I prefer that people choose marriage for economic reasons. There are many immediate financial and legal protections that occur when you marry. That's why I've been so pro-gay marriage forever.

But I don't think negatively if you don't marry. One of my closest friends has never married. Very low income (so I feel marriage absolutely would have benefitted her). Raised an outstanding boy in a bad neighborhood to be an outstanding man. And she's still with his dad. Her son got a full scholarship to UPenn. Everyone is very happy. A successful family by any measure.

Absolutely nothing. I've done it for over two decades now and we have four kids. Zero problems.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue I see is that if/when it goes south, you basically go through a divorce but without legal protections and the emotional recognition. If you are very young I feel like you are putting too much on the line by living together. (The older/wiser you get, the more savvy you become about everything.)

I agree with this. Also, I saw several friends get stuck in relationships in their 20s that they knew they should move on from but because they had moved in with the guy it was a MUCH higher barrier to breaking up. My couch served as a way station for a couple of them who needed to find a place to stay to finally get out of the relationship. Because of that, I decided I didn't want to live with someone until we were engaged. If being married wasn't important to me, I'd say it's still important to have a pretty high bar of commitment to your relationship before living together.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue I see is that if/when it goes south, you basically go through a divorce but without legal protections and the emotional recognition. If you are very young I feel like you are putting too much on the line by living together. (The older/wiser you get, the more savvy you become about everything.)

+1 Have a child out of wedlock, have a relationship go south, and watch what happens. It isn't pretty. I don't really care if you live out of wedlock, but you have to understand the legal risks you are taking if you commingle assets or have children, and plan for them.

I agree with all the people who mentioning breaking up. You have no legal protections, and no societial protections. You are expected to "get over" a breakup with a boyfriend, whereas there are tons of sympathy, and support resources for people getting divorced. Finally op, I suspect that you aren't as ok with this as you want us to think. A good man will marry you or end the relationship. A bad one will keep you around because he gets sex and maid service and since men generally hold the title or lease on the living arangement, he can kick you out if you don't perform. He can also keep his options open very easily should he meet the right honey. Far easier on him to say "My girlfriend moved out last week" then "I'm separated". Finally, and this probably only applies if you have children "My husband will be home after school" sounds way better to other moms then "my boyfriend will be home after school". Right or not, "husband" connotes a societal vetting that the man in question is ok to be around kids, that he has a job, isn't a child molestor, isn't going to be smoking dope in the basement, that sort of thing. It doesn't mean other moms aren't wrong, a husband could very be and do all kinds of things, it's just not what people think when they hear the term.

Anonymous wrote:I would be okay "living in sin" in my hometown. The problem is I've never lived in my hometown since I left for college. If the relationship breaks up one of you is basically homeless. My (now) DH asked me to follow him to law school. He would have been fine "living in sin" but I wasn't because I'd be living in another state and not know a soul should we break up. He agreed and we married the month before he started. That was almost 11 years ago.

I think morally it's fine, but it isn't necessarily a good idea, especially if you don't have good exit options or are re-locating for the other person's benefit. There are a lot of protections in marriage to ensure that the benefits from major life decisions like moving, taking on debt, etc., are shared in a breakup. Sometimes there is a lot of common sense behind these old-fashioned rules.

I would be okay "living in sin" in my hometown. The problem is I've never lived in my hometown since I left for college. If the relationship breaks up one of you is basically homeless. My (now) DH asked me to follow him to law school. He would have been fine "living in sin" but I wasn't because I'd be living in another state and not know a soul should we break up. He agreed and we married the month before he started. That was almost 11 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue I see is that if/when it goes south, you basically go through a divorce but without legal protections and the emotional recognition. If you are very young I feel like you are putting too much on the line by living together. (The older/wiser you get, the more savvy you become about everything.)

Because you get a lot less in the breakup than you would get in a divorce.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue I see is that if/when it goes south, you basically go through a divorce but without legal protections and the emotional recognition. If you are very young I feel like you are putting too much on the line by living together. (The older/wiser you get, the more savvy you become about everything.)

This. It makes breaking up really inconvenient, so it tends to drag out semi-functional relationships, causing people to lose time that could be spent finding a good relationship instead. And I definitely have seen guys willing to live together but not willing to get married, and end up taking up a lot of a woman's time with their indecisiveness. Living together makes it easier for that to happen. Of course if you don't care about getting married, then whatever.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue I see is that if/when it goes south, you basically go through a divorce but without legal protections and the emotional recognition. If you are very young I feel like you are putting too much on the line by living together. (The older/wiser you get, the more savvy you become about everything.)

And remember,OP, many DCUMers have no income. The man is the plan. So they need that extra leash.

The biggest issue I see is that if/when it goes south, you basically go through a divorce but without legal protections and the emotional recognition. If you are very young I feel like you are putting too much on the line by living together. (The older/wiser you get, the more savvy you become about everything.)

PP here continuing from above,

who cares?

It's just like anything else that people do that other people don't agree with. Because this is an anonymous forum, it is an ideal place for people who believe one thing to openly voice their disapproval of something someone else does.

To me it is perfectly okay to live a life with someone without marriage. To someone else on this forum, it is against their religious beliefs, or their moral code or "getting the milk for free without buying the cow" or whatever.

There is nothing objectively bad about it, it is all subjective.

The point is,

It's not okay for practicing Christians. If you aren't one, go for it.

Time and time again, I see such strong reactions on DCUM to people who say they live with a boyfriend or girlfriend and don't plan to marry.
If they are ok with it, why do people have such a problem with it?
Why isn't it ok to live your life with someone without marriage?