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.

So we need to trap them with government assistance?

Nah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not making it just about the ring. I'm saying that a "public announcement" means nothing. You can announce whatever you want , at the top of your lungs, until the cows come home. You are saying words are more important than actions. Ie announcement. I am saying actions are more important. Announcing an engagement doesnt mean shit, it's not legally protected, and I dont understand why it's a sticking point for situations like this. People can get engaged and break up. People can get engaged and then drag their feet. People can get engaged and never get married. Engagement itself doesnt mean very much. Engagement is just the go-between between dating and the legal protections of marriage. Engagement is no more than dating with a ring OR an announcement. All you're doing is planning a party.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

OP can change her viewpoint is what I'm saying. You are framing it in a really negative way. I'm framing it in a positive way. There are multiple ways to look at the same situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not nothing, but little. We all know people who have had more than 1 engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No

Only to suss out mental disorders. Never to put on wifey show test to win a ring.

+1. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

The dumbest Yalie I ever met said this to my long term boyfriend once. Seriously, GTFOH.

[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.

Maybe you are not mature enough for marriage if you need to crowd-fund your decisions.

[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.

Are you the girlfriend of the OP "Do women expect a ring at 1 year?
Did he ask you to move in?

lawd if it’s him don’t move in just divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we need to trap them with government assistance?

Nah.

Benefits and assistance are two different things. Benefits include legal protections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not making it just about the ring. I'm saying that a "public announcement" means nothing. You can announce whatever you want , at the top of your lungs, until the cows come home. You are saying words are more important than actions. Ie announcement. I am saying actions are more important. Announcing an engagement doesnt mean shit, it's not legally protected, and I dont understand why it's a sticking point for situations like this. People can get engaged and break up. People can get engaged and then drag their feet. People can get engaged and never get married. Engagement itself doesnt mean very much. Engagement is just the go-between between dating and the legal protections of marriage. Engagement is no more than dating with a ring OR an announcement. All you're doing is planning a party.

One hundred percent no. An engagement in this society is not nothing. It’s not easy socially, and once you have started to make purchases deposits for a wedding, financially, to end one. It’s painful and something people try to avoid in a way that a normal breakup just isn’t. No one who gets engaged is excited because they are “planning a PARTY”. It’s because their significant other has made an announcement and a promise to get MARRIED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You may find after you live together, you don’t want the ring. I think it’s helpful to live together before you get married.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not nothing, but little. We all know people who have had more than 1 engagement.

Now compare that number to the number of people you know who have broken up generally. It’s simply not the same thing. That’s why you can count it on your hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Majority of what you listed can also be done without marriage if it even applies to every couple.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

OP can change her viewpoint is what I'm saying. You are framing it in a really negative way. I'm framing it in a positive way. There are multiple ways to look at the same situation.

Why should she change her viewpoint to make something palatable that she isn’t excited about? To make the man happy and convince herself it was a good idea for her too? This is exactly what women who end up stuck do. Convince themselves it’s a good idea when in their heart it wasn’t what they wanted. (It sounds like a totally different situation for you, and that you generally DID want to live together to try things out first.)

[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.

Wow you’re pretty obnoxious. Tootles!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You may find after you live together, you don’t want the ring. I think it’s helpful to live together before you get married.

I agree.

Yup. And a ring means nothing. Now if you're upper class it will mean something, otherwise it's a piece of glass.