How does cohabitation hurt the chances of a lasting marriage?

[hasikelee]

Living together before marriage, with or without a sexual relationship, but with an intent of an exclusive romantic status, has psychological implications that I believe are dismissed and ignored.

In my generation, cohabitation seems to be appealing because the image of marriage is now seen as temporary and able to be dissolved with just a couple hundred bucks and a small-time attorney.

Therefore, by lowering the idea of marriage from a life-time contractual agreement to commitment and unity between two people to a shaky choice, cohabitation begins to look normal.

Even with that subtle change in definition, it still doesn’t make quite enough of a justification. When a person asks another person to move in, what exactly is going on in the undercurrents of the relationship that prevent that person from saying “marry me?”

*For the purpose of this post, this excludes paganism, where a ceremony may not be part of the commitment.

Think about this situation: a man and woman meet and date for some time. The man asks the woman to move in with him. What is this really signifying?

I like you, but maybe not enough, so let’s hang out together?
I enjoy the benefits I get from you, but I don’t like the idea of the hard stuff like babies and caring for you, so let’s just live together for now?
I think you might be the one that satisfies my desires, but let’s live together so I can keep my options open?

In the case of cohabitation, it appears to signify an underlying issue with the relationship, or with the individual. Cohabitating, then, is simply the band-aid. It doesn’t develop either party in the relationship, or resolve the issues going on in the background of the relationship. It actually works to impede, or mask the problems, often until it is too late to salvage the relationship.

There is also the case of my entire generation being thoroughly educated on marriage, pregnancy, parenthood as if these were diseases that needed to be eradicated. I remember telling people I was getting married and they would burst into tears as if I told them I had cancer. Another girl said she was so sorry to hear that and that she hoped I wouldn’t die young from “pregnancy.”

My friend from childhood is living with her boyfriend because she is absolutely sure it costs too much money to get married.

The rampant ignorance (and by that I don’t mean to speak badly of anyone, but rather point out the poor level of education) is only promulgating cohabitation as the only “choice” two young adults can make.

Reminds me of other issues…

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Through intercourse the two become one flesh. How many pieces of oneself does one give away through serial fornication? If one gives oneself away in a shack up relationship without a commitment to really make any progress on your oneness one because callous to the oneness that is created. One becomes a consumer who devours others and then throws the other away.

CDL

 

[jmcrae]

What if the reason for cohabitation was not for a trial marriage at all. Such as financial reasons. We are facing a new phenomenon of long distance relationships.

Lets say for example; The most practical way to close the distance gap is to cohabitate for a short time so that one can relocate. Commitment to marry is already made on time already spent together chastely. What ramifications could be encountered down the road if this is considered a viable possibility with full intent to seperate and then enter into a proper courtship and marriage within the Church once a communal life is established while living in seperate residences?

Peace.

There are ways around these problems. My godson was in an e-mail relationship with a girl from Finland. Never mind the fact that they were young and completely crazy; the first time he met her face to face was at the wedding. He went to Finland and stayed at a hotel. They met for the first time at the Church. (That was a few years ago, and they are still together.)

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Through intercourse the two become one flesh. How many pieces of oneself does one give away through serial fornication? If one gives oneself away in a shack up relationship without a commitment to really make any progress on your oneness one because callous to the oneness that is created. One becomes a consumer who devours others and then throws the other away.

CDL

You speak well and correctly.

I don’t intend to come off as making “sensational true confessions” but in a decade of mispent youth away from the church, to be subtle, I gave away a significant portion of myself…

After that, a lot of time and healing - which IS possible but difficult - is demanded by one’s soul. Years of habituation of - to be crude - asessing people by if they are “doable” takes a lot of time and grace to undo… Through confession, frequent communion, and custody of the eyes and mortification, the good news is a lot of this can be undone and restored… But there has to be honesty about admitting that such work NEEDS to be done.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I can’t give a hard and fast rule or condemn everyone via a hypothetical example. In fact after my “reversion” to the Catholic faith I scandalously “co-habitated” with a married woman in my three bedroom house who moved to my city for a new job and to get away from an SOB who was (at least he tried to be, was too intoxicated most of the time) violently abusive.

Now lest anyone think there was hanky-panky, let me make clear she was three inches taller than I, had 30 pounds on me, and was the daughter of an Olympic Judo coach. Had I tried anything untoward, I would probably be typing this with my tongue!

Now having said all that I can offer that the circumstance you describe would most certainly (almost) never be the first option I would encourage, out of fear that the most honorable and chaste intentions could not survive natural challenges.

(Who wants to kid whom? I know that a man is going to find his intended sexy, and a gal is gonna think her intended handsome! This is good and well ordered and meant to be! It also, pre-marriage, makes the challenge of chastity not so easy!)

It would be harder still (you know, like marriage is hard) and cause some discomfort (you know, like Christians are called to accept crosses) and perhaps be somewhat inconvienant (you know, like Christians aren’t called to the easy convienant way) but my first suggestion in a long-distance relationship where effort is being made to co-habitate the same city… Is for both parties to consider getting roommates who are NOT each other. Let him find a Catholic gent in need of a roommie, let her do the same with a Catholic lass… If you think it can’t be done, post on here “Catholic male moving to Hobocken looking for Catholic (MALE) roommate” and see what comes of it… It can be.

Again, hard and fast rules are not always possible, but sometimes we find somethings we consider “impossible” aren’t impossible at all, they are just especially inconvienant.

Thanks ASimpleS

No offence but this was directed toward the IrishAm to answer.

I appreciate the roomate suggestion though. Thats good sense.

Thanks.

Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

What if the reason for cohabitation was not for a trial marriage at all. Such as financial reasons. We are facing a new phenomenon of long distance relationships.

Lets say for example; The most practical way to close the distance gap is to cohabitate for a short time so that one can relocate. Commitment to marry is already made on time already spent together chastely. What ramifications could be encountered down the road if this is considered a viable possibility with full intent to seperate and then enter into a proper courtship and marriage within the Church once a communal life is established while living in seperate residences?

Peace.

There is the issue of scandal.

I had a homeless guy living with me when I was single. (I was not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree in those days; I’m quite sure my guardian angel was working overtime.)

He had a separate bedroom, and we rarely crossed paths, so I thought everything was just fine.

One day, he had a medical emergency, and I took him to the hospital. When they wrote down his particulars, he was listed as my “common law husband.”

After he got well, I told him he needed to find a different place to stay. At first, he was very upset, but then I told him what they had written down on the hospital admissions form, and he realized that yeah, this is a problem. He moved out about a week later, and I heard from him a few times after that, but quite honestly, I can’t even remember his last name, any more.

As to the effect he had on my life, I still cook my spaghetti the way he showed me, and whenever I cross a certain bridge, the conversation we had there comes back into my mind. These are the footprints that he left permanently on my soul, even though we never “did anything.”

 

[joeybaggz]

What if the reason for cohabitation was not for a trial marriage at all. Such as financial reasons. We are facing a new phenomenon of long distance relationships.

Lets say for example; The most practical way to close the distance gap is to cohabitate for a short time so that one can relocate. Commitment to marry is already made on time already spent together chastely. What ramifications could be encountered down the road if this is considered a viable possibility with full intent to seperate and then enter into a proper courtship and marriage within the Church once a communal life is established while living in seperate residences?

Peace.

If you’re talking a couple of days, that’s a guest in one’s home, not a potential partner “living together”. Longer than a week or two at the most, that’s cohabitation.

Assuming you are committed to chastity and respect, the danger of living together is that it is still an illusion. People who are committed to each other and just want to ‘try it out’ often walk on egg shells in an effort to present themself in the best light to the other. That doesn’t work in a marriage past the honeymoon period. In a marriage husbands and wives get angry, fight, argue, and by being committed to a permanent union, they work through those situations. In cohabitation, anger and fighting is a gun to the head. Husbands and wives, though they love each other, at some point ‘hit the wall’ and realize that marriage is not a perpetual honeymoon, no matter how much one or the other would like it to be. In cohabitation this often never happens because there is no wall to hit, just a back door to walk out of.

In fact, the danger of living together, even for a brief period of time is that if you do not see the negative in your intended, you may possibly construct the illusion that this is how he/she is. Then after marriage, when the illusion crumbles, you may possibly have a greater tendency to feel you were “lied to” by the other’s behavior, and begin to question the marriage with an eye toward ending it. Not a good situation. Sometimes ignorance is, if not bliss, at least beneficial.

Having done just what I’ve said, my advise to you is DON’T !

Good luck.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Thanks ASimpleS

No offence but this was directed toward the IrishAm to answer.

I appreciate the roomate suggestion though. Thats good sense.

Thanks.

Peace.

None taken! Hope it provided some food for thought!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am looking for examples of how co-habitation may lessen the validity or strength of perseverance in a marriage in the long term to help me understand why its discouraged. Please exclude fornication or the temptation to it as an issue but anything else is fair game.

Peace and thanks in advance.

It’s wrong, because it is selfish. It’s a form of cheating. It is also a lie.​

And it is all these things, because sex is not primarily for pleasure, but for procreation within the covenant of marriage. Cohabitation tries to avoid the total self-giving this requires - that is why it is cheating. If we are Christians at all, everything about us - sex included - is subject to Christ. “You are not your own - you were bought with a price” - our bodies aren’t ours, nor are our hearts: they are His. We are answerable to Him for what we do in & by them, because they are His. To sin, is to make Christ a party to that sin. And so with all our sins.

He is totally Self-giving - that is what love is like. And His Self-giving is expressed in the form of a covenant. He loves us totally, without any reservation - so, our love must be equally unreserved & total; it must be love of Him in & with all that any of us is; we are not spirits, or bodies - but a union of both. As we are human, our bodies are sexually differentiated - so a fully human love of Christ includes obedience to Him in sexual matters, just as it does in matters of food, money, other possessions, speech, thought, & so on.

As His Self-giving was sacrificial, so must ours be, if it is to be Christian. As applied to the marriage covenant, that is why the man & the woman give themselves unreservedly to one another. And, to do that, is to enact on a small scale the Love of Christ for the Church. She is His Body - not His “partner” whom He will abandon if she ceases to take His fancy. His union with her is indissoluble; there is no small print in this contract, there is nothing of that kind. It is this unreserved love that is missing in co-habitation - the lack of unreserved commitment allows one a way out; & that is not fair, & not like Christ. Co-habitation wants the good things in the marriage covenant, without the self-sacrifice - it tries to avoid the Cross.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

You speak well and correctly.

I don’t intend to come off as making “sensational true confessions” but in a decade of mispent youth away from the church, to be subtle, I gave away a significant portion of myself…

After that, a lot of time and healing - which IS possible but difficult - is demanded by one’s soul. Years of habituation of - to be crude - asessing people by if they are “doable” takes a lot of time and grace to undo… Through confession, frequent communion, and custody of the eyes and mortification, the good news is a lot of this can be undone and restored… But there has to be honesty about admitting that such work NEEDS to be done.

Thank you for this testimony. I only hope that I can get through to some young people in may college classes. Your “anonymous” testimony may help.

A few years ago a group came to a Church I was serving and used a Rose to illustrate this point. As the Rose was passed around each student pulled off a petal until all that was left was the rather unattractive stem. Each petal represented a time when someone gave away a portion of themselves to someone else. I’ve used that in my Theo. 101 classes to some good effect.

CDL

 

[Joab_Anias]

It’s wrong, because it is selfish. It’s a form of cheating. It is also a lie.​

And it is all these things, because sex is not primarily for pleasure, but for procreation within the covenant of marriage. Cohabitation tries to avoid the total self-giving this requires - that is why it is cheating. If we are Christians at all, everything about us - sex included - is subject to Christ. “You are not your own - you were bought with a price” - our bodies aren’t ours, nor are our hearts: they are His. We are answerable to Him for what we do in & by them, because they are His. To sin, is to make Christ a party to that sin. And so with all our sins.

He is totally Self-giving - that is what love is like. And His Self-giving is expressed in the form of a covenant. He loves us totally, without any reservation - so, our love must be equally unreserved & total; it must be love of Him in & with all that any of us is; we are not spirits, or bodies - but a union of both. As we are human, our bodies are sexually differentiated - so a fully human love of Christ includes obedience to Him in sexual matters, just as it does in matters of food, money, other possessions, speech, thought, & so on.

As His Self-giving was sacrificial, so must ours be, if it is to be Christian. As applied to the marriage covenant, that is why the man & the woman give themselves unreservedly to one another. And, to do that, is to enact on a small scale the Love of Christ for the Church. She is His Body - not His “partner” whom He will abandon if she ceases to take His fancy. His union with her is indissoluble; there is no small print in this contract, there is nothing of that kind. It is this unreserved love that is missing in co-habitation - the lack of unreserved commitment allows one a way out; & that is not fair, & not like Christ. Co-habitation wants the good things in the marriage covenant, without the self-sacrifice - it tries to avoid the Cross.

Thanks for laying out the law. I am well aware of the law too.

It seems your analogy could be cured with a civil marriage and convalidation.

I am looking for the substantial pitfalls of doing anything different than the Church recommends. Not because I want to but because I want to understand the temptations to.

And then even so, if one does ask a woman to be their wife and do everything “right” who’s to say there won’t be pitfalls anyway? I am quite sure there will be. How is anyone better prepared to deal with these pitfalls by not cohabitating.

I don’t think there is any easy clear cut answer to this though. I know couples who have been married in the Church who attended daily Mass and read the brievery together daily and never cohabitated and still divorced and others who eloped and got convalidated or married outside of the faith and others who got married after 10 years of living together and are still together. There seems to be no rhyme or reason, either you both have what it takes and are compatible or your not.

Maybe that should be the question; how do you know your intended and you are truly compatible over the long haul? I must say it all serves to make one quite afraid of marriage, let alone cohabitation or fornication. Especially for the previously married and divorced.

Peace.

 

[cynic]

It’s a case of try before you buy. It’s obvious from the outset that the relationship is based personal satisfaction/happiness rather than caring for and honoring the other. This knowledge sours whatever committment they make in the future.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am assuming this was a chaste relationship until after marriage. If so, do you think it would have made a difference if you had agreed to seperate before getting married? If so, what difference?

Peace.

Man and woman are designed to pair. They will do this with or without permission. Their pairing does produce unity, and thus your problem. Cohabitation could be looked at as two groups only 1)Natural marriage - they are married but deny this publicly 2) fornication - I know you have a need to deny this however setting aside the moral aspect you will find the Natural Moral Law can not be set aside. Intimacy will develop and the relationship will develop love however not necessarily by both parties and usually not at the same rate. Now you have a big problem one loves the other and the other still wants to be free. You will quickly find this only works on TV. So is your plan to be the one hurt or the one who hurts? Sorry but that is how real life works.

Marriage is not immune from these same issues however in marriage both are asked to understand these issues before they develop intimacy. Today many marriages fail because ONE PARTY does not develop intimacy they fornicate and leave the other party behind.

These two states are not the same one acknowledges the commitments and attempts to maintain the commitment while the other is a state of denial. I hope this helps

 

[davia]

hi Joab, I have studied this subject in my femanism class. The reason why a marriage is more likely to fail in this situation is because no couple (or at least not many) go into a living situation believing it’s permanent no matter what. They go into it thinking of it as a trial and they believe if it doesnt’ work they can just walk out. This kind of thinking carries over to the marriage.

 

[Pier]

In recent history, it seemed the now-widely-acceptable cohabitating arrangement came about as an in-your-face to God and society. One of the big arguements was, “It’s only a piece of paper”…

But for all the “it’s only a piece of paper” talk, many times a lawsuit comes about anyway, as if the legal rights, which were waived to begin with, should come into play.

So much for “free love”.

 

[davia]

It seems your analogy could be cured with a civil marriage and convalidation.

Why is that? At least those in the civil marriage are still making more of a commitment than those just living together “for the heck of it”. Even if the marriage isn’t valid to the church, it doesnt’ make a divorce easier legally or emotionally (even more maybe harder because you have to watch the other person move on with their life when they promised it to you, when in the church, if they are true catholics, out of faithfullness and respect for the other, this is often not the case and they may even be more likely to work on the problems and re-unite because their marriage cannot be disolved).

And then even so, if one does ask a woman to be their wife and do everything “right” who’s to say there won’t be pitfalls anyway? I am quite sure there will be. How is anyone better prepared to deal with these pitfalls by not cohabitating.

True - everyone has pitfalls and every religion has “divorce”. ** BUT** the issue is not "how is anyone better prepared to deal with this…by not cohabitating. It’s just that they are more committed to working it out. Often times people who cohabitate think relationships are disposable. It’s just to see what happens. You can’t go into a marriage (or a relationship hoping it will lead to marriage) with that attitude.

I don’t think there is any easy clear cut answer to this though. I know couples who have been married in the Church who attended daily Mass and read the brievery together daily and never cohabitated and still divorced and others who eloped and got convalidated or married outside of the faith and others who got married after 10 years of living together and are still together. There seems to be no rhyme or reason, either you both have what it takes and are compatible or your not.

Statistics are statistics. While the situation is different for everyone, the outcome is clear. Cohabitating before marriage overall leads to a higher chance of divorce. Just to prove my point, I am posting a link - and it’s not even a Catholic link if you are concerned about that, so it can’t be argued it’s squed (sorry, probably spelled that wrong . It is a study by USA today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/lovemarriage/love4.htm

“Living together before marriage increases the risk of divorce. One study found an increased risk of 46%.
Living together outside marriage increases the risk of domestic violence for women and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children. One study found that the risk of domestic violence for women in cohabiting relationships was double that in married relationships; the risk is even greater for child abuse.
Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples.”

Maybe that should be the question; how do you know your intended and you are truly compatible over the long haul? I must say it all serves to make one quite afraid of marriage, let alone cohabitation or fornication. Especially for the previously married and divorced.

Just the opposite, I am going to throw out the sex example even though you asked not to use it just because it’s not realistic to think cohabitating couples aren’t having sex (or darn near close to it anyway). This clouds your judgement when you are consumed with desire for the other person. As they say, the person would have rose colored glasses on. Couples who do not have sex and do not live together have a very clear idea of who eachother is and if they would be compatible for marriage. That is how they know better than cohabitating couples that they are compatible. Also, for the previously married or divorced, if they lived together b4 marriage, well that may have contributed to the divorce in the first place. Also, a catholic who have been divorced before 1) should not be living with someone else when still married to the first spouse (unless they went through the annulment process and 2) Should not be living with anyone else if they are catholic anyway. I mean, the church should be more harsh on this. Co-habitate (so premarital sex is known and maybe even not sorry for), and we won’t marry you.

Peace.

 

[PaulinVA]

Maybe that should be the question; how do you know your intended and you are truly compatible over the long haul? I must say it all serves to make one quite afraid of marriage, let alone cohabitation or fornication. Especially for the previously married and divorced.

Peace.

Well, that’s it right there.

I don’t think compatibility really comes into play after you are married. You have moved from compatibility into commitment to be married with someone for the rest of your life.

Cohabitation —> compatibility
Marriage --------> Commitment (with a BIG C)

 

[Seatuck]

Interesting article from the US Bishop’s-

usccb.org/laity/marriage/cohabiting.shtml

Pure Love Club-

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=114

marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for laying out the law. I am well aware of the law too.

It seems your analogy could be cured with a civil marriage and convalidation.

I am looking for the substantial pitfalls of doing anything different than the Church recommends. Not because I want to but because I want to understand the temptations to.

And then even so, if one does ask a woman to be their wife and do everything “right” who’s to say there won’t be pitfalls anyway? I am quite sure there will be. How is anyone better prepared to deal with these pitfalls by not cohabitating.

I think what refraining from co-habitation does is it simply defines the boundary more sharply between single life and marriage. When you’re single, you live with your parents up to a certain age, and then you live on your own or else with room mates of the same sex. Then, when you get married, you and your spouse leave the single life behind and go to live together in a home of their own. The rules change radically. Now, things are different. Things that were once forbidden are now permitted. And things that were once permitted are now, if not forbidden, at least, a very bad idea.

When the boundary is well-defined, you know when you’ve crossed over it, and there is a demarcation in time that shows where the rules have changed.

I don’t think there is any easy clear cut answer to this though. I know couples who have been married in the Church who attended daily Mass and read the brievery together daily and never cohabitated and still divorced and others who eloped and got convalidated or married outside of the faith and others who got married after 10 years of living together and are still together. There seems to be no rhyme or reason, either you both have what it takes and are compatible or your not.

There are a host of factors - and yes, God smiles on some and makes them “lucky.” The likelihood of this happening isn’t something one should bet the farm on, though.

Maybe that should be the question; how do you know your intended and you are truly compatible over the long haul?

That’s not something you “wait and see.” That’s something that the two of you consciously make happen, every single day.

What you do is, you do your best to choose a good partner (no obvious problems, likes you, shares your goals and supports your dreams, easy to talk to), and then you commit yourself 100% to him or her. To quote a famous Muppet, “Do, or do not. There is no try.” And there is no “wait and see.” Compatibility (beyond the basics mentioned above) is something we grow and nurture; not something that is either there or not there.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks for laying out the law. I am well aware of the law too.

I know this is in reply to Gottle of Geer, who is aptly self named – but I think this is where you have really begun to express the question of the OP more clearly – so I will butt in here.

I am looking for the substantial pitfalls of doing anything different than the Church recommends. Not because I want to but because I want to understand the temptations to.

The question of substantial is complex and subtle – that doesn’t mean the answer can’t be clear cut, but there are many such answers for different dimensions of the problem – most of which are only superficially treated so far, although I think everyone has done well touching on the basic points.

Could you give examples of “temptations to” cohabitate – for example, I cohabitated with my sisters growing up … But obviously that is outside the scope of what you are asking because the situation is neither romantic nor free. I don’t think that damaged my marriage as living with sisters often improves the ability to marry…

On the other hand, “forced” situations exist which make cohabitation desirable – two people paying rent for one place can live more cheaply than two. Old people often cohabit simply because their retirement money is insufficient. On the other hand, Government figures they can tax these people more since they live more cheaply – and so “same” sex couples who are accorded “union” status will also soon be paying the “marriage” penalty.

And then even so, if one does ask a woman to be their wife and do everything “right” who’s to say there won’t be pitfalls anyway? I am quite sure there will be. How is anyone better prepared to deal with these pitfalls by not cohabitating.

This is getting better. But could you perhaps stimulate the conversation a bit more – I could write a book, but people probably get tired of reading long posts…
Perhaps we could talk in stages — give an example of pitfalls ( natural, supernatural, divorce, breakup?)

In my theo 4xx class the Chicago Study was a real eye opener to statistical manipulation, and how although the statistics are “true” they never the less misrepresent causality with correlation. I am going from memory, but one of the statistics was measuring from beginning to end relationship time IGNORING marriage as a marker AND one of the claims of the study was that the total average length of any relationship is approximately 10 years. The implication, that dating and cohabiting merely burn some of those ten years – followed by a shorter period after that. So, how you measure things affects what is correlated – but the truth isn’t totally in the numbers – for many considerations get lumped together in this “statistic”.

When you ask to disconnect church teaching, are you then looking for only natural justification for the no-cohabitation laws? ( Also, I would note the church historically requires nuns and brothers to live in seperate accomodations, though presumably they would not “fornicate” on average statistically – though a few might, just as a few priests are pedophiles… ) Is it a statistical justification that you seek?

I don’t think there is any easy clear cut answer to this though. I know couples who have been married in the Church who attended daily Mass and read the brievery together daily and never cohabitated and still divorced and others who eloped and got convalidated or married outside of the faith and others who got married after 10 years of living together and are still together. There seems to be no rhyme or reason, either you both have what it takes and are compatible or your not.

No, I think I would disagree here – for the exception (hard case) – is not the best way to look at the problem. Some of what is going on is invisible, too. How many of these intensely religious people – were also intensely passionate before the marriage? or married out of convenience?

Maybe that should be the question; how do you know your intended and you are truly compatible over the long haul? I must say it all serves to make one quite afraid of marriage, let alone cohabitation or fornication. Especially for the previously married and divorced.

Now you hit a nerve.

Isn’t that what marriage prep courses are for? ( Ironically, the priest that presided at my wedding – used to date my mom. He knew my family and my wife’s family well enough that he wasn’t concerned about the catholic issues – I hope to prove him right, although right now my marriage is on the rocks so to speak and I don’t hink he knew my inlaws as well as he thought – he never dated them… )

I also would note that now (in hindsight) the “counsellors” are wont to note how “different” my wife and I are – I have had plenty of time to think about this.
But, what exactly makes you afraid of marriage ( I would agree ).

Peace.