Sometimes couples choose to live together as a substitute for marriage even though they profess love for each other and want a permanent relationship. They explain that if the relationship goes sour, they want to avoid the trouble, expense, and emotional trauma of a divorce. The couple does not understand that without the commitment of marriage, there is little incentive or likelihood that they will work through their problems or that they will maintain the relationship under pressure. It is more likely that one or the other will "cut and run" when conflict arises, since each person's individuality is more likely stronger than their relationship together.
Basically, it is impossible to keep a committment which is never made.
That is the very thought I have had but wasn't able to put into words. I remember reading somewhere in a book long ago that women "sabotage" themselves by living with a man prior to marriage, then wondering why they aren't married. Women have nothing to gain from this arrangement whatsoever but it gets easier to repeat this habit after doing it once. I still remember calling it what it was: shacking up. That phrase denotes it as being impermanent, which is exactly what cohabitation amounts to: not lasting; fleeting; temporary living arrangement. It cheapens those who practice it and devalues what should be highly prized. It is an American travesty and a shame on our society. Just seems as if no one is bothered these days.
I’m surprised that the author glossed over the financial imperative - taxes are so high that paying two rents can become a serious burden on a young couple, so they decide to move in together to avoid it.