Cohabitation to see if you'll "work out"

[Twinbird24]

Recently someone I know moved in with their significant other after only 5-6 months of dating. Personally, I thought this was way too soon, but ultimately it's their choice and non of my business ;p I just want some more discussion on the idea of moving in with a significant other and more importantly what you think of moving in with them under the idea of "testing your compatibility" (the main reason said couple moved in together).

 

In my opinion, if you're moving in with someone to test how well you'll get along in marriage or in long term cohabitation then you shouldn't even move in together because it's a big risk. If you end up not wanting to be with the other person, one of you will have to move out, move all your belongings, and figure out what to do with the current lease/ house payments. It makes more sense to me to move in together if you're truly happy being with each other and committed to staying together, otherwise it seems useless and risky to essentially be someone's test wife or test husband while you decide whether or not you're compatible.

 

What do you guys think of testing a relationship by moving in together, is it a good idea?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Twinbird24

[imatfaal]

It all depends on the couple involved - some people need time, others need to strike whilst the iron is hot. Do what feels right and hope that it works

[Phi for All]

I think it's a great idea. I also think if the consequences exceed your ability to cope with them (e.g., you would be homeless if you had to break lease), then you shouldn't do it.

 

Some people don't work out together, and some develop a great cohabitation process fairly quickly. It's hard to know ahead of time. I've known people who were very nice, but had very few skills when it came to sharing their living space.

[ajb]

Other circumstances can also effect this. For example, I moved in with my now wife before we were married. I moved away from the city we met in and she came with me. I think we would not have moved in together so quickly if I had stayed in that city.

[John Cuthber]

It makes more sense to me to move in together if you're truly happy being with each other and committed to staying together,

How would you know?

Plenty of people have thought they were, but found out that they were mistaken.

[Roamer]

A better idea is to take a long vacation together to test cohabitation.

[StringJunky]

A better idea is to take a long vacation together to test cohabitation.

Yes. A three month hike together around the Himalayas, in a two-man tent with bare essentials, should soon lay bare any incompatibilities and areas needing mutual compromise.

[imatfaal]

Yes. A three month hike together around the Himalayas, in a two-man tent with bare essentials, should soon lay bare any incompatibilities and areas needing mutual compromise.

With the added benefit of having ice axes easily to hand if the incompatibilities prove too much to bear

[StringJunky]

With the added benefit of having ice axes easily to hand if the incompatibilities prove too much to bear

Don't forget the crampons as well. " Oh sorry Darling, did I just tread on your hand?"

[ajb]

A better idea is to take a long vacation together to test cohabitation.

That sounds like a great idea. However, the economics of the situation may render that idea void.

[John Cuthber]

That sounds like a great idea. However, the economics of the situation may render that idea void.

Maybe; maybe not. moving in together might be expensive too.

[Ten oz]

In many cultures for through out history marriages were arranged and couples first met once cohabitating. So while 5-6 months seems fast from a cultural stand point it is a relative thing. In my opinion what matters most in a relationship is the parties involved commitment to that relationship. I had real love relationships when I was younger where love just wasn't enough. I had an education to get, a career to build, I could not commit not even for real love. I was with a woman I truly loved for 5 years and in the end that 5 years wasn't long enough for us to cohabite and move forward. Meanwhile my wife of 8yrs, we were living together after a few months. I had all my other ambitions in order when I met my wife.

[Twinbird24]

I agree that even once married, you can start to grow away from someone and want divorce (getting married doesn't mean you'll love each other forever). What I'm trying to argue is that living together to "test out" a relationship is a silly idea (if you want to live together then "testing out your relationship" shouldn't be the reason to do so). There are difficult situations to face even once married that won't be solved by first moving in together. If a couple decides to move in together, it should be as a step toward long term commitment, and their goals should be clearly explained to each other. Otherwise they might cohabit for a long time in this "test stage" and have more difficulty splitting up now that they've moved in together.

 

Here's an article I found online that I think reflects my thoughts as well. Just some snippets from the article:

 

"Among young couples who have gone on to marry, those who lived together prior to marriage try to control one another more, they display more anger and verbal aggressiveness, and they tend to escalate more in their disagreements (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002)"

 

" Psychologist Galena Kline and her colleagues (2004, p. 316) speculated that “negative interaction patterns may be part of the reason some couples decide to move in together before committing to marriage. These couples may be in love, but may also wish to ‘test’ their relationships because they are having some trouble getting along.”"

 

"Results showed that to the extent people reported a need to test their relationship they also tended to be in conflict-ridden relationships: greater concerns about long-term compatibility went along with more conflict and more harsh words being exchanged."

[CharonY]

You missed the first part:

 

The relationship instability that goes along with cohabitation seems rooted instead in the characteristics of the people who opt to cohabit and in the relationships that they form. For example, people who live together before marriage are more likely to come from unstable family backgrounds than those who do not cohabit, to be less religious, and to have fewer years of formal education.

 

I.e. it is mot likely not due to cohabitation per se, but due to the demographics. It has little bearing on the individual.

 

Specifically:

 

Simple enough, but here is an interesting comparison that drives home the point that it is who cohabits and the relationship they create, more so than cohabitation itself, that is responsible for these differences. Imagine if you could compare the couples who lived together before they were engaged (that is, before there was a formal commitment to the relationship) with those who lived together only after they were engaged but still before their wedding. What would you expect? Are both groups doomed? No, because cohabitation is not the culprit. The former group of couples reports more verbal aggression and more negative interactions after they marry, and actually displays more destructive communication when discussing relationship issues (Kline et al., 2004). Both groups cohabited before marriage, but the group that did so in the absence of a life-long commitment faced more risks after the marriage started. And even though they were still quite happy as newlyweds, they were less confident about their future together.

 

I.e. cohabitation is not causally connected to issues. Rather, it is a question of commitment. If you are unsure about it, it makes sense to test the waters so to say, unless there are limiting factors.