posted September 01, 2005 06:14 AM         

It is said in western countries it's pretty common people to be in live-in relationship
and it comes as shock in asian countries
to some when they know a 48 year old american isn't married.

We were having discussion in the classroom about why would somebody like to move in Live - in relationship and then why some
people would get married.

OR Why Hollywood celebrities whether it's Jennifer Lopez or Britney Spears chose to get married rather than just be in Live-in relationship.I can understand that is partly because of publicity thing.

posted September 01, 2005 08:06 AM         

Sexual relationships produce children.

To bring a child into an unstructured non committed relationship is pure selfishness, without regard for the future family environment of the child.

posted September 01, 2005 09:09 AM         

Anyways maybe I would post this in
"Astrology" if nobody answers here.

posted September 01, 2005 10:44 AM         

First of all, not all sexual relationships produce children?
Secondly, I dont believe you have to be married to have a structured committed relationship either.
I personaly cant see how a piece of paper can make you anymore committed to the relationship, either you are.....or you are not, and sadly in this day and age with divorce rates climbing ever increasingly higher, it just reaffirms my belief, that marriage holds no guarantee!

Out of curiousity I asked my eldest daughter whether she thought it would of made a difference (even the slightest) should her Father and I never have married?.......Her reply was this......."So long as I were brought up in a secure&loving home, it wouldnt of mattered to me a hoot!"

posted September 01, 2005 11:41 AM         

It is sheer blind, unthinking, uncritical acceptence of the status quo to assume that a commited relationship has to be a married one.

The thing with marriage is that it has, historically and in nearly every culture, been a *societal contract or propriety* - meaning:

1 - it's really not about the relationship between the two partners; it's more about that partnerships' relation to the rest of society. Marriage is "proof" of a couple's acceptence of their place in the status quo, and this makes everyone *else* happy, even if the couple aren't on an intimate level. Hence why is most Asian culture, it is a dishonor to your family not to be married by a certian age - it's what socially expected of you. Also this plays a lot in our Western culture and our attitudes about a "Christian" marriage, and ultimately why our divorce rate is so very high - people are fulfilling what they think is their societal obligations, and later discovering it makes them personally miserible.

2- because it is a contract of propriety, there is the underlying assumtion that one partner owns the other. Hence our traditions of exchanging rings (and why the man's ring is usually larger and wider - to show the distinction between the owner [him] and the one he owns [the wife]), that a woman's expected to assume her husband's name (as continued association with her past gives her an identity the husband cannot control), why marital rape was long accepted (and still is in some countries), and even how we speak of a married couples (i.e., "man and wife" or "Mrs. Paul Smith" etc.) The assumption is once the woman marries she's her husband's properity, she has no right to her own identity or her own life.

Comedian Wanda Sykes put is succinctly about her own failed marriage: "Marriage is a business." And it is. The societal expectation is that you follow the rules of this business and produce a product. Sykes herself contributes her failed marriage to "no product" i.e, no children. No product, no reason to stay in business. My own parents wanted to divorce when I was 8, but didn't "because of the children." I had to grow up in a household with two parents that didn't love one another and that in turn kept them distant from their children. Committed yes. Also, very miserible for everyone involved.

Now given that, why would someone assume that having children in this kind of contractual, proprietal environment that's done out of social obligations more than personal choice, and where the children are an expected "product," as opposed to persons brought into this relationship out of love and intimacy, is ipso facto better? Aside from blind conformity to the norm, I don't know. It seems blantantly obvious to me that there's a hellish problem here. For one I see a lot of roots of child abuse in this mentality. For my money, if it's the cultural attitudes towards marriage that contributes to children being pummeled like disposable punching bags, I can't get behind it. I choose my conscience over conformity anyday.

posted September 01, 2005 07:12 PM         

If one person introduces the other to his family and makes her part of his life, then there is a bond that goes beyond a piece of paper. There is a contract, and in some cultures they are practically married if he meets her father (Greek, Italian)

Even dating someone, if you are starting to be seen as a couple by your closest friends, there is a contract formed that you are together even if it's just for foot massages.

Marriage is ideally such a contract of closeness and bonds celebrated or sanctified depending on how you view it with a party.

Lots of times it is a business, if it's empty in the first place, then a goal is needed. If two people are superficial enough then there must be a constant goal, but it's not necessary if both are growing and changing as people.

If I were cynical I could say most men just get married to have sex every night and not have to go looking for a woman. And women marry to have security and because they want children at some point.

Those are pretty cynical reasons though,

Live-ins are weird to me, so I don't know why I would want anyone to live with me and share expenses as I already have my own house and car, doesn't he have his own house?

posted September 01, 2005 08:30 PM         

The only reason to marry, as far as I'm concerned, is if there are going to be children. When you get my age, there deffinately are not going to be any more children.

Being married serves no real purpose, and certainly isn't necessary for fullfilment and commitment.

Lanny

posted September 02, 2005 01:58 AM         

Shackin' up, or married... as long as you are loved, and you have someone to love, who cares?

It certainly isn't any of anyone else's business.

Live your life. Get married, or don't. As long as it makes you happy.

posted September 02, 2005 04:03 AM         

One quote..: " The only reason to marry is if you are going to have children"... Thanks for agreeing ILLOG

Two thoughts...:
I wonder how many writers were male ? Or where trying to keep the male happy?
I feel sure in saying Men regard "marriage" as a trap, and always have the subconscious feeling that it is easier to "run" if they have not signed to an agreement (it IS a male thing).

Secondly. This is a country dependant thing, because in Australia money is not an issue.
Any two people who live together, even if the same sex, are regarded as "married" for property settlement and financial support when they part.

posted September 02, 2005 08:07 AM         

Two people have live-in relationship to
know each other better and because they are
afraid of divorce.right ? Would get married when they are planning to have kids
as peajie and Illog said or are going to re confirm their committment and relationship as geministone said.

Peajie said

quote:

---

I feel sure in saying Men regard "marriage" as a trap, and always have the subconscious feeling that it is easier to "run" if they have not signed to an agreement (it IS a male thing).

---

So I can say it is easy to get into Live-in and easy to move out.Men would do it as it's good for them NO TRAP but what's the women take. Is this some kind of testing period
or knowing period? It's just to please your man ?
OR
Does Live-In relationship is more like Open
Relationship? You can find another guy and I find another girl. You are involved but any time can move with somebody else.

I am just curious does that mean you aren't as emotionally involved as you would be in marriage. In Live In relationship and
if you had kids it wouldn't be that painful
as divorce when your boyfriend moves out.
Are the legal procedures in your countries that difficult?

Why 2 people wouldn't prefer to get married instead would choose live-in relationship?

As Gemini Nymph and Libra Sparkle said it sounded it's more of personal choice.
Any other reasons?

ILLOG

quote:

---

I chose to never marry again, been married twice, didn't work for me.

---

Does things really change once people get married ?

Do you think it would have been better if you had before live-in relationship and then got married ? You would have known whether they are jerks or somebody who is really made for you.You would have known whether you are compatible or not with them.

posted September 02, 2005 10:03 AM         

I think it all depends on the individuals involved.

As long as both are happy and get what they want/need.

I don't believe marriage helps/prevents anything. I know a few married couples who are both unfaithful to their partners.

Plus, marriage is no more binding than a live-in. With a couple of grand and a signature... you have a divorce.

posted September 02, 2005 11:40 AM         

My emotional commitment is no different with my husband than when he was my live-in boyfriend.

The commitment is the same. The relationship is the same. The only difference is now the government can tax the crap out of us and I get to be on his medical insurance.

We chose not to get married for so long because once our oldest was born, people were pressuring us to marry. We both felt (and still feel) one of the worst reasons to marry is children. No one should get married because someone got pregnant. That's just foolishness... and you will be doomed for divorce.

So... we waited 6 years and got married with a peaceful, small ceremony in Hawaii with the two only people who didn't pressure us to get married (his mom and my dad) as our wittinesses. No one else was invited.

Marriage does not make the relationship any deeper. If your relationship is lacking depth, marriage is not the answer.

*edited to add*

posted September 02, 2005 12:40 PM         

And I could personaly see more peaple being quicker to mairy in this country if it wasnt so expensive to divorce. Not too mention in America the man will indeed useualy get the short end of the stick when it comes to divorce- regardless of who putt more money, or devoted time into the household,bills, property etc.

And thats not even counting if children where involved. Then the man can forget about any assets and paycheck he has, no matter how big or small money he is. Ive even heard of fivorce cases where the women made far more money through her own career, geting the better of the husbands money.

posted September 02, 2005 02:33 PM         

If we had decided never to have a child, there would be no reasons to have gotten the rings, contract etc.......and if I am honest......there is something about "living in sin" that quite appeals LOL !!!

"Love and marriage
Love and marriage
goes together
like a horse and carriage"

Oopps sorry Peajie I am being a parrot too......oh woe is me......sheep for a hubbie and now I am turning into a bird of the feathered variety, oh my oh my!!!

Love to all of ye

posted September 02, 2005 02:38 PM         

having just broke up from a 7 year live-in deal he left me penniless, without any legal recourse when he decided not to pay rent and leave me holding the bag with my daughter in the lurch.....

So boy, I don't know what to say, but you probably should live together before the legal stuff just to find out if you can be compatable.....

posted September 03, 2005 05:59 AM         

quote:

---

what a can of worms this question is......

---

posted September 03, 2005 06:05 AM         

quote:

---

I'd like to add that the commitment/trap issue is a female one as well. I don't think it is justifiably put on only the males

---

posted September 03, 2005 10:50 AM         

So it seems the main consideration is NOT whether you plan to have children....,
It should be... where shall we live?

I said earlier that in Australia EVERY relationship (even between same sex, and whether married or not)is financially regarded as "marriage".

And a guy is financially liable for the support of his children until they are 18 yrs, even if it was a one-night stand !

The only way he can avoid paying fortnightly until the child is 18yrs is to stop working.
Because the Taxation Dept controls the maintenance payments.

A single mother here is also given financial support from the Govt until the child is 15, and then mum must seek work.

So there are too many girls who now seduce a guy every couple of years just to get a new child.

We recently had reports of one young girl with children from 7 different fathers.

With 7 child-support contributions and the single mothers Govt assistance, she has far more income than she would have if she were married and relying an normal wage packets.

But the unfortunate one-night men are restricted from setting up home with anybody else later, because they are unlikely to have enough income left to support a new household. And any money a new wife earns is taken into consideration in the amount which he must pay to support his earlier children.

posted September 04, 2005 12:57 PM         

One, children need an extended family not just one parent, and a father who is forced into parenthood isn't going to like to be around.

Two, Compare welfare to working for a living, everyone wants a job.

Three, it causes women to depend on their sexuality for money. Obviously they would have to have sex with these men first. and not for love.

Why not just give women jobs that pay better than they do now? Or would that make the women look too strong to the men and so therefore make the men less interested in sex? If women were strong they could pick men for valid reasons.

I don't know I have been to Australia and dated an Australian man very seriously,
We didn't stay together because of his Mum.
BUT he was surprisingly very pig headed and macho, compared to US men. He was not a pig, but he was more macho than I would like. Plus Australian women complained that the men looked down on them at work and they were in a macho country with few options for growth, especially self employed women.

I found Australia to be "not all that"
bluntly.
I don't mean to cause offense, but I am blunt.

IMO
Women will always seduce men into a commitment because we want a stable male, we act stable already thereby finding the bravest ones (emotionally and physically) and then slamming the gates shut, by giving praise, love, status, more than what he has now.

If a man already has all that he doesn't want one woman. A woman also has to have a stable family to back her up on legal matters and put a little fear into her man.

Society rewards men by being stupid and reckless just like in the animal kingdom. Men are chosen to be brave, good looking, strong and quick, not bright. Women are rewarded by being smart, resourceful, tenacious, shrewd, and strong willed.

I don't think biology will ever change, the biology shapes the society not the other way around.

Personally I would never live with a man again without a contract because they never in my experience ever pay a bill or buy groceries

When a man lives with me he starts acting like king of the castle and has no respect for my time or family and wakes me at all hours to pay attention to him.

Marriage is a valid threat, as in divorce when couples need to stay together.

Last year I met a man who dumped his g/f of 8 years after meeting me without even thinking about her feelings. He made her get out in two weeks, I was pretty shocked and not too thrilled about letting him move in with me as you can imagine.

No at this point in time, I am not at that place where I want to do that again.
Long romantic weekends are more than enough.