Love this letter.

https://www.uexpress.com/life/miss-manners/2021/07/31

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a 33-year old woman who, after many years of education, has recently settled into a great career. Having succeeded in the professional realm, I am now open to meeting the right person for a life partner.

I have no trouble finding dates. However, I have a recurring problem that rears its head when things go beyond dating and into relationship territory.

The source of the problem is that nowadays, it seems that a prerequisite to marriage is an extended period of cohabitation. I do not believe in this. I simply do not wish to share my life with someone unless, well, I know that I wish to share my life with them.

However, when I tell this to interested gentlemen, they tell me that they could never really know someone without a period of cohabitation, and since I am not religious, I do not have a real reason to be against it.

My reply to this, besides listing alternative ways of getting to know each other, is to cite statistics about the relative lack of success of marriages arising from cohabitation. This is often met with a statement like, "Statistics can be twisted however one wishes."

As I have no further argument, this tends to be the end of the gentleman's interest in me; I am seen at best as someone opposed to the natural progression of a relationship, and at worst, as someone with something to hide.

Can you please give me a polite comeback to the "I won't marry you unless you live with me first" statement that will succeed in showing that I am not unreasonable, nor that I have something to hide, so that I stop losing potential mates? Or, can you tell me if nowadays it is considered rude to refuse to cohabitate with a romantic partner after several months of dating?

GENTLE READER: It is a dangerous assumption that when it comes to degrees of intimacy, succumbing to pressure is the polite thing to do. A good many predators have relied on their victims to do just that -- and thereby justified harassment and assault by calling it consensual.

Miss Manners does not suggest that this is the intention of your suitors. But she does encourage you to stay strong in your convictions. No excuses necessary. You might emphasize for them that, "You know, in some cases, it is harder to get out of a lease or a mortgage than it is to get out of a marriage. While we are on the subject of being practical..."
__________________________________

One comment near the top:

Baja Bumming • 2 days ago
"I get it that she should not succumb to pressure. That said, I'd never marry someone without living with him first. Have dodged a couple bullets that way."

And guess who agreed with that, in sad hindsight, about half a century ago?

Doris Day. (In her autobiography, as told to A.E. Hotchner, she said she'd never have married either of her first two husbands had she done that.)

On the other hand, as someone pointed out, there's a compromise. Couples can spend weekends at each other's places without moving in together. They can also take vacations together.

Quote:

"I have found out that there ain't no surer way to find out whether you like people or hate them than to travel with them."

-Mark Twain.

But, there are other ways to determine long-term compatibility as well.

From 1995 (also from MM):

https://www.deseret.com/1995/2/12/19158753/love-nurtured-by-etiquette-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder

Excerpts:

"...All right, children, if the idea of combining romance with good manners is so funny, please explain something to Miss Manners:

"Why is it that when love dies of nonviolent causes, the cause of death is always cited as some form of inconsiderate behavior?

"Why is it that the birth of love is always accompanied by a burst of courteous behavior?

"And what happens in between?

"The accounts Miss Manners hears of love gone flat rarely mention the word 'etiquette.' They go something like this:

"'When I first knew her, she was always cheerful and made an effort to look great, and seemed interested in everything. i don't know what happened.'

"Or, 'He didn't used to go around looking like a slob and criticizing everything and making fun of my friends. But that was before he started taking me for granted.'

"...Miss Manners is less interested in who started lowering standards than the fact that they did get lowered. At the beginning, both lovers were on their best behavior (or what passes for that in today's no-frills relationships), and each liked the effect enough to want to live with the other on intimate terms.

"At that point, the idea kicked in that intimacy is incompatible with etiquette. Such pernicious thoughts appeared as 'Now we can relax; we needn't be so self-conscious' and 'We should always be totally open and frank with each other' and "I can really be myself with you.'

"...Certainly the etiquette of intimacy is different from that of early acquaintance. Otherwise, nobody would ever get to pick up a chicken bone or spend a day in a comfy old bathrobe.

"But informal etiquette is still within the realm of manners. That is to say, it still exhibits consideration of others - and even laces that with such charming conventions as pretending to be interested in what the other person has to say, or to consider the other person worth making a fuss about.

"Otherwise, people who behave politely during early courtship, and then turn rude with the excuse that they are only being themselves, are committing fraud. That wasn't the self the other person signed on to love..."
_________________________________

Granted, it IS implied that the two hypothetical people are living together, but there's no shortage of couples - especially teen couples - who lose their manners long before they're old enough to live together. Or even before they want to.

From Leona's article:

Can you please give me a polite comeback to the "I won't marry you unless you live with me first" statement that will succeed in showing that I am not unreasonable, nor that I have something to hide, so that I stop losing potential mates?

Sweetie, you've laid down a stipulation that you will not compromise. Please be respectful of others, when they lay down stipulations that they are unwilling to compromise. Contrary to popular belief, the world is not your oyster. As we like to say in the tech world, cheaper, faster, better, pick two.

I have to say that, regarding MM's response, I don't understand her last two sentences. She sounds as though she's arguing for the men.

Also, some of the commentators unfairly(?) accused the LW of raising the subject of marriage with each man after just a few months. Given her age and how desperate and undignified that would sound, I think it's more likely that the MEN raised the subject of cohabitation after a few months - and only then did she make it clear she wasn't willing to do that.

But, as others said, nowadays, in dating, it's a good idea to drop hints about your values early on, especially when they're relatively rare. The same goes for revealing that you don't want children - or stepchildren. Or that you're in debt even after age 30. Things like that should not be sprung on innocent people long after the romance has bloomed.

People who try to create Heaven on Earth are more likely to create Hell on Earth.

Another angle: I've had many people ask how Christians can believe that works don't save someone. I used to struggle with that question, now I don't. People who think they have to earn Heaven do great harm.

I don't mean that to preach, I know Amy and I have different views on religion. My point is that good people by and large act good. The people who think they have to build a resume to make it aren't doing good for goodness sake, they think their soul very literally depends on what they can get others to do. Recipe for disaster.

Something tells me she's no Stephen King:

https://twitter.com/bad_fido/status/1422128404980277250

C.S. Lewis on propaganda:

https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1421667209441579010

The people who think they have to build a resume to make it aren't doing good for goodness sake, they think their soul very literally depends on what they can get others to do. Recipe for disaster.
_______________________________________

Never thought of that, somehow. I just thought the more famous religious leaders/politicians were just trying to get rich and popular in their own circles - whether or not they ended up hurting people who didn't want their kind of "help."

But it does remind me of that late scene in "The Song of Bernadette" with the Mother Superior - when she gets a comeuppance of sorts.

And, Sixclaws, yes, it's somewhat silly for that sci-fi author to complain in that fashion.

The trouble is that a century or so ago, low-quality escapist literature didn't tend to stay in print after the author died - if that late. That was in part due to Victorian morality and the shame many people still felt over reading novels at ALL. Whereas nowadays, any truly POPULAR novels, critically praised or not, may stay in print indefinitely, so even a talented writer has to fight hard to get the attention of readers who may only read monosyllabic books. Chances are things will only get worse with every passing century and every new trend of popular literature. (Not to mention that novelists also have to compete with creators of movies and video games.)

Of course, no one should really expect to make a living solely as a novelist or as a musician anyway.

(Regarding the latter, that was true even in the 19th century, when there were no radio or records, and musicians didn't have to compete as much with musicians living a hundred miles away. The father of Pablo Casals [1876-1973] worried for his young son's future, even as he took his son's talent for granted.)

@Lenona,

Expanding a little bit of what you said, pulp fiction was super cheap. Something that was easily bought with pocket change after the shopping for groceries was done.

Goddamit, I knew I should have told everyone I was a vegan:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1421175783737991175

So.. The Vikings were male feminists before it was mainstream:

https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1295294799256276992

This sad. I guess this means goodbye:

https://twitter.com/blestcrone/status/1421543409760804864

The edgy and transgressive always like to cast their shredding of social/moral norms as a personal choice that won't harm anyone else - the "what do you care if gays can marry" gambit.

Those with eyes in their heads always new that was a libertarian stalking horse argument.

So now a woman who adheres to what was once the norm in dating and marriage finds that the aggregate of "personal choices" has in fact transformed society's norms. And she is most definitely affected.