The Cohabitation Effect: Fact or Fiction?

Living together before marriage: do or do not?

I'm a Southern girl who was born and raised a Lutheran, and according to some co-workers, this is why I am against living with your significant other before marriage. According to an article written by Meg Jay for the NY Times, cohabitation in the US has increased by 1,500% with more than 7.5 million unmarried couples living together. And subsequently couples who live together are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. So, why do it?

The resounding response among those I asked was that you have to live with a person to truly know them. That everyone is on their best behavior until, apparently, you live together, at which point the real person you're dating comes out. I would hope you're not moving in with someone that you've only just started dating, that you move in together after at least a year, because in my mind living together is pretty serious. And if you've been together that long and they're still on their best behavior? Let me know where you met them, because I want to find someone like that.

I think that's where I fall on the other side of the fence on this debate. Serious. I understand some people live together because it's easier than having 2 rents or mortgages to pay, and if you are at each others house all the time...but that just sounds like a recipe for disaster. You're not living together for commitment purposes, mainly for convenience, so what's to stop one of you from calling things off and moving out the second the other leaves clothes on the floor or moves your spices?

I think nowadays, too many people take what used to be serious steps in a relationship with the mindset of, well, if it doesn't work out, I'll just move or we'll get divorced. There's an easy out that prevents people from working through things, and what once was sacred is now just, meh. Yes, I completely understand and see that that statement makes me the most traditional person, I am who I am. That being said, I can understand where my debaters are coming from, in a sense. You say you want to make sure you mesh with this person 24/7. Fair enough, but what I'm hearing is, you want to take the uncertainty out of a relationship. You want to see how they deal with conflict when one arises between you two? I'm sure there will plenty of opportunities to experience that when you're married. And ultimately, how long do you live together before you finally tie the knot? Do you set a deadline and, if you're still together when it comes, you get married? Or do you wait for a reason to end things?

Yes, I'm a traditionalist and I understand that I might be a dying breed. But I don't see the point of living with someone before marriage. Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free?

Read More

After revisiting the wonders of Happy Endings: Season One (seriously check it out, even though the show has been cancelled), I was inspired to analyze the two break up styles utilized by everyone, including yours truly and even the writers of that phenomenal show.

If you're reading this, odds are you've been in a relationship or dated someone. And if that's the case, you've experienced what I refer to as The Conversation, or the infamous Petering Out. When it comes to dating, or the end of dating someone, there are only two ways to end things (see above). Obviously The Conversation forces the person to fess up and be honest with the other person, which for some people is great. Petering Out is the road more often traveled when things were kept pretty light and casual, the eventual fading out of the other person's life. The span between calls, hang outs, and texts grows until they finally stop. No potentially awkward conversation or confrontation, just easing out of it.

The question is, which is better?

Obviously, certain situations demand specifics. You say you've been in a relationship for a year? I swear, if you try to Peter Out I will find you and slap you. You better be writing that speech and be prepared to sit down and converse. You've only been on a few dates? Absolutely let that slide; the other will get over it.

But what about that murky in between? It never got that serious but lasted for a bit, you got pretty close. Or what if you run in the same circle of friends? You know you'll see the other person again, so which route do you take? Do you chance petering out even though you're inevitably going to talk again or do you give them the speech and hope it negates any future awkwardness?

In the span of writing this, I've gone back and forth on which I prefer more times than I've used question marks (go back and count them, it's a lot). I'm a fan of The Conversation because, even though it could be uncomfortable (is there ever a situation like this in which it's not?), both parties know that nothing more is going to happen. It's done, kaput, finito. You could also make it quick and rip that band-aid off; "I don't think we should see each other anymore" or the classic "This just isn't going to happen, but you're great!" click. Perhaps the best way to approach the conversation is looking at it from a timeline - avoid awkward face to face rejection and do it on the phone if you've gone out on a handful of dates. Otherwise, it's probably progressed enough that you should do it face to face.

As more time has elapsed, I think Petering Out is what you reserve for the casual encounters that could have amounted to something but one of you, or both of you, aren't wanting to take it there. Or maybe you realize the other person is not your cuppa tea and since it was never that serious, you decide to just let it slowly fall through the cracks. I think I'd save this card for the interactions in the I-met-you-randomly-and-will-never-see-you-after-this category and move on.

Note: I have recently been informed of Ghosting, in which one person simply vanishes from the radar. A few dates in and boom, silence. I think I almost like the idea of Ghosting more than Petering Out, only because, unless a rock is smarter than you, you realize the silence from the person who once responded is due to them not being interested. But if you're going to do that, you might as well have The Conversation and get it over with. Otherwise, it's guaranteed to be awkward the next time you run into each other post-Ghost.

Read More

Do you love me?

Are you playing those love games with me?

Old Gregg understands love games; he’s been forced to play them many a time with his kidnapped suitors. Unfortunately, I don’t understand them. Why would anyone play games with someone they’re interested in? The last thing I would ever want to do to someone I could see having a relationship with, is mess with their mind and make them think I’m not interested. So my question for you – what’s the point of playing games?

I was fortunate enough to watch an interaction a few weeks ago that spurred this topic, as well as be a recipient to such silly game playing a few weeks before that, and it really got me wondering why people think playing anything in the beginning stages of dating is a good idea. Exhibit A: playing hard to get. We’ve all heard about it, I’m sure we’ve all done it, but what’s the point? Are there actually people who are only into someone if there’s a chase? If it’s a challenge to be with that person? What possible benefit could there be in being with someone who made you think they weren’t interested at the get go? Frankly, that would just tick me off and send me running the opposite way but maybe that’s just me. Excuse me for thinking I’m worth more than high school juvenility and sticking around long enough to stroke your ego.

Exhibit B: leading someone on. Saying “Let’s hang out!” but never actually doing it. What is the point of you constantly telling me you want to hang out, asking what I’m doing all weekend, to not do anything with the information? On the same note, don’t text me asking how I’m doing or how my weekend was if all you want out of the conversation is a boost to your confidence. What is the point in letting someone believe there is a shot when you know and knew all along, that there wasn’t? Is it some sort of complex that Freud and Jung never picked up on? If you know there is absolutely no potential there, say it. I’ll admit, I’ve had some hard times with this because, yes, it’s a lot easier to go along with something than to tell someone ‘thanks but no thanks’ but man up and call it what it is. Nothing.

What this all boils down to is my utter confusion as to why anyone would want to do any of the above. I guess I'm one of the weird ones in that my interest in you inspires me to hang out with you, get closer to you, get to know you better, not brush you off when you ask to hang out, hoping you'll want me that much more. Even that comparison sounded convoluted! So what do you think about the game playing that seems to be ever present in the dating world? 

Read More

I'm a girl, a woman, a female, so I'll be frank. I often find myself thinking about love, romance, relationships, the whole ball of wax. The question that's been on my mind as of late - what would you sacrifice for love? Nothing? Everything?

I may be the only person who thinks that love truly is what it's all about, but I do. That with love you can survive just about anything. I'm not saying it will be easy, no siree, but it will be worth it, because in my mind, that's what I've been put on this Earth for. I'm not here to build a company from the ground up and watch it flourish, nor am I here to help govern a city, state or country. I am here to attempt to change people's lives, or heck, a life, with what I've been taught and what I feel in my heart. So what is it about this day and age that has so many people not settling down? Are all twenty-somethings willing to watch a great relationship slip by because they want to be single that badly?

Talking to a girlfriend today made me realize I'm not the only one suffering from this disease. In fact, she shares all of my thoughts and ideals when it comes to this topic. She said, you sacrifice for what you want the most, and when you do, it's worth everything you gave up in the first place. I conclude this post sitting in the Las Vegas airport, having spent 2 hours mulling over this topic in flight. I must admit, I was surprised at the conclusion I reached. Hypothetical question: would I be willing to sacrifice a great job in my dream industry to stay where I know the good guys are?  Would I be willing to move to LA to follow my dreams, knowing the odds of finding a great guy aren't in my favor? Would I be willing to sacrifice my dreams of a great love and incredible relationship to pursue my career dreams? Because if me, a huge advocate for love, isn't willing or ready to sacrifice one dream for the other, I can't expect you to sacrifice yours.

"Love cannot accept what it is. Everywhere on earth it cries out against kindness, compassion, intelligence, everything that leads to compromise. Love demands the impossible, the absolute, the sky on fire, inexhaustible springtime, life after death, and death itself transfigured into eternal life."

--Albert Camus 

Read More

We've all been there in one way or another, visiting the infamous Friend Zone, but here's what I don't understand - "they" say the best relationships come after being friends, so how do you avoid the friend zone but still be friends?

I will admit that I've put guys in the friend zone, and I've been put there myself. Sometimes it's the zone of I-like-you-but-not-right-now and other times it's the I-don't-know-how-to-tell-you-I-don't-like-you zone. Part of me thinks the idea of it is simply an excuse, a cop out when you really don't want to have that talk because let's be honest, you're not going to reciprocate feelings for everyone. Sometimes they really are just a friend.

But, let's say you are one of the unlucky few who are in the friend zone because of outside circumstances. Half of the party is kind of seeing someone that isn't you, maybe someone just got out of a relationship and isn't ready to dive back into the dating game. Regardless, it's not the right time and boom, there's the friend zone. Is it possible to hover between a relationship and friends without entering the dreaded friend zone? And if you do get zoned, is it possible to get out of it?

I feel like it's pretty hard to be a Champion of the Friend Zone like Jim Halpert. It's one of those, once you're in Dodge, you're not getting out. But if you do make it out alive, you deserve the person on your arm and a gold medal. And if you don't make it out, you got a great friend out of it, right?

Read More

The First Date Paradox

We've all been on those dates with someone that don't turn out like you're expecting. Maybe the restaurant is a mecca for vegetarians but all you want it is a hunk of steak, maybe your date expects you do to all the talking. Regardless, the date is awkwardly uncomfortable and the end can't come fast enough. Then there are times when the date ends and all you can think is, Where did the time go? That being said, I decided to dive into the minds and experiences of my friends and myself and uncover what it is that makes (or breaks) a first date.

Let me start by pointing out that I'm a girl. I have never asked anyone on a date nor have I had to plan one for myself. Sure, I've been incredibly forward (especially so this past year) and practically asked guys out, but luckily they've caught on before I ask and do it themselves. And, being a girl, I can only offer one view on an activity that involves two. Of course, I am only one girl so don't take my word as the end all be all (because I know you do already) and blame me later if your date goes poorly. Clear? And we're off.

The perfect first date, especially when I don't know the other guy that well, is to go somewhere casual and talk. A nice bar with good food (I promise, they exist) where I can get a beer instead of wine and be comfortable chatting. Where there might be a TV on the wall to offer some topics for conversation should it ever lag. After talking with friends, I find I might be alone in this opinion. Sure, if we continue to date I'll want you to take me somewhere nice, but not from the get go. First dates are nerve wracking enough, let's not add a super classy dinner to the list of things to think about. For me, first dates are about getting to know you and vice versa and I will never really be myself in a restaurant where appetizers cost more than I would normally spend on a meal.

I asked some guy friends why a fancy dinner has become the norm and they said they want to impress the girl. I countered with, "Sure it's nice but I'd be more impressed if you were comfortable enough with me to go to a casual place." Of course, a bar yields a potential problem - what if your date doesn't drink? A sporting event seemed to be a preferred date by the guys which raised the issue that your date might not like the sport you're watching. This led to more discussion and I began to realize that yes, planning a first date is indeed difficult. But if you don't know if you're date likes to drink or if s/he hates baseball, you should probably hang out with her more in a group setting before diving into the date. Am I alone in this opinion? Probably, but I'm the kind of person who wants to know more than your name before we're alone together.

All this post and its research did was encourage my curiosity about first dates. I can't really be the only person who wants a chill first date, right? And if I'm not, when did the fancy first date become the norm? If it's expected for guys to spend a ton of money on a girl who may or may not lead to anything, I'm surprised guys still ask girls out.

So I ask you - what is your perfect first date?

Read More

"Some people are settling down, some people are settling and some people refuse to settle for anything less...than butterflies."

--Carrie Bradshaw

Well, it's that time again. Sunday night always rolls around and I always feel like I did in primary school - bummed. Not necessarily bummed to go to work but sad that another weekend has come to an end.

I was remembering a conversation had between friends last weekend earlier today. Somehow we got onto the topic of relationships and settling and ever since then I've wondered, is settling worse than ending up alone? I'm not sure. Part of me says yes, absolutely. How can you be happy if the whole time you're wondering what else is out there? But when you're alone, you can't help wonder if you gave up on the one you were supposed to end up with. Or when you're going to meet the one you will end up with.

Which raised another point, if everyone has their one that got away, what is it that prevents us from trying to win them back? Is it pride? Or is it the fear that they got away for a reason? Too many times we over think things. Emotions, relationships, actions. My first instinct is to overanalyze everything when it comes to interactions with the opposite sex which tends to make things, or really just me, crazy. But now, I have decided to think less and just got for it. Go with your gut and don't look back. That's what my professors always told me on tests and it looks like it's pretty applicable to life.

So the question remains: would you rather settle or be alone? Would you risk losing a good relationship because you believe a better one must out there? Or would you hold out in the hope that that good relationship turns into the one that gives you butterflies? Would you stay in a relationship because you're scared to be alone, even if it you know you're only in it to maintain the status quo? Or would you go for it, try to find the right person for you knowing full well that you might not? It's taken me a couple hundred words plus a quote from a wise woman to realize, I won't settle for anything less than butterflies. And if he doesn't show up, at least I have my dog...

Read More

Something's gotta give

What is it about relationships that get us all worked up? We turn into a different person, we want different things. Maybe this isn't everyone, maybe it's just me but something's gotta give.

The above statement is A) the result of letting my fingers type out exactly what my mind tells them at the exact time it says it and B) absolutely terrifying. Looking over said statement I wonder, is that true? Have I made a rudimentary mistake and let my relationship change who I am? And if so, why do we let this happen?

They say great people, acts or events can change us and if that's true, great. So why is it that people say they won't let a relationship change who they are? I remember talking with girlfriends, saying I wouldn't let a boy change me for anything, but what is the harm in this? If he changes me for the better, shouldn't we embrace that with open arms? When did it become frowned upon to change during and post relationship?

Personally, I think this fear of change stems from the belief that if you change who you are, the relationship isn't real. Which is true, to some extent. Doing a complete 180 for the other person isn't healthy and won't lead to a prosperous relationship, but some changes can make a person better. Realizing you need to be more vocal about your wants can benefit not only your relationship but your life. Learning that it's not all about you can extend past one relationship and bleed into others.

As a person who has never dealt well with change, this is one I can willingly accept. If he changes me for the better that in turn positively affects (effects? I could never get this rule!) other aspects of my life, then bring it on. As Glinda the Good Witch sings in Wicked, "people come into our lives for a reason, bringing something we must learn" and while I've graduated college, I realize I'll never stop learning.

Read More