Moving in with prospective life patner ? - Page 4

Originally posted by: raj5000

😆😆 that explains and doubles our comment "seems sir - wify sey fight karkey aaye hai" on few proffy who sometimes are in real foul mood.😆 j/k

Our students only get extra homework, no foul mood. We don't fight! Everyone's happy 😃

Originally posted by: raj5000

<SPAN>Well written and understand your point. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>

<SPAN>I agree any relationship is not complete/successful without compromises or sacrifices, guess am trying toaddress things which you just cannot bring yourself to work with. My only concern here is why should nupital bond (legal + society)force you to work out things in your relationship which otherwise you wouldn't have and such things, you only realize or come ru ba ru after putting up with a person for while.As you mention time passes society, family, kids person just get more in the spirally web until one day after 10 years decides - ENOUGH! its been 10 long years just cannot put up with XYZ habit/behavior/anything anymore and wants to bail out... at what cost?<o:p></o:p></SPAN>

<SPAN>PS - am not sure if am conveying what I mean here, let me know can explain more. </SPAN>

Originally posted by: raj5000

Well written and understand your point.

I agree any relationship is not complete/successful without compromises or sacrifices, guess am trying to address things which you just cannot bring yourself to work with. My only concern here is why should nupital bond (legal + society) force you to work out things in your relationship which otherwise you wouldn't have and such things, you only realize or come ru ba ru after putting up with a person for while. As you mention time passes society, family, kids person just get more in the spirally web until one day after 10 years decides - ENOUGH! its been 10 long years just cannot put up with XYZ habit/behavior/anything anymore and wants to bail out... at what cost?

PS - am not sure if am conveying what I mean here, let me know can explain more.

The degree of compromise depends on the seriousness of the problem. If my husband snores, will I leave him irrespective of what kind of legal status, or otherwise our relationship has? However, if he is abusive, then I will leave him irrespective of marriage or no marriage. To compromise because there is a legal bond, doesn't make sense to me - even if children are involved. Would I want my children to see me being tortured? I don't think so.

Btw, I know people who have been in live-in relationships, and for some of them it's been harder to leave, than if they had been married. There's always the wistfulness - maybe things will be different once we get married!

( PS: in some countries you get 50 % of your husband's property upon being granted a divorce. I am not sure if one gets the same rights in the break-up of a live-in relationship 😉)

Originally posted by: serialbuff

The degree of compromise depends on the seriousness of the problem. If my husband snores, will I leave him irrespective of what kind of legal status, or otherwise our relationship has? However, if he is abusive, then I will leave him irrespective of marriage or no marriage. To compromise because there is a legal bond, doesn't make sense to me - even if children are involved. Would I want my children to see me being tortured? I don't think so.

Btw, I know people who have been in live-in relationships, and for some of them it's been harder to leave, than if they had been married. There's always the wistfulness - maybe things will be different once we get married!

( PS: in some countries you get 50 % of your husband's property upon being granted a divorce. I am not sure if one gets the same rights in the break-up of a live-in relationship 😉)

In india this works veri differently. sombody had indicated a poll study showed most indian women not leaving their abusive husband.. Not they were into S&M.. .but it has reasons unfathomable to the culturally devoid by-stander....😊 And mind you I am not saying woman have to endure injustice...infact they should leave their abusive husbands but that calculative decision is where these indian women make a huge difference....

Originally posted by: sowmyaa

Very good and obvious question Raj. Technically it should not change just by the difference of word "marriage", but sadly it does. Some reason I can think of are-

Yeah sadly it does, thats why alternate option on live in's or mock marraige.

1. Marriage is a term that has existed in human race since long time. It is an institution that is allowed and given respect by all (including you, family, society). When we live in society we try to live within the limits and customs approved by society. If not, that individual is termed as rebel. Of course, there is lot of space in society and you cannot take all that is asked, however, some basic expectation from individual and family are there. e.g.- if you are in India you cannot wear a bikini and take a sunbath on you terrace. It is just the tolerance of society and you have to follow some rules here. One being marriage.

I agree have nothing against marraige or obeying all norms of society which a person is obligated after commiting to vows. As I understand - Live-in's are not excepted by society, right? my point is why not if it reduces another societal tag or omen called Divorce.

2. Marriage, specially within Indian families involve, family. If one is "married" they also think twice about their families before taking break-up decision. In live-in relationship so far family consent are not that common, in that case you are not liable to answer anyone or hurt anyone (as you are beyond that by now) so it makes break-up easy.

Will only say Live-in / Break-ups would be lot more easier or not so hard on everyone, if at all.

3. In live-in, there is verbal commitment filled with trust, faith, love. However, verbal commitments are not always reliable and are big time loop holes. I am not saying that marriage stays intact only because it is written commitment. However, human race now has developed legal and written commitments in all area just 'coz we've realized that most of the time verbal statements are not reliable.

Sounds like perception of marraige is more of an legal agreement then trust, faith, love. I agree, but Live-in also happens with lot of commitment, you just cannot move in with a person with a weeks of going around. Like a pseudo marraige without societal or legal oblies.

4. When you have accepted to take care of your better half in front of whole society, parents, and keeping your religion in heart it takes lot to break that, atleast that's what I think. However, when you commit to live-in relationship it is lot easier to back-off with only one person being answerable.

I respect your opinion Ma'am. "lot to break " that break = reasons, which are pretty obviously drawn/known by living in with a person then why to get legall/soc... bound to start with.

5. Financial difference. Atleast in India once we get married property, finance, money is all considered as "couple" thing rather than individual. In live-in relation there is still this boundary of privacy, mine-yours attitude because there is no stability in relationship.

I agree, not saying once in Live-in never get married, may be I miscommunicated.

6. Lastly- Children. Be it live-in relation or marriage. If you have kids involved in any relationship it gets lot more difficult to break that relation. "Most" of the time people have kids once they are married, as of course, that brings more security and that's why after 10 years you think that you need break you just can't.

LOL.. Live-in's as IMO involves no kids, pls. Plan for kids after marraige only.😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

In india this works veri differently. sombody had indicated a poll study showed most indian women not leaving their abusive husband.. Not they were into S&M.. .but it has reasons unfathomable to the culturally devoid by-stander....😊 And mind you I am not saying woman have to endure injustice...infact they should leave their abusive husbands but that calculative decision is where these indian women make a huge difference....

For these very "unfathomable" reasons, they would not agree to a live-in relationship. And for the same reasons, the point of this debate becomes redundant! Living-in to do a test run will never be a solution to problems that crop in married life, especially in the Indian set-up (and to some extent, in the West, too. A friend of mine lived with her boyfriend for two years, and decided to get married. Within 6 months of getting married, she found out that her husband was suffering from "lazyitis" - he developed a mysterious illness that no one could diagnose and took so long off work, that he had to be made redundant. Nary a hint of that in the two years of living together.)

Another reason I find the premise faulty, is the negative approach to the concept of marriage. For every marriage that is a disaster, there are ten that are successful without the test-run and without the innumerous compromises being bandied about. Let's not approach marriage with unnecessary trepidation and apprehension, nor with foolhardy optimism and bravado. 😊

Originally posted by: mermaid_QT

🤣
now this has become the live in VS merriage debate instead of living in BEFORE marriage Vs. marrying before starting to live -in debate 🤣

But haven't we debated on the same topic here https://india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=104580