Would you move in without a ring?

[Anonymous]

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 [b]it will happen when it happens and that moving in together and seeing how we cohabit is the next best step.[/b]

So he wants to marry you, but only if you get through the probationary period? And "it will happen when it happens" - what does that mean?

That would be a hard no from me.

Yeah, this part is a red flag to me, even though I think on a case-by-case basis it can be appropriate to move in without a ring. He's stringing you along. His answer is noncommittal at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't say anyone is getting engaged because they are planning a party, but that is the functional purpose. You specifically mentioned wedding planning, which is why I reference planning a party. To actually get married is incredibly simple, you go down to the courthouse and sign some papers. The wedding youre talking about planning is just a party. I don't know anyone who started planning the day after they got engaged. Normally it takes a few months to settle in, decide on guest lists, get a rough budget. No deposits put down until you finalize vendors, which is not right away. It's still incredibly easy to end. No divorce, no lawyers, no government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't think there's a difference between couples who break up while dating and couples who break up while engaged? Do you know the same number of couples who are engaged as are dating? This is simple stuff here.

[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.

Strange response. There’s almost always spirited debate on dcum. There was actually a lot of thoughtful, helpful responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't say anyone is getting engaged because they are planning a party, but that is the functional purpose. You specifically mentioned wedding planning, which is why I reference planning a party. To actually get married is incredibly simple, you go down to the courthouse and sign some papers. The wedding youre talking about planning is just a party. I don't know anyone who started planning the day after they got engaged. Normally it takes a few months to settle in, decide on guest lists, get a rough budget. No deposits put down until you finalize vendors, which is not right away. It's still incredibly easy to end. No divorce, no lawyers, no government.

No, it isn’t. The functional purpose of an engagement is not to plan a party. It’s to get married. It’s harder to break up an engagement socially and financially. A broken engagement is shocking. A couple breaking up happens all the time.

[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.

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.)

No one is saying she has to, it's just an option. If she doesnt want to move in she doesnt have to. But if shes open to it, it doesnt have to be a negative thing. It doesnt have to be about making a man happy. Clearly she is considering it, so I don't see why you think my advice has no value.

[Anonymous]

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 [b]it will happen when it happens and that moving in together and seeing how we cohabit is the next best step.[/b]

So he wants to marry you, but only if you get through the probationary period? And "it will happen when it happens" - what does that mean?

That would be a hard no from me.

Yeah, this part is a red flag to me, even though I think on a case-by-case basis it can be appropriate to move in without a ring. He's stringing you along. His answer is noncommittal at best.

Im not sure he is stringing her along, but getting her to move in without a ring could absolutely enable him to stall longer given that he already seems wishy washy. Why do that when you have your own place to live and can just date longer?

[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.

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.)

No one is saying she has to, it's just an option. If she doesnt want to move in she doesnt have to. But if shes open to it, it doesnt have to be a negative thing. It doesnt have to be about making a man happy. Clearly she is considering it, so I don't see why you think my advice has no value.

Because she would be changing her mind (in a “predicament”, her words) to align with a man’s simply because that’s what he wants. It’s not the same thing as what your viewpoint was, which was organic and probably pre dated any offer of moving in that came to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't say anyone is getting engaged because they are planning a party, but that is the functional purpose. You specifically mentioned wedding planning, which is why I reference planning a party. To actually get married is incredibly simple, you go down to the courthouse and sign some papers. The wedding youre talking about planning is just a party. I don't know anyone who started planning the day after they got engaged. Normally it takes a few months to settle in, decide on guest lists, get a rough budget. No deposits put down until you finalize vendors, which is not right away. It's still incredibly easy to end. No divorce, no lawyers, no government.

No, it isn’t. The functional purpose of an engagement is not to plan a party. It’s to get married. It’s harder to break up an engagement socially and financially. A broken engagement is shocking. A couple breaking up happens all the time.

This is what you said, are you arguing against your own words now?

"announcement to friends and family that you are getting married and starts the process of wedding planning."

I don't think I'd call a broken engagement "shocking", but perhaps your bubble is quite small. Engagement is literally nothing - its words, its jewellery, its "announcements". If you want marriage, wait for marriage. But engagement isnt security in and of itself, and it's naive (imo) to act as such.

[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.

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.)

No one is saying she has to, it's just an option. If she doesnt want to move in she doesnt have to. But if shes open to it, it doesnt have to be a negative thing. It doesnt have to be about making a man happy. Clearly she is considering it, so I don't see why you think my advice has no value.

Because she would be changing her mind (in a “predicament”, her words) to align with a man’s simply because that’s what he wants. It’s not the same thing as what your viewpoint was, which was organic and probably pre dated any offer of moving in that came to you.

You are projecting quite a bit here. OP doesnt say any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't say anyone is getting engaged because they are planning a party, but that is the functional purpose. You specifically mentioned wedding planning, which is why I reference planning a party. To actually get married is incredibly simple, you go down to the courthouse and sign some papers. The wedding youre talking about planning is just a party. I don't know anyone who started planning the day after they got engaged. Normally it takes a few months to settle in, decide on guest lists, get a rough budget. No deposits put down until you finalize vendors, which is not right away. It's still incredibly easy to end. No divorce, no lawyers, no government.

No, it isn’t. The functional purpose of an engagement is not to plan a party. It’s to get married. It’s harder to break up an engagement socially and financially. A broken engagement is shocking. A couple breaking up happens all the time.

What is the functional purpose of engagement? It's just the timeframe between dating and marriage. Yes, it's "to get" married, but it isn't anything itself.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I have but it’s not a good idea if you want to get married. I can lead to a relationship inertia. It can lead to people not breaking up when they should or it can lead to people not getting engaged because they’re not incentivized too.

So yeah, I don’t do it. Getting engaged first and then move in and have a long engagement and if you hate living in with him, you can break up the engagement.

[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.

We all know people who have had more than 1 marriages and divorces and affairs.

[Anonymous]

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.

I would talk to him about a ring and engagement. Those are your values and see how he responds.

i moved in before a ring and 17 years later 3 kids and married to him-married rist then three kids LOL, however in retrospect I should have discussed getting engaged first. Its not about "getting him" but rather honoring my values (which I really only realized later in life as had dysfunctional family).

So-what are your values? Follow them and that's the right decision-only you can decide this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't say anyone is getting engaged because they are planning a party, but that is the functional purpose. You specifically mentioned wedding planning, which is why I reference planning a party. To actually get married is incredibly simple, you go down to the courthouse and sign some papers. The wedding youre talking about planning is just a party. I don't know anyone who started planning the day after they got engaged. Normally it takes a few months to settle in, decide on guest lists, get a rough budget. No deposits put down until you finalize vendors, which is not right away. It's still incredibly easy to end. No divorce, no lawyers, no government.

No, it isn’t. The functional purpose of an engagement is not to plan a party. It’s to get married. It’s harder to break up an engagement socially and financially. A broken engagement is shocking. A couple breaking up happens all the time.

What is the functional purpose of engagement? It's just the timeframe between dating and marriage. Yes, it's "to get" married, but it isn't anything itself.

It's a commitment to eventually marry when time is right, not to immediately book catering services and order a veil.