How long should you date before you get married?

[azzaman333]

As long as it takes before you are comfortable enough with the person to feel like you should be together for the rest of your life. Most people rush into marriage too quickly IMO.

 

[Brighteye]

You can't deduce from stats about how many couples of what type break up what you should do with your partner.
The cause is not the cohabitation, but almost certainly factors that go along with it: the couple's attitude to marriage, conservatism, financial independence and so on. If you fulfill all the criteria for splitting up but see these stats about cohabitation and choose not to live together you're not going to save your marriage/relationship.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

For the purposes of this question, lets discuss the absolute min. time difference between starting dating, and becoming engaged. The length of the engagement can be variable. I know its different for every person blah blah blah, but do you think there is some sort of hard and fast rule?

Also, do you think cohabitation should be a prerequisite? Your thoughts!

Poll coming

It doesn't take that long to learn enough about a partner to decide to marry him/her. After about a year, or less, one has likely learned enough of what one needs to know to make such a decision. This doesn't mean that you should get married within a year, but at least have a general idea and plan in mind.

 

[Perfection]

There are plenty of links that reference several studies done in this area. Here is a link that lists several: http://www.geocities.com/maggi19/sex/cohabitation.htm

In turn, I just need to ask....do you have any studies that show co-habitation before marriage is an actual benefit?

You make three big errors here:
1. You fail to put articles in greater context
2. You presume correlation indicates causation
3. You presume that divorce rates are a good yardstick for success

Let's go through these one by one.


1. You fail to put articles in greater context

Quick googling reveals an article that shows it's beneficial: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm

I'm not saying I back the article, I'm just saying that they do exist. You can't trust maggi19 to put a balanced selection of articles on her site!

It's generally a bad idea to put your faith into a single scientific article or a list compiled by those with an ideological axe to grind, especially in medicine and social situations. If you really want to get at the truth here, you need to look across many different articles on all "sides" of the issue and give them a heavy skeptical analysis and maybe you'll wheedle out a result (or you'll just conclude that everything is inconclusive). If you think that's too much work and you can't do it, then you, like me (because I sure as hell can't weed through all this crap), shouldn't try to play the voice of science on the issue.


2. You presume correlation indicates causation


Let's presume that the statistics are correct and that couples who cohabitate are more likely to divorce. We should note that correlation does not mean causation! Perhaps it is that people who are more likely to break up are more likely to cohabit before marriage.



3. You presume that divorce rates are a good yardstick for success

Another thing that should be mentioned is that a lower chance of divorce doesn't make it the best idea. I mean what if the following was true?

Cohabitation:
10% chance of miserable marriage
70% chance of happy marriage
20% chance of divorce

No Cohabitation:
70% chance of miserable marriage
20% chance of happy marriage
10% chance of divorce

No Cohabitation sounds preferable to me!

Obviously, this is an extremely simple example, but these sorts of outcomes could very well be the case.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You should date long enough to finalize the divorce from your previous marriage.

What is the definition of a bachelor? Someone who hasn't made the same mistake once.

 

[BSmith1068]

2. You presume correlation indicates causation


Let's presume that the statistics are correct and that couples who cohabitate are more likely to divorce. We should note that correlation does not mean causation! Perhaps it is that people who are more likely to break up are more likely to cohabit before marriage.

Here is some information that seems corroborate Perfy’s point:

But while many trends can be documented easily, Stevenson and Wolfers find that figuring out how they affect marriage rates and family composition is a trickier task. Take cohabitation for example. Not surprisingly, their statistics show that today, members of the opposite sex are increasingly likely to be "sharing living quarters." And, cohabitation is more and more the preferred "stepping stone to marriage." Stevenson and Wolfers report that in the early 2000s, 59 percent of married couples had lived together before tying the knot. While couples who cohabit prior to marriage have historically exhibited higher divorce rates, Stevenson and Wolfers observe that there is research showing that pre-marital cohabiting may be more common among those with greater uncertainty about either their compatibility or the benefits of marriage. Thus it may be that divorce-prone couples cohabit, rather than that cohabiting causes divorce. In fact, without cohabitation, divorce may be even more likely, as living together allows couples to "test" their relationship before heading to the altar.

http://www.nber.org/digest/nov07/w12944.html

 

[MobBoss]

You make three big errors here:
1. You fail to put articles in greater context
2. You presume correlation indicates causation
3. You presume that divorce rates are a good yardstick for success

Perf,

I simply recalled of hearing of the studies that showed the stat. I knew they existed, so I mentioned it, and then found references to them when asked. It wasnt the basis of a single study...but several.

Also, if its my premise to support it then I support it. I asked the question I did so that others can take a look for conflicting data - which you did. I dont have the time to argue both pro and con for a point I make, but I can do one or the other.

And in marriages and discussions about marriage, yeah, I think not getting a divorce is a yardstick for success. A failed marriage is one that ends in divorce...not a successful one.

Thanks for the comments.

@BSmith: All that says that divorce prone people may tend to cohabitate first. How does one identify a person that is 'divorce prone' I wonder? I recognize that there may be other factors at work, but in reference to the OP here, if people that cohabit prior to marriage have a higher divorce rate than those that dont, I think its pertinent.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You should date until you feel positive you want to spend the rest of your life with your partner.

You should not be swayed by studies about cohabition to decide whether you will or will not. Your relationship is not a roll of the dice and your betting on the best chances. Your relationship is one between two unique individuals with their own characteristics. There has never been a study whether it's best for you and your partner to cohabit, or how long you have to wait before marriage.

In this world, you will have to make them difficult decisions all by yourself and when they don't work out, you have yourself to blame. Sucks, but when it does work, you'll be a very happy camper. And you'll have no one to credit but yourselves

edit: Mobbie is online! Mobster, you gave all the credit to God before for you and your partner sticking together. But God helps those who help themselves, so I take it you and your partner where quite influential and played an important role in your marriage's success despite all the setbacks. God doesn't help those who sit idly and wait to get a successful marriage handout. Am I right?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, I don't think cohabitation is at all necessary. I know plenty of happily married couples who didn't live together (or even have sex) before marriage. That is one of those things that depends.

Also, length of time depends. I am pretty happy with the way we are doing it (about a year dating to engagement, 7 months engaged - which is admittedly unusually long for Mormons) because we have gotten to know each other well, and I am pretty confident that it isn't just infatuation. But my sister, for example, went from single to married in 10 months, and she is happy. My parents are still together and happy after more than 30 years, and they didn't date that long (my brother forced the issue a little).

 

[J-man]

You know that it's time to marry when that little stick thing turns blue.

 

[bhsup]

I really don't know for sure. I've never been married. I can tell you that my oldest brother got engaged about a month after meeting his wife and married not long after that. They've been together over 20 years now with 5 kids and are doing just dandy. My older brother waited a good couple of years after starting to date his wife before getting engaged, and they are still doing fine as well.

I suppose if you know it's right, go for it regardless of any time issue.

Regarding co-habitation before marriage, I'd personally say don't.

 

[Grisu]

And in marriages and discussions about marriage, yeah, I think not getting a divorce is a yardstick for success. A failed marriage is one that ends in divorce...not a successful one.

That's only partially true. A failed marriage doesn't need to end in divorce to be a failed marriage. Some do, but there are plenty examples of failed marriages that never end in divorce.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's only partially true. A failed marriage doesn't need to end in divorce to be a failed marriage. Some do, but there are plenty examples of failed marriages that never end in divorce.

That's for sure. In almost every case of divorce, one or both partners let the marriage down, but some marriages just need to end. They don't, always.

 

[Yeekim]

What is the definition of a bachelor? Someone who hasn't made the same mistake once.

Every relationship between a couple can end in one of two ways:
1) with marriage;
2) fortunately.

 

[JollyRoger]

A failed marriage is one that ends in divorce...not a successful one.

Not necessarily. If you are trading down in age from one marriage to another, each marriage may have been successful in meeting your goals. A non-successful marriage in that case would be one with an inefficient divorce that took years off of your next marriage.

 

[Yeekim]

Perf,
A failed marriage is one that ends in divorce...not a successful one.

Irina Abramovich disagrees.

 

[MobBoss]

That's only partially true. A failed marriage doesn't need to end in divorce to be a failed marriage. Some do, but there are plenty examples of failed marriages that never end in divorce.

Irina Abramovich disagrees.

Its a general and easily identifiable/measureable metric for our purposes. As always, there are exceptions to every rule.

 

[Narz]

We've been dating now for 23 years, and I'm still not ready for marriage.

Props for having the presence of mind to realize that!

 

[Narz]

Not necessarily. If you are trading down in age from one marriage to another, each marriage may have been successful in meeting your goals. A non-successful marriage in that case would be one with an inefficient divorce that took years off of your next marriage.

So lying to people to achieve your goals is ok?

 

[MobBoss]

So lying to people to achieve your goals is ok?

*cough* Attorney *cough*