Would you move in without a ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone live with a man without a ring? I don’t understand. Your (and his) words mean literally nothing; all that counts is what you do. You are sleeping with, sharing expenses, and acting as a wife towards a man who acts towards you as a boyfriend. You are taking two steps forward (fiancé-wife) and he is saying “sure, you go ahead, I’ll be back here as your boyfriend”. Your behavior says that you are a discount woman, you provide all these services at the 1/3 (“girlfriend!”) the price.

If his word means nothing why would you marry him?

You should never marry a man if you don't trust his word. If you need to get the govt involved in your affairs you are doomed.

"Getting the government involved" has legal benefits.

In general, men - including "good" men - will do as much or as little as they can get away with.

Speak for your own shitty husband.

[Anonymous]

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You do know this is outdated right?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.

That's not actually true. The statistic is still accurate and reflective of the fact that couples who cohabitate tend to "slide" into marriage out of inertia, rather than making the affirmative decision to commit.

https://www.shortform.com/blog/cohabitation-effect/

[Anonymous]

Too many of y'all wanting to apply 20th century values to 21st century life.

If you want to live with someone, do it. If you don't, don't. If you want to be married and your partner doesn't, well then you have a lot to discuss. Playing "I won't move in without a piece of jewelry" games is outdated, toxic and more than a little stupid. You might get that ring -- and a whole lot you didn't want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many of y'all wanting to apply 20th century values to 21st century life.

If you want to live with someone, do it. If you don't, don't. If you want to be married and your partner doesn't, well then you have a lot to discuss. Playing "I won't move in without a piece of jewelry" games is outdated, toxic and more than a little stupid. You might get that ring -- and a whole lot you didn't want.

Ha. As if human nature has magically changed in the 21st century.

Sorry, PP, but you are very wrong here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How so? Other than say in the hospital which can be solved with a POA. It doesn't. In all practical terms it's a religious construct that is not necessary and it most certainly does not indicate the quality of the relationship.

What?

Married people may have access to adoption and foster care rights, family leave, bereavement leave, and Social Security benefits. Married people may also be able to receive their spouse's Social Security benefits if they are at least 62 or caring for a child under 16.

Marriage can impact many aspects of a financial plan, including taxes, retirement, budgeting, and insurance. Married people may have access to family health insurance plans, which often offer discounts because they cover more than one person. Married people may also inherit an entire estate without tax consequences.

[Anonymous]

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.

That's not actually true. The statistic is still accurate and reflective of the fact that couples who cohabitate tend to "slide" into marriage out of inertia, rather than making the affirmative decision to commit.

https://www.shortform.com/blog/cohabitation-effect/

I think you can say the same thing for young religious couples who get married only so they can have sex. Sliding into marriage or committing your life to another person just to get an orgasm is not smart life planning.

[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).

A ring is just a ring. Know an ex boyfriend who gave his girlfriend a ring and she moved in and 10 years later it’s still just a ring.

And they're still not married 10 years later? She is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have discussed timelines and wants throughout our entire relationship. We became pretty serious at 6 months and he brought up marriage. He said I love you for the first time and told me he was in love with me. At 1 year, he brought up marriage again. He told me flat out that he wants to marry me and build a life together and needed to know I was on the same page. We discussed moving in together this month. We both own our own condos and I will be moving in to his. My plan is to rent it out mine until I feel it’s right to sell. I do think a ring is in the near future. When discussing engagement, he said that it will happen when it happens and that moving in together and seeing how we cohabit is the next best step.

That sounds promising! Good idea to keep your condo and rent it out, if things go south you always have that to rely on.

This is exactly the point many of us are making as to why this is a bad deal for OP and the boyfriend too.

They both go into this with an escape clause. If it "doesn't work out" we turn tail and run. That is NOT a good formula for success in setting up a marriage. And why shacking up does not provide a true picture of what a committed relationship looks like.

I don't see the downside. I really fail to understand how a piece of jewellery means literally anything. If you want to argue that you should wait until marriage, that's one thing. But even then, you're just jumping in blind. There is always an escape clause, in everything we do.

It’s not the jewelry it’s the engagement, a public announcement of your intention to marry each other. Why move in before that step, disrupting your life and finances, just to risk that he isn’t actually prepared to get engaged to you? Rather he makes that commitment to you now before you leave your condo. Otherwise, just continue to date until he is sure, and enjoy your condo.

Some people are engaged for years though. Some never make it to the altar. Engagement is not legally protected, it's really just performative.
There are many reasons to move in before that, you don't have to like or agree with other peoples choices. I loved living with my then bf, now dh.

This isn’t about judgment, it’s about PP pretending this is about jewelry. It’s not. It’s about engagement, a commitment to marriage. Silly to pretend OP is asking about jewelry.

The engagement ring is literally just a piece of jewellery. That ring means nothing until a marriage license is signed. How can you say that a few flowery words are more commitment than sharing your life together? Which is actually a commitment?

You are still making it about a ring. An engagement does not mean “nothing until a marriage license is signed.” It’s a public announcement to friends and family that you are getting married and starts the process of wedding planning. Total BS that it means nothing.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I didn’t expect this thread to turn info a fight. I expected more mature responses. Please sleet the thread because I will be going to a more mature site do advice. I’m not sure I trust any advice from people on here given the responses and immature behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't shack up until you're married.

You should let other people live their lives the way they see fit. Nothing wrong with shacking up. NOTHING.

OP is here asking for people’s opinions. It’s really ok if they differ from yours. PP isn’t going around preventing others from living their lives.

And I am giving her my opinion. There is nothing wrong with living together before marriage.

"Shouldn't shack up" is such judgemental nonsense and you know it.

People are allowed to be judgmental.

[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.

That's not actually true. The statistic is still accurate and reflective of the fact that couples who cohabitate tend to "slide" into marriage out of inertia, rather than making the affirmative decision to commit.

https://www.shortform.com/blog/cohabitation-effect/

I think you can say the same thing for young religious couples who get married only so they can have sex. Sliding into marriage or committing your life to another person just to get an orgasm is not smart life planning.

That's a different topic and in any case doesn't apply to OP.

OP's boyfriend's response to her question about the timing of getting engaged doesn't synch with what she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I didn’t expect this thread to turn info a fight. I expected more mature responses. Please sleet the thread because I will be going to a more mature site do advice. I’m not sure I trust any advice from people on here given the responses and immature behavior.

You got quite a lot of good advice here, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have discussed timelines and wants throughout our entire relationship. We became pretty serious at 6 months and he brought up marriage. He said I love you for the first time and told me he was in love with me. At 1 year, he brought up marriage again. He told me flat out that he wants to marry me and build a life together and needed to know I was on the same page. We discussed moving in together this month. We both own our own condos and I will be moving in to his. My plan is to rent it out mine until I feel it’s right to sell. I do think a ring is in the near future. When discussing engagement, he said that it will happen when it happens and that moving in together and seeing how we cohabit is the next best step.

No. Moving in together to "see how we cohabit" is not the next best step.

Just be fully aware that you are still auditioning for the role as his wife, OP. If you're Ok with that, go ahead. But I wouldn't do it.

Question: have you met his parents and family yet?

This isn't really true. It's also for her to suss out their compatibility.

I would agree with you if it didn’t seem that the power dynamic of engagement is within the boyfriend‘s favor. OP herself said she’s been told “it will happen when it happens“, implying she has no control over the timeline or the eventuality of the engagement itself. Living together in the scenario sounds like him evaluating her and her being evaluated.

I’m all for some social traditions, but I very much dislike this idea that an engagement and planning a life together is some surprise a man bestows on a woman. As women we all know how deliberate we need to be in choosing a life partner because it impacts our happiness, Our children, our financial future, etc. Treating this as a happy accident is not good footing to start on. I recognize that it takes some of the “Romance” out of it, but let’s be fair, those concepts are dated from a time when women were chattel.

I agree with you! Women should 100% be involved in the engagement process. It should be a discussion, not a surprise. It shouldn't be looked at as a prize imo. We are both adults, we are both partners, we should both be involved. To me, moving in and living together was important for ME to decide if I wanted to marry this person. He had never lived on his own, so I feel like I was auditioning him . It was important for me to see if we were compatible and could handle it. If OP looks it at a similar way, it doesnt need to have an uneven power dynamic - especially if she keeps her condo, she holds all the cards as far as them living together.

If OP felt the way you did, she wouldn’t have posted, and she certain wouldn’t be describing it as a predictament. Your viewpoints have nothing to do with her situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I didn’t expect this thread to turn info a fight. I expected more mature responses. Please sleet the thread because I will be going to a more mature site do advice. I’m not sure I trust any advice from people on here given the responses and immature behavior.

I really don’t think the responses you got here, pro and con living together, deserve this harsh response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:depends...how long have you been together and how old are you? I would test drive the car before buying it. I personally wouldn't marry someone unless I lived with them first, as you will learn quickly if you are truly compatible in it for the long haul.

OP here. We have been together for almost 1.5 years. I’m 29 and he is 31. I’m excited to take these next steps in our relationship, but I’m like 10% hesitant because I’ve heard the stories of women moving in and it never resulting in marriage. I want a marriage and kids by the time I’m 35.

Then I would just have a plan to move out if you don’t get it by the appropriate time.

Tbh based on generational patterns very few millennial men will propose and then move in with a woman

I am Gen-X. Me, my sister, and my only female first cousin all moved in with guys before rings. All of us married our only live-in boyfriend. All 3 still married - 15 to 28 years in.

You do need to have a clear idea of the going forward/ending it time frame. Also, as my mom advised my sister, get married before buying a home.