Living with Boyfriend/Girlfriend in College -your thoughts-would you decline to support?

[Ravin]

That must be regional?  Because in many places, common law marriages have the same protections (and once same sex marriages were recognized, they too can be common law) 

 

In places in the U.S. where common law marriage is recognized, it takes more than just cohabitation to establish a common law marriage. You have to "hold yourselves out" in the community as married and be generally recognized as married, with paper trail evidence of it. Things like a joint bank account, identifying yourselves as a married couple on official documents, etc.

 

I don't know about Canada.

[Ravin]

I think this, too. Actually, at this point in my life, I'm not fully certain that marriage is expressly necessary. I've thought about that a lot in recent years. I do see where it adds some security if you are a dependant AHM of small children, so there's that. And it's easier than trying to figure out a naming construct (for children) that works and won't make people ask a bunch of questions. Probably works out better for jointly owned property. I'm not sure. But if I found myself without a mate at this point, I'm fairly certain I would never marry again, even if I did make a permanent commitment to someone else.

 

It bugged me when I was in my early twenties and people, especially older ladies, spoke to me about how I could "get him" to marry me. I found that so belittling. There was no part of me that wanted someone to marry me because I "got him" to. Also, I was young and not in any particular hurry to get married.

 

DH and I got married when we did pretty much because it increased our standard of living because I was in the military. Even though we weren't able to live together the first 2 years of marriage, i was able to get BAH and help him with living expenses while he was in culinary school, as well as change my residency even though I wasn't physically in the state where he lived, which was useful when I wanted to join him in his state at the end of my enlistment because I didn't have to worry about starting college with out of state tuition.

 

I suspect a lot of younger and poor people nowadays don't get benefits or security from marriage that make it worth their while.

[Guest]

The other significant aspect I think is public recognition of the marriage - that it is right and according to customs. We tend I think to poo poo that often but there are good reasons for it even if there are also pitfalls - it helps keep people from marrying someone inappropriate, it makes sure rules around finding a spouse are followed, it makes sure they will have the support of the community in their lives and in childrearing, and in the end marriage is a social thing and not just a personal one.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but to me, the most significant aspect of marriage in Biblical times that is extremely different from today is that we (modern society) delay marriage far beyond physical maturation and we expect much more of a "good life" than just choosing a mate, committing to them, and having children. It makes sense that someone would not have intercourse prior to marriage when most girls were married before age 15 and most boys not much past that age. It also made sense to not have intercourse prior to marriage because avoiding pregnancy was much less effective. It also made sense when a woman had little to no role except to bear children and be a domstic assistant to her husband. It was a good way of ensuring that she would most likely be cared for appropriately and her children would survive, not much different from how we now may goal for our children to complete a degree program at a good college or school before they have children.

 

I just think a lot of the reasons why people should be "officially" married and shouldn't engage in pre-marital sex are based on antiquated ideas and are no longer relevant, or as relevant, in modern society.

[TranquilMind]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but to me, the most significant aspect of marriage in Biblical times that is extremely different from today is that we (modern society) delay marriage far beyond physical maturation and we expect much more of a "good life" than just choosing a mate, committing to them, and having children. It makes sense that someone would not have intercourse prior to marriage when most girls were married before age 15 and most boys not much past that age. It also made sense to not have intercourse prior to marriage because avoiding pregnancy was much less effective. It also made sense when a woman had little to no role except to bear children and be a domstic assistant to her husband. It was a good way of ensuring that she would most likely be cared for appropriately and her children would survive, not much different from how we now may goal for our children to complete a degree program at a good college or school before they have children.

 

I just think a lot of the reasons why people should be "officially" married and shouldn't engage in pre-marital sex are based on antiquated ideas and are no longer relevant, or as relevant, in modern society.

 

I appreciate your points, but life experience brought me to the opposite conclusion.  I agree that we all want all of our kids to get degrees today or get established in a good trade/career but I also believe that sexual morals don't really change, ultimately, no matter what we do as a society. None of us looks for that extremely sexually experienced person (though we may end up marrying someone who is if he changed his ways), for reasons that make a lot of sense, like avoidance of disease, and constant comparison or even running into multiple other sexual partners of our spouse.  That must be really icky.   Nothing antiquated about that. 

 

When one is from a faith tradition that adheres to biblical principles, then it is a mandate to abstain until marriage (and forgivable if you didn't) for reasons that makes sense after you are married.  No other partners ever,  no other babies out there, no diseases...I think that is a great thing. 

 

People literally laughed out loud in my face in the bar where I worked when one night, during a deep discussion (we did this a lot with customers!), I said I was going to marry a virgin.  I even actually made a list of all the qualities I wanted in a spouse some day, from trivial like eye color, to very important, like sharing my faith and values,  and told the Lord I was never dating again until this man came along (after a few bad experiences until I realized that God really was right about all this).  I put the list away.  I pulled it out when I was going to marry my husband.  I got 24 out of the 25 listed items, and the one I didn't get was height, which I think we can all agree is not very important in the scheme of things. 

 

 We are about to celebrate going on three decades of a great marriage, so I'm satisfied with my ridiculous and laughable decision  ;)

 

 

[Guest]

I appreciate your points, but life experience brought me to the opposite conclusion. I agree that we all want all of our kids to get degrees today or get established in a good trade/career but I also believe that sexual morals don't really change, ultimately, no matter what we do as a society. None of us looks for that extremely sexually experienced person (though we may end up marrying someone who is if he changed his ways), for reasons that make a lot of sense, like avoidance of disease, and constant comparison or even running into multiple other sexual partners of our spouse. That must be really icky. Nothing antiquated about that.

 

When one is from a faith tradition that adheres to biblical principles, then it is a mandate to abstain until marriage (and forgivable if you didn't) for reasons that makes sense after you are married. No other partners ever, no other babies out there, no diseases...I think that is a great thing.

 

People literally laughed out loud in my face in the bar where I worked when one night, during a deep discussion (we did this a lot with customers!), I said I was going to marry a virgin. I even actually made a list of all the qualities I wanted in a spouse some day, from trivial like eye color, to very important, like sharing my faith and values, and told the Lord I was never dating again until this man came along (after a few bad experiences until I realized that God really was right about all this). I put the list away. I pulled it out when I was going to marry my husband. I got 24 out of the 25 listed items, and the one I didn't get was height, which I think we can all agree is not very important in the scheme of things.

 

We are about to celebrate going on three decades of a great marriage, so I'm satisfied with my ridiculous and laughable decision ;)

I agree that most people are not looking to marry someone who has had uncountable hook-ups they can't even remember. I don't argue for promiscuity. But it's not as though there are only two possibilities: marry a virgin or marry someone who has had uncountable hook ups they can't even remember. In fact, when I was in the marriage-eligible years, most people with whom I had discussed the matter were in neither category. Most of my girlfriends in their twenties had had 1-2 long-term partners in high school/after high school, and then perhaps a few other shorter-term relationships.

 

Personally, I eould MUCH rather my grown kids had a few relationships and make their choice for marriage from that objective viewpoint than for them to be so h@rny they can't think straight, but think they have to get married to have sex. I do not want my kids to rush into marriage because they are h@rny and not rational.

[TranquilMind]

I agree that most people are not looking to marry someone who has had uncountable hook-ups they can't even remember. I don't argue for promiscuity. But it's not as though there are only two possibilities: marry a virgin or marry someone who has had uncountable hook ups they can't even remember. In fact, when I was in the marriage-eligible years, most people with whom I had discussed the matter were in neither category. Most of my girlfriends in their twenties had had 1-2 long-term partners in high school/after high school, and then perhaps a few other shorter-term relationships.

 

Personally, I eould MUCH rather my grown kids had a few relationships and make their choice for marriage from that objective viewpoint than for them to be so [email protected]<script data-cfhash='f9e31' type="text/javascript">/* */</script> they can't think straight, but think they have to get married to have sex. I do not want my kids to rush into marriage because they are [email protected]and not rational.

You hope there aren't only those two options! But my kids tell me that I would not believe what the high school and young adult crowd is doing today!  I hope they are just yanking my chain. 

 

One of mine had a campus tour the other day.  This is a high school group.  The one conducting the tour left out the typical locations and decided to focus on all the out-of-the-way places where you can sneak and have sex with your girlfriend or boyfriend!    I asked my kid if a few others were surprised, and I was told yes, a few were taken aback.  So of course I said, "Well those are your friends!"  ;)

 

These days are not those days of our youth, I do know that. 

 

(Weird "Email protected" links are showing up in your post with a bunch of javascript stuff as I am responding,  just FYI)

[creekland]

I even actually made a list of all the qualities I wanted in a spouse some day, from trivial like eye color, to very important, like sharing my faith and values,  and told the Lord I was never dating again until this man came along (after a few bad experiences until I realized that God really was right about all this). 

 

I guess my point in this thread is that my list (had I made one, I didn't) doesn't have to be identical to my kids' lists should they opt to make any.  They are them, not me, and their relationship with God is theirs.  I'm paying their living expenses while at college and there are no strings attached to their list.  Their acceptance in my family is not dependent upon our lists being similar either.  

 

What hubby and I have chosen in our relationship and what we like/dislike about the decisions we've made have been shared as part of their upbringing and general discussions about life.  

 

They get to make their own decisions and priorities now.  I'm certainly glad my parents didn't decide for me what my life had to be like.

[Guest]

You hope there aren't only those two options! But my kids tell me that I would not believe what the high school and young adult crowd is doing today! I hope they are just yanking my chain.

 

One of mine had a campus tour the other day. This is a high school group. The one conducting the tour left out the typical locations and decided to focus on all the out-of-the-way places where you can sneak and have sex with your girlfriend or boyfriend! I asked my kid if a few others were surprised, and I was told yes, a few were taken aback. So of course I said, "Well those are your friends!" ;)

 

These days are not those days of our youth, I do know that.

 

(Weird "Email protected" links are showing up in your post with a bunch of javascript stuff as I am responding, just FYI)

Well, I haven't polled the entire population of 15-25 year olds, true, but it is illogical to believe there are only virgins or extremely far from virgins out there. My anecdotal experience both when I was in that age group, as well as what I hear from my DD and nieces/nephews (admittedly a small sampling) is that there are the same categories there always have been. There are some young people who are committed to virginity for as long as that takes. There are some young people who think nothing of hooking up with anyone/anytime/ any circumstance; i.e., recreational sex. And then there are a lot of people, male and female, who have had a small number of long-term relationships and sex is part of that picture.

 

Also, note that in your post above you said "where you can have sex with your girlfriend or boyfriend." I'm saying there's nothing shocking or surprising about that statement. Many college kids are having sex with their bf/gf, but that is why I put that in a different category from both the perpetual virgins and the promiscuous rec sex interactions.

 

I don't know why there's weird java script stuff. Strange.

[bettyandbob]

 

One of mine had a campus tour the other day. This is a high school group. The one conducting the tour left out the typical locations and decided to focus on all the out-of-the-way places where you can sneak and have sex with your girlfriend or boyfriend! I asked my kid if a few others were surprised, and I was told yes, a few were taken aback. So of course I said, "Well those are your friends!" ;)

 

(Weird "Email protected" links are showing up in your post with a bunch of javascript stuff as I am responding, just FYI)

Well that's just weird. Dd did 8 tours and never got that. Some tour guides might have seemed over focused on food, but mostly it was usual mix of things like intramural sports, clubs, campus green initiative, Greek, research opportunities, etc.

 

Honestly why would anyone need an out of the way spot. Everyone has a dorm room or apartment and can work out logistics with room mates. Why would it need to noted that you can hook up in some place that is probably grundgy and uncomfortable.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Diana P.

[Bluegoat]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but to me, the most significant aspect of marriage in Biblical times that is extremely different from today is that we (modern society) delay marriage far beyond physical maturation and we expect much more of a "good life" than just choosing a mate, committing to them, and having children. It makes sense that someone would not have intercourse prior to marriage when most girls were married before age 15 and most boys not much past that age. It also made sense to not have intercourse prior to marriage because avoiding pregnancy was much less effective. It also made sense when a woman had little to no role except to bear children and be a domstic assistant to her husband. It was a good way of ensuring that she would most likely be cared for appropriately and her children would survive, not much different from how we now may goal for our children to complete a degree program at a good college or school before they have children.

 

I just think a lot of the reasons why people should be "officially" married and shouldn't engage in pre-marital sex are based on antiquated ideas and are no longer relevant, or as relevant, in modern society.

 

I think that those are big reasons we've seen changes in our mariage practices.  Also, honestly, the availability of antibiotics.

 

However, I think from a purely social POV, those things haven't proven as reliable as people, and maybe especially young people, tend to assume they will be - but more to the point I think in this discussion  I think that once people have moved in together, it actually becomes much more difficult to avoid many of the potential downsides of being attached to someone without having the social and legal supports of marriage.  I think once people are living together, a lot of the issues of being married begin to arise because really, that is what being married is in essence.  Avoiding getting married at that point can undermine those challenges. (Not always, sometimes the reasons have different origin, but essentially I think being a couple requires a particular level of commitment, and avoiding that level isn't going to make things better.)

 

But - I actually tend to think that we often delay marriage longer than is optimal even in changed circumstances, that being married as a student can be just fine for many people, that some of those "more thing" we expect aren't that important and others can be pursued along with a marriage.

 

From a theological view though, I think what it really comes down to is what sexuality is meant to do or be for, and that isn't really dependent on modern settings or not.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Guest]

I think that those are big reasons we've seen changes in our mariage practices. Also, honestly, the availability of antibiotics.

 

However, I think from a purely social POV, those things haven't proven as reliable as people, and maybe especially young people, tend to assume they will be - but more to the point I think in this discussion I think that once people have moved in together, it actually becomes much more difficult to avoid many of the potential downsides of being attached to someone without having the social and legal supports of marriage. I think once people are living together, a lot of the issues of being married begin to arise because really, that is what being married is in essence. Avoiding getting married at that point can undermine those challenges. (Not always, sometimes the reasons have different origin, but essentially I think being a couple requires a particular level of commitment, and avoiding that level isn't going to make things better.)

 

But - I actually tend to think that we often delay marriage longer than is optimal even in changed circumstances, that being married as a student can be just fine for many people, that some of those "more thing" we expect aren't that important and others can be pursued along with a marriage.

 

From a theological view though, I think what it really comes down to is what sexuality is meant to do or be for, and that isn't really dependent on modern settings or not.

But what are you saying in Re the bolded? Are you saying that it's better to be already "stuck" in a not-easily-reversable arrangement (legal marriage) before you find out that living with another person is hard? Because, hey, it's hard. Other Person may load the knives into the dishwasher point-up, routinely toss laundry beside the hamper rather than in it, or have an unbearable snore. Are you saying it's better to be hitched for good so that it's not easy to flee when the honeymoon is over?

 

I'm thinking more often these days of how the political structure of marriage came about. And I don't think it's always good.

[Ravin]

I agree that most people are not looking to marry someone who has had uncountable hook-ups they can't even remember. I don't argue for promiscuity. But it's not as though there are only two possibilities: marry a virgin or marry someone who has had uncountable hook ups they can't even remember. In fact, when I was in the marriage-eligible years, most people with whom I had discussed the matter were in neither category. Most of my girlfriends in their twenties had had 1-2 long-term partners in high school/after high school, and then perhaps a few other shorter-term relationships.

 

Personally, I eould MUCH rather my grown kids had a few relationships and make their choice for marriage from that objective viewpoint than for them to be so [email protected]<script data-cfhash='f9e31' type="text/javascript">/* */</script> they can't think straight, but think they have to get married to have sex. I do not want my kids to rush into marriage because they are [email protected]and not rational.

 

Of course, then there are those who consider sexual experience a nice bonus, or simply don't care about past sexual history.

 

A partner's sexual history is good to know from a health standpoint, but is hardly the most important or even very important at all a thing about them to consider when looking at marriage.

 

What does matter is being on the same page about expectations of sexual fidelity once you are in a relationship and after marriage. 

[TranquilMind]

I guess my point in this thread is that my list (had I made one, I didn't) doesn't have to be identical to my kids' lists should they opt to make any.  They are them, not me, and their relationship with God is theirs.  I'm paying their living expenses while at college and there are no strings attached to their list.  Their acceptance in my family is not dependent upon our lists being similar either.  

 

What hubby and I have chosen in our relationship and what we like/dislike about the decisions we've made have been shared as part of their upbringing and general discussions about life.  

 

They get to make their own decisions and priorities now.  I'm certainly glad my parents didn't decide for me what my life had to be like.

Nor did mine.

 

I'm not saying my kids' lists have to be the same as mine. I'm just saying that I actually did make one in my mid-twenties.  It worked out well.

I did not make one for my kids.  They will have to make their own (mental or actual) lists. 

[TranquilMind]

Well that's just weird. Dd did 8 tours and never got that. Some tour guides might have seemed over focused on food, but mostly it was usual mix of things like intramural sports, clubs, campus green initiative, Greek, research opportunities, etc.

 

Honestly why would anyone need an out of the way spot. Everyone has a dorm room or apartment and can work out logistics with room mates. Why would it need to noted that you can hook up in some place that is probably grundgy and uncomfortable.

 

We thought it was pretty weird too. 

 

[creekland]

Nor did mine.

 

I'm not saying my kids' lists have to be the same as mine. I'm just saying that I actually did make one in my mid-twenties.  It worked out well.

I did not make one for my kids.  They will have to make their own (mental or actual) lists. 

 

But for those who are saying they would withhold money, they are expecting behavior on the parent's list.  It's conditional.

 

Personally, I doubt having conditions will stop many from actually having sex if that's what they want.  It will just make them sneakier about it - and should a pregnancy come about, abortion without parent knowledge is a definite probability.

 

I'll admit I find it sad when kids at school will share more with trusted teachers than they do with their parents, but some parents make it difficult for kids to share.  And of course, that same thing moves on to college for many.

[8filltheheart]

I didn't read the thread,just Creekland's last post and the OP. We are parents who wouldn't pay. But, we are parents who don't believe our kids have any right to expect our $$. Paying for college is not a right for our kids. Equally,they absolutely know our values which are deeply held religious beliefs. No question about where we stand.

 

If they decided to move in with someone w/o marriage, that is their perogative. We wouldn't change our relationship with them. They would know we strongly disapprove but the consequences of their life choices are theirs, not ours. But equally, one of the consequences of making that adult life choice would be assuming the adult financial responsibility for it.

 

Zero qualms about the decision. Our kids are raised from day 1 to know our values. They equally know that we have limits in what we are able to offer them as adults. If they want to reject our values, they can. (And they have. We certainly do not attempt to control their behaviors. And we are very close to all of our adult children, so it isn't a control type issue.) But, they also know that choices come with consequences. They would never expect mom and dad to fund any choices that reject our beliefs.

 

No way our kids would tell us that the only thing that mattered were their grades. If it is our $$, they know our $$ would not be used to pay for a seriously immoral lifestyle. That would be financially supporting the immoral situtation. Not happening bc we would be morally complicit.

 

Really doesn't matter to me what the outside world thinks. That is the way our family functions based on the beliefs we hold.

Edited August 12, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[TechWife]

How do they afford to pay to maintain their original place?  Aren't aren't there rules to prevent subletting? 

 

Subletting is very common with college apartments in the town where ds goes to college. Leases are for 12 months and students often sublet when they go home for the summer, have an out of town internship, are student teaching or simply taking a semester off. Leasing in a college town is a whole different animal than in a non-college town. 

[Bluegoat]

But what are you saying in Re the bolded? Are you saying that it's better to be already "stuck" in a not-easily-reversable arrangement (legal marriage) before you find out that living with another person is hard? Because, hey, it's hard. Other Person may load the knives into the dishwasher point-up, routinely toss laundry beside the hamper rather than in it, or have an unbearable snore. Are you saying it's better to be hitched for good so that it's not easy to flee when the honeymoon is over?

 

I'm thinking more often these days of how the political structure of marriage came about. And I don't think it's always good.

 

What I mean is that once you are at the point of living together, the kind of commitment needed to make a relationhip work is the same, whether you are married or not.  Even when people are trying to set it up as a roomates scenario, relationship things usually start to intrude in a way they simply don't with a real roommate - the expectations and needs of a romantic/sexual relationship are different.

 

I don't really consider dishwashers and snoring to be serious relationship issues.

 

If you go into it thinking "We won't marry because it is less of a commitment and I'm not ready for that" you are already at a serious disadvantage in terms of relationship success. Even without being married, dissolving a live in relationship is stressful at best and can sometimes be horrible and ugly, so without that commitment it might be better just to steer clear of it altogether.

 

I think its also true that being tied legally often makes people take the time and effort to work through things they wouldn't otherwise, though that wasn't my point.  I think we don't like to say it though because it seems less than romantic. 

[Ravin]

What I mean is that once you are at the point of living together, the kind of commitment needed to make a relationhip work is the same, whether you are married or not.  Even when people are trying to set it up as a roomates scenario, relationship things usually start to intrude in a way they simply don't with a real roommate - the expectations and needs of a romantic/sexual relationship are different.

 

I don't really consider dishwashers and snoring to be serious relationship issues.

 

If you go into it thinking "We won't marry because it is less of a commitment and I'm not ready for that" you are already at a serious disadvantage in terms of relationship success. Even without being married, dissolving a live in relationship is stressful at best and can sometimes be horrible and ugly, so without that commitment it might be better just to steer clear of it altogether.

 

I think its also true that being tied legally often makes people take the time and effort to work through things they wouldn't otherwise, though that wasn't my point.  I think we don't like to say it though because it seems less than romantic. 

 

That isn't actually true. You don't need the kind of commitment in a "living together" relationship you do in a marriage. For a few examples:

 

In marriage, you fiscal worlds are mingled whether you want them to be or not. If you are living together, you are not beholden to each other for things like medical care, insurance, food, or really any way you spend your money except the bills that you choose to share. If the lease and utilities are in the name of just one cohabitant, that person is the only one responsible for them, etc. On paper there is no obligation to be anything more than intimately involved roommates.

 

In marriage, you make that person your next of kin. If you are sick and in the hospital, your spouse is the person the doctors will talk to, not your mom. That isn't true if you are just living together, unless you write up a legal document such as a consent to disclose and/or a medical power of attorney giving the person  you live with that access.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Ravin

[Guest]

What I mean is that once you are at the point of living together, the kind of commitment needed to make a relationhip work is the same, whether you are married or not. Even when people are trying to set it up as a roomates scenario, relationship things usually start to intrude in a way they simply don't with a real roommate - the expectations and needs of a romantic/sexual relationship are different.

 

I don't really consider dishwashers and snoring to be serious relationship issues.

 

If you go into it thinking "We won't marry because it is less of a commitment and I'm not ready for that" you are already at a serious disadvantage in terms of relationship success. Even without being married, dissolving a live in relationship is stressful at best and can sometimes be horrible and ugly, so without that commitment it might be better just to steer clear of it altogether.

 

I think its also true that being tied legally often makes people take the time and effort to work through things they wouldn't otherwise, though that wasn't my point. I think we don't like to say it though because it seems less than romantic.

This isn't so much the starting point in my mind. (All this is a moot thought exercise for me, since I am married and have been for 21 years.) I am not thinking so much that marriage is a big committment so let's just not make that committment. I agree that even if you were non-married people co-habitating, a break up is a major upheaval no matter.

 

So for example, if I now, at 45, found myself without a husband for any reason, I think there is nothing that would induce me to actually marry another person, even if I did find someone terrific whom I adore and find a very compatible mate. If I did find such a person as this, I would, at most, consider an arrangement like the one Ravin just outlined: co-habitating with independant finances. I would not expect New Guy to behave as a step-in father to my kids and I would want issues involving my kids to be 100% my own to arrange.

 

I've just come to think the idea of choosing a life-long partner at a young age and making that a legal definite that can only be altered legally, is odd in modern life. People change. I'm not that similar to the 23-year-old me who made those vows and DH is a lot different, too.

 

I think that is all I should say about that for now.

[FaithManor]

Subletting is very common with college apartments in the town where ds goes to college. Leases are for 12 months and students often sublet when they go home for the summer, have an out of town internship, are student teaching or simply taking a semester off. Leasing in a college town is a whole different animal than in a non-college town. 

Agreed. The very nature of college towns is one of transient population so land-lording often looks very different than it does in most other areas.

[Bluegoat]

That isn't actually true. You don't need the kind of commitment in a "living together" relationship you do in a marriage. For a few examples:

 

In marriage, you fiscal worlds are mingled whether you want them to be or not. If you are living together, you are not beholden to each other for things like medical care, insurance, food, or really any way you spend your money except the bills that you choose to share. If the lease and utilities are in the name of just one cohabitant, that person is the only one responsible for them, etc. On paper there is no obligation to be anything more than intimately involved roommates.

 

In marriage, you make that person your next of kin. If you are sick and in the hospital, your spouse is the person the doctors will talk to, not your mom. That isn't true if you are just living together, unless you write up a legal document such as a consent to disclose and/or a medical power of attorney giving the person  you live with that access.

 

I think those are just the kinds of things that become potential problems, though it isn't really the kind of thing I was thinking about.

 

It's one thing to have a roomate who runs into financial issues.  You can probably remain pretty seperate from that.

 

It's another thing if you are in a romantic relationship.  What do you do when your gf or bf can't make the rent, just let them manage it alone?  The sense of duty, and just the desire, to help out would be much greater.  Not many would find it easy to say, not let the other person eat their food.  Sure there is no legal obligation, but that might not make it easier, it might well actually make it more fraught.  How do you manage if one person has a lot more money than the other?

 

These kinds of things can be tricky even when people have a more permanent commitment, and sometimes they can be a problem with roommates, but in the scenario of roommates who are dating, the trust and emotional attachment are less well-defined and more mixed up than in either of those cases.

 

What kind of help and care do you own to an s/o you have a real commitment to, who becomes ill?  What about to a roommate?  For most people, those will be quite different.  But again, what about a convenient s/o who you are living with as a roommate?  It's much less clear, and there is a lot more room to be fraught.

 

What I was thinking is more along the lines of - pretty much every committed relationship goes through very difficult periods, where the fact of the commitment, in itself, has a lot to do with getting the people through it.  The same kind of stakes don't tend to be found with roommates, (though they can, and it also can be ugly.)  Where that doesn't exist, there will often be a break-up at some point.  Even without legal or financial entanglement, a break up with living situation is not that great, especially when finances may be tight.

 

A few people may actually just be roommates, with sex but no extra emotional attachment.  But even when people think it will be that way, often it really isn't. 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

Agreed. The very nature of college towns is one of transient population so land-lording often looks very different than it does in most other areas.

 

Yes, there is a big difference in the part of town here with universities, and the part without.  In the former sub-lets are common and you can't get a month to month lease.  In other areas of the city, month to month leases are common, and subletting is more complicated (though I think it might be a protected tenant right here to sublet, so it isn't banned.)

[Murphy101]

I'm not sure what grades or college has to do with it.

 

I have zero inclination to fund living together outside marriage. Either fish or cut bait. If they can fund it themselves, well I can't stop them. Damn free will.ðŸ˜

 

But I would not give any financial support to the situation. Either commit, for richer or poorer, or move on.

 

Whether I would pay for other things more directly benefiting only my grown child, would depend on many other factors. It would not so much be about punishment, so much as whether I felt it was for their long term good or not. If I didn't, then I wouldn't. And they can view it as a manipulation or punishment or what all else if they want, but that wouldn't be my motivation for doing it or not.

 

ETA: And also, this parental view is not some newsflash to my grown kids. So if they decided to do this, I'd be surprised if they expected any other outcome.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Murphy101

[Guest2]

i think it boils down to whether parents feel it is a madatory obligation to pay for college or a privilege earned by the student. Are all students entitled to a free education funded by parents no matter what? I'm in the "no" camp. Sometimes, the college enviornment can be unhealthy for individuals.

 

They make their own choices, but with choices are consequences. Happy to pay for school , but there are strings. Good grades, good moral lifestyle seem pretty minimal to me, but I worked a bunch of jobs to put myself through school. I didn't have the opportunity for a free education.

 

I wouldn't give them drug money either...ect. Money comes with strings. Now, I would still love them, but couldn't fund any type of lifestyle that Imo would be detrimental to them.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Silver Brook

[Michelle_NC]

Sorry I'm so late to this conversation ... we've been having similar conversations with our daughter and everyone's comments have been very helpful!

 

In our situation, my daughter and her boyfriend plan to get married eventually but it might make more financial sense to move that up a bit.  She'll graduate two years before he will with no debt and he will have about 5 years of student loan debt by the time he graduates. To me, it seems like it would make their life easier if she could work at the college they attend after graduation and hopefully qualify for free tuition since he will be her dependent at that point.  Even at an entry-level salary, she should be able to cover their basic living expenses with a little help from the collective parents.

 

I floated that out to her as something to consider - not encouraging or discouraging, but something they need to discuss as they figure out how to best blend their lives.  I've heard of some couples having small commitment ceremonies (either with the legal paperwork or without) and having the big official wedding at a later date.  Kind of a half-step between unmarried and married. Marriage community college. :001_smile:  

 

Not sure what they will ultimately decide to do, but I really hope it isn't just moving in as roommates. Not so much from a religious standpoint, but because I think it helps establish the support system when both families formally give their blessings, and there's a set expectation.  It's not just bringing two people together - it's bringing two families together.

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Are all students entitled to a free education funded by parents no matter what? I'm in the "no" camp.

 

The government assumes you're paying some of the fee. It can be extremely difficult to get FAFSA or financial aid if your parents aren't chipping in. If you're not paying, then you're raising the cost of their education. That's not moral.

[TranquilMind]

The government assumes you're paying some of the fee. It can be extremely difficult to get FAFSA or financial aid if your parents aren't chipping in. If you're not paying, then you're raising the cost of their education. That's not moral.

 

Unless they are old enough to qualify on their own. That used to mean merely financially independent.  Today it means older than 24.  If you have to wait until 24, then you do it.  Not everyone has parents who can pay or will pay. 

We live in a crazy world.  24 year olds had been married for years and might have 3 kids in my mom's era. 

 

I don't know that I agree with you that parents have an obligation to pay for college.   I do think support comes with some obligations, just like any other free money.  Of course, like most parents, I want to launch mine the best I can so we are.  Because we can. 

 

[TranquilMind]

i think it boils down to whether parents feel it is a madatory obligation to pay for college or a privilege earned by the student. Are all students entitled to a free education funded by parents no matter what? I'm in the "no" camp. Sometimes, the college enviornment can be unhealthy for individuals.

 

They make their own choices, but with choices are consequences. Happy to pay for school , but there are strings. Good grades, good moral lifestyle seem pretty minimal to me, but I worked a bunch of jobs to put myself through school. I didn't have the opportunity for a free education.

 

I wouldn't give them drug money either...ect. Money comes with strings. Now, I would still love them, but couldn't fund that type of lifestyle.

I agree with you and think it is a privilege as well.  My parents certainly could not have afforded to pay for it, since I had a chronically ill sibling.  But I got CDV benefits, so I was really blessed. 

[Tanaqui]

Unless they are old enough to qualify on their own. That used to mean merely financially independent. Today it means older than 24. If you have to wait until 24, then you do it. Not everyone has parents who can pay or will pay.

 

It's harder today to get a job and be "financially independent" without a college diploma or at least some college. If you wait until you're 24, you're losing money.

 

Not everyone has parents who can pay or will pay.

 

That's what FAFSA is for - parents who cannot pay. But it's very hard to convince them that your parents can pay but won't.

 

Now, yes, I'd like to see universal education extended so that we have free university and free preschool. But we're not there yet, not in the US. This is the situation as it is now. Since we have to live with this situation, I stand by my statement that it is immoral to willfully prevent your child from getting an education. Not just because it impacts their ability to get a job, but because the pursuit of knowledge is valuable for its own sake.

[Guest2]

The government assumes you're paying some of the fee. It can be extremely difficult to get FAFSA or financial aid if your parents aren't chipping in. If you're not paying, then you're raising the cost of their education. That's not moral.

Well, it doesn't raise the tution or fees. But,yep,I know that it may make a person ineligible or eligible for only small amounts of federal aid. My parents didn't contribute to my colllege education at all, but my finacial aid (or lack of it, in my case) was based on their income. I am not telling you what to believe, but I don't think paying for or not paying for college is a moral decision. Edited November 12, 2016 by Silver Brook

[TechWife]

It's harder today to get a job and be "financially independent" without a college diploma or at least some college. If you wait until you're 24, you're losing money.

 

 

 

 

No, I don't think so. People have a decreased earning potential unless you have a college degree, but they aren't losing money. To lose money, one must have it, so unless someone is going into their bank accounts and taking money, they aren't losing money. Decreased earning potential and possibly a decrease in any monetary or benefit savings, sure, but not losing money.