Would you move in without a ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Of course. The very "a ring" thing feels vestigial to me. We moved in together after 6 years, bought a house together after 10, and I was given "a ring" at 14 -- mainly because I really like diamonds.

There is an ancient, outdated, anti-feminist way of doing things being endorsed quite a bit on this thread. Further proof that the demo of DCUM skews boomer.

But he still won't marry you, right?

Is this supposed to be the prize? Very anti-feminist.

So what? It's still a fact. You're shacking up for 14 years with a man who can buy you off with a diamond because you like to play house and pretend that you have a full committed relationship.

You may be fooling yourself, but everyone else sees right through it.

Bless your little judgemental heart.

I am a woman who has supported myself for the majority of my life (since 16). Having a man marry you in this day and age doesn't provide you with any more security financial, emotional, etc than just living with one. In fact, having separate finances, having your own assets, and being able to resolve the relationship without a judge offers you more protection in this case. You were just conditioned to be a prize cow and you think you peeked on your wedding day. It's ok if that is what you want for your life. But to tell others that they're doing it wrong if they don't have that peace of paper is just plain stupid.

Thank you! So many outdated views (hello boomers, we see you!). If my bf/fiance/dh ever referred to me as a cow such as pps continue to do so, we would absolutely not be married today lol. What a gross statement about women and our "value".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everybody wants a ring before they are sure they can live with someone. Hmm.

A lifetime together will present MUCH bigger challenges than just figuring out how to coexist in the same space 24/7 for a few months. Living together before marriage tells you very little about whether the marriage will survive, or even how compatible you are.

Actually it tells you a whole lot more than you can learn any other way. Without living with each other, you are pretty much bidding on an unopened suitcase without knowing what sort of baggage is stuffed in there.

Not true at all, at least statistically. Divorce rate is far higher for couples who live together before getting married. You see it turns out that that "little piece of paper" does mean something.

You do know this is outdated right? This is based on the fact that generally the people who do not approve of cohabitation before marriage also do not approve of divorce. Says nothing about a happy or unhappy relationship.

It is not "outdated." It is factually correct.

I don't know if you can call it factual, as it was just one of many studies. But it's also based on a time where women lived with their parents until they got married. They didn't even live on their own, weren't able to support themselves, etc.

Actually it is still true for modern times. Look up “sliding vs deciding.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Of course. The very "a ring" thing feels vestigial to me. We moved in together after 6 years, bought a house together after 10, and I was given "a ring" at 14 -- mainly because I really like diamonds.

There is an ancient, outdated, anti-feminist way of doing things being endorsed quite a bit on this thread. Further proof that the demo of DCUM skews boomer.

But he still won't marry you, right?

Is this supposed to be the prize? Very anti-feminist.

So what? It's still a fact. You're shacking up for 14 years with a man who can buy you off with a diamond because you like to play house and pretend that you have a full committed relationship.

You may be fooling yourself, but everyone else sees right through it.

Bless your little judgemental heart.

I am a woman who has supported myself for the majority of my life (since 16). Having a man marry you in this day and age doesn't provide you with any more security financial, emotional, etc than just living with one. In fact, having separate finances, having your own assets, and being able to resolve the relationship without a judge offers you more protection in this case. You were just conditioned to be a prize cow and you think you peeked on your wedding day. It's ok if that is what you want for your life. But to tell others that they're doing it wrong if they don't have that peace of paper is just plain stupid.

It does, legally. Why do you think gays and lesbians wanted the right to marry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you marry someone without living with them, they have an invisible suitcase they are going to be pulling shit out of for the rest of your life. You don't get to inspect that suitcase before? You'll just deal with it? You're buying it like one of those storage wars tv shows, sight unseen?

You do that when you marry someone you do live with too. Why else do all these people who cohabited first still get divorced anyway? I thought they figured out they could live together up front?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Of course. The very "a ring" thing feels vestigial to me. We moved in together after 6 years, bought a house together after 10, and I was given "a ring" at 14 -- mainly because I really like diamonds.

There is an ancient, outdated, anti-feminist way of doing things being endorsed quite a bit on this thread. Further proof that the demo of DCUM skews boomer.

But he still won't marry you, right?

Is this supposed to be the prize? Very anti-feminist.

So what? It's still a fact. You're shacking up for 14 years with a man who can buy you off with a diamond because you like to play house and pretend that you have a full committed relationship.

You may be fooling yourself, but everyone else sees right through it.

Bless your little judgemental heart.

I am a woman who has supported myself for the majority of my life (since 16). Having a man marry you in this day and age doesn't provide you with any more security financial, emotional, etc than just living with one. In fact, having separate finances, having your own assets, and being able to resolve the relationship without a judge offers you more protection in this case. You were just conditioned to be a prize cow and you think you peeked on your wedding day. It's ok if that is what you want for your life. But to tell others that they're doing it wrong if they don't have that peace of paper is just plain stupid.

OP asked for advice. This is concrete advice that many of us are giving her, based on years of knowledge and experience with men, relationships, marriage, etc. Further OP states clearly that she WANTS to get married. In your rush to be the ardent feminist, you are negating OP's wants for her own life. I'm sorry if your's did not pan out like you expected it to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Of course. The very "a ring" thing feels vestigial to me. We moved in together after 6 years, bought a house together after 10, and I was given "a ring" at 14 -- mainly because I really like diamonds.

There is an ancient, outdated, anti-feminist way of doing things being endorsed quite a bit on this thread. Further proof that the demo of DCUM skews boomer.

But he still won't marry you, right?

Is this supposed to be the prize? Very anti-feminist.

So what? It's still a fact. You're shacking up for 14 years with a man who can buy you off with a diamond because you like to play house and pretend that you have a full committed relationship.

You may be fooling yourself, but everyone else sees right through it.

Bless your little judgemental heart.

I am a woman who has supported myself for the majority of my life (since 16). Having a man marry you in this day and age doesn't provide you with any more security financial, emotional, etc than just living with one. In fact, having separate finances, having your own assets, and being able to resolve the relationship without a judge offers you more protection in this case. You were just conditioned to be a prize cow and you think you peeked on your wedding day. It's ok if that is what you want for your life. But to tell others that they're doing it wrong if they don't have that peace of paper is just plain stupid.

It does, legally. Why do you think gays and lesbians wanted the right to marry?

It's called equal rights? It's called not wanting someone elses religion to dictate what others do with their life?
You seem to be purposely misunderstanding pp. Telling someone else that they are doing life/dating/marriage wrong because they aren't legally married is not appropriate. Different strokes and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everybody wants a ring before they are sure they can live with someone. Hmm.

A lifetime together will present MUCH bigger challenges than just figuring out how to coexist in the same space 24/7 for a few months. Living together before marriage tells you very little about whether the marriage will survive, or even how compatible you are.

Actually it tells you a whole lot more than you can learn any other way. Without living with each other, you are pretty much bidding on an unopened suitcase without knowing what sort of baggage is stuffed in there.

Not true at all, at least statistically. Divorce rate is far higher for couples who live together before getting married. You see it turns out that that "little piece of paper" does mean something.

You do know this is outdated right? This is based on the fact that generally the people who do not approve of cohabitation before marriage also do not approve of divorce. Says nothing about a happy or unhappy relationship.

It is not "outdated." It is factually correct.

I don't know if you can call it factual, as it was just one of many studies. But it's also based on a time where women lived with their parents until they got married. They didn't even live on their own, weren't able to support themselves, etc.

Actually it is still true for modern times. Look up “sliding vs deciding.”

It was a flawed study, not statistically factual nor peer reviewed. Unless you are casual about divorce or anti-divorce, it makes absolute sense to get to know a potential as best as humanly possible. It was fine when young, unemployed and inexperienced religious people of same tribe or town married each other. Times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this rule gives men more power or something. Like women have to manipulate to get the ring from the more powerful man.

If you want to live together then do it. If you don't then don't.

Yes but what about wanting milk without buying the cow? Women has a smaller biological window so can't waste years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this rule gives men more power or something. Like women have to manipulate to get the ring from the more powerful man.

If you want to live together then do it. If you don't then don't.

Yes but what about wanting milk without buying the cow? Women has a smaller biological window so can't waste years?

Do you think they aren't already having sex? What does biological window have to do with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this rule gives men more power or something. Like women have to manipulate to get the ring from the more powerful man.

If you want to live together then do it. If you don't then don't.

Yes but what about wanting milk without buying the cow? Women has a smaller biological window so can't waste years?

Do you think they aren't already having sex? What does biological window have to do with this?

Because, at 31, the BF could wake up single in 5 years and shrug. If OP is single at 36, her window for biological children is closing.

This is news to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this rule gives men more power or something. Like women have to manipulate to get the ring from the more powerful man.

If you want to live together then do it. If you don't then don't.

Yes but what about wanting milk without buying the cow? Women has a smaller biological window so can't waste years?

Do you think they aren't already having sex? What does biological window have to do with this?

Because, at 31, the BF could wake up single in 5 years and shrug. If OP is single at 36, her window for biological children is closing.

This is news to you?

He could do that with or without a ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends. If you are the holdout, then I would do it. If you want to get married, and he is the holdout, then don’t.

This. And living together does NOT mean you have to sleep with him if you haven’t been doing that yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This all depends on your particular circumstances. The idea that no one should move in without a ring seems to be particularly strong on DCUM (but, curiously, not in real life among the people I know).

Are the basic chicks you know doing as well as DCUMers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all depends on your particular circumstances. The idea that no one should move in without a ring seems to be particularly strong on DCUM (but, curiously, not in real life among the people I know).

Are the basic chicks you know doing as well as DCUMers?

dp, but no, they are just not old fuddy duddies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. If you are the holdout, then I would do it. If you want to get married, and he is the holdout, then don’t.

This. And living together does NOT mean you have to sleep with him if you haven’t been doing that yet.

This^. To sleep together you could be in high-school, living with parents, in college dorms, in separate apartments, with or without roommates and still sleep together.