying with him gave me a sense of direction as he was a serious and focused guy, Damn!!! that guy get principle sha.. we would wake together, pray together, go to the library together, he fixes my assignments, he advices me, he was like my elder brother,i couldnt even think of cheating on him because i had it going well, as soon as he graduated things changed and then i became SEXYSEUN.
My point is, it all boils down to the individual you are cohabitating with, marriage doesnt change anybody its just a way of telling people officially that we are cohabitating for life. I have got many couple who initially lived together and ended up as lovely husband and wife and same i had couple who went straight into marriage(after normal dating iissh) and now headed for divorce....













It all boils down to what you both decide and not Nairalander's comments

At least you are honest.

NL girls are here shouting "not a good idea"

You only wonder because girls do it all the time. Do NL girls live on planet Mars or they are innocent? Your guess is as good as mine


Hypocrisy.

it a no no for me

btw i love the bitter truth dat sexyseun said

bustyhelen:

are u with us on this thread?

Abi ooooooooooooooo!!!!

I see no big deal if its the person I plan to marry




But just some random b1tch in my dome?


I de craze

Dexema:

Wow! That Dog looks supercute,is it urs?
NB: I may like ur dog but I don't agree wiv ur point on cohabitation. LaDies pls Don't buy dat idea xcept he picked you up from the gutter or you have serious accommoDation issues.most laDies end up aborting for the dude,get “used up“ sexually and commitment wise....and then they get DUMPED. Next tin na to come nairaland begin abuse men con dey share stories that touch the heart

thanks dearie..unfortunately he's dead. To matter-u have a point oo bt that doesn't still change the fact that any experience she has,whether pleasant or unplesant would give her a level understanding of the male folks...she gets to knw wen its best to dish out d silent treatment or to jst yell evil spirits outta him. So,I think it aint as bad as u painted it.

Misblah: thanks dearie..unfortunately he's dead. To matter-u have a point oo bt that doesn't still change the fact that any experience she has,whether pleasant or unplesant would give her a level understanding of the male folks...she gets to knw wen its best to dish out d silent treatment or to jst yell evil spirits outta him. So,I think it aint as bad as u painted it.

Aww! Hop u get anoda pet soon.
Yell the evil spirits outta him? Hahahaha
I'm sure ur guy won't ever look forward to seeing that part of u.

MOBBDEEP:



Hmm, I didn't want to comment before until I saw these posts.
At least, the 2 of you were a bit objective.
People just facetiously condemn a situation, an event or act with no facts except the delusions of religion & norms, some of which ought to be scrutinized deeply to determine its essence.
After all, has the religion & norms helped in the advancement of humanity?
I'd say, with some measure of certainty, no!

This is a gray area with its pros & cons.
I remembered reading some researched papers presenting some surprising & fascinating facts about cohabitation ( can't provide link for those who would requested because it was a part of a big Psychology textbook ) :
* Divorce/Separation rate was lower among cohabiting couples compared with those who married straight in the 1st 5yrs of marriage.
* Adaptability, survival strength & maturation of characters were better among there cohabiting partners supposedly.
* It brings about stability & better support for people involve which translated to being a bit happier in reality.
Now, there will be a lot exceptions.

I'm not supporting cohabitation.
It's just that I want us to be balanced in evaluation of our beliefs & behaviours.
FEW THINGS in life & reality are OUTRIGHT COMPLETE GOOD/BAD.

And as they say, this is one of the dimensions of life where no particular route/way/belief system works for all.
Co-habitation will be inimical to some people's existence just as it brings bliss for many.
Some also have had it rough & unpleasant with starting out straight.

It seems to me that what matters most is the set of people involved.
If the people involved are supposedly GOOD (now, this is a broad definition), whatever system they use works for them. Be it cohabitation, straight-marriage, celibacy, asexual etc.
So, rather than focus on the system, we centre on the people involve.

By the way, I sense a lot of people saying bad about the cohabitation are being hypocritical.
Àbí, who are the cohabiting couples you & me see everyday?
Are they aliens? Or they don't use IT?

Just a lil correction here not evry1 here is speaking from the religious point of view,for someone like me who had like 3 cohabiting couples as friends and all of their relationships crashed after being apart for a while. Don't also forget the promiscuous nature of males when they see nofin special in the girl anymore (especially sexually).even if it has to happen (cohabitation) it should be btw people who already have a commitment towards tying the knot not btw two relatively naïve and jobless youths which is the Case in most of our tertiary institutions.

sexyseun: The truth is even though majority of us here criticize it, over half of unmarried couple cohabitate. I remember when i was in school i was living with my BF, staying with him gave me a sense of direction as he was a serious and focused guy, Damn!!! that guy get principle sha.. we would wake together, pray together, go to the library together, he fixes my assignments, he advices me, he was like my elder brother,i couldnt even think of cheating on him because i had it going well, as soon as he graduated things changed and then i became SEXYSEUN.
My point is, it all boils down to the individual you are cohabitating with, marriage doesnt change anybody its just a way of telling people officially that we are cohabitating for life. I have got many couple who initially lived together and ended up as lovely husband and wife and same i had couple who went straight into marriage(after normal dating iissh) and now headed for divorce....













It all boils down to what you both decide and not Nairalander's comments

Nice comments

lalasticlala: In today’s world of soaring divorce rates, most couples are hesitant to commit themselves to marriage for fear of finding out that they are not really suited to be long-term partners. And yet, it is only natural that two people in a serious relationship would want to share a life together. In such a situation cohabitation or living together without being formally married may offer a middle path.

But really how good is this idea for the health of a relationship?

The biggest advantage of cohabitation before marriage is that it gives both partners a fair idea of how it would feel to be married to the person. When dating, people naturally put their best foot forward but sharing a life with the same person can turn out to be a different ballgame altogether. Living together can be a good way of getting to know about the other aspects of your partner and get a feel of the commitment and practical responsibilities that sharing a life and home demands. Cohabitation lets you know how being married is different from merely dating your partner.

Living together also provides a way of getting to know aspects of your partner which might disappoint you later. If you discover that the person you are living with is extremely irresponsible with money or that he/she has a tendency to get physically violent when upset, it is easier to exit the relationship while still cohabiting. This is because, if you are already married, there will be legal issues to sort out and in the worst case scenario, kids from the marriage to take care of, in case your partner is emotionally or physically abusive.

Nevertheless, many are of the opinion that living together before marriage does not guarantee marital happiness.
In fact, christians, especially born again ones, frown at living together before marriage.

Those that live together before marriage are called live-in-lovers.

Guys/babes, are you for or against living together before marriage?

As for me it's a Good ideal and it's not it depend on your choice, it also depend on what you believe, have seen a couple that court for Good 10yrs and they married each other and the marriage last with real love, secondly we have to hand over the relationship to God, if you're In a relationship and you both have sex if both of you have no future for each other depart, if you don't trust each other fuckoff, the most important thing is move closer to God both partners

Well, it is wrong morally(our society) and religion-wise.
So, abstinence from sex is preached.
But as an advocate for sexuality education, I will like to be realistic. A bit of intimacy shld be allowed, while defining d moral virtue- knowing ur bounds as u r unmarried. Also, u can't live-in! Why not married?
Lemme ask, why do we go into relationship? Why courting? Answering this will define a lot of things.
Is marriage all about sex? Let's be wholistic! There are a whole lot of things to knw abt each other before marriage, sex can wait! Buh if u can't hold it, play safe. Various CONTRA CAPTIVE techniques are available.

[quote
author=Elantracey]For me am totally against it , I don't need to live
with you first before I can get to know some things I can't cope with
about you , moreover you can never know someone completely , we are
going to be spending our entire life together so why the rush , it's
more irritating when the girl turns to his house maid , washing clothes
and all that .[/quote]Gbam..worse is wen after years of playing wifey,he never pops d question..*dats just too sucidial*

Dexema:

Aww! Hop u get anoda pet soon.
Yell the evil spirits outta him? Hahahaha
I'm sure ur guy won't ever look forward to seeing that part of u.

hehehe he sure wouldn't

Misblah: hehehe he sure wouldn't

(Smiles) Kindly follow back

If you are getting the milk for free why bother to buy the cow? Living together before marriage sets the wrong foundation for the marriage. The consequences might not be immediately apparent but it will tell later on. No respect or additional love can come from giving yourself so freely to a man before you perform traditional rights. There's something about the formalities of a wedding that passes across the significance of the contract being entered into by the 2 partners.

MORNDEW:
From the comments here ppl are hypocrites. Then who are the ppl practising it. Cos while i was in school many guys lived with their babe.
As for Topic, it depends on d two ppl involved. It can help or destroy the relationship. But know dis today. It takes a patient, courageos nd faithful man to live with a woman he is nt married to wen there are so many pu.s.sy to test. Yet he lives with u nd no chance to try som oda pu.s.sys. It shows he will be a faithful man.

I am living with my fiancé nw. The only thing she bugs me about is a date for wedding...

Tearg1:


I am living with my fiancé nw. The only thing she bugs me about is a date for wedding...

And God bless both of you, don't mind those stupid talking turn to housemaid, wish success in life.