Would you move in without a ring?

[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:

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.

So a commitment. To eventually, maybe, do something, at some point, in the future.

Yeah, that sounds really solid and stable.

[Anonymous]

Why do you want marriage before 35?

Do you not spend enough time on dcum to know marriage is a dying institution.

95% of the people here (and probably irl) are either divorced, separated or in highly unhappy marriages

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.

[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:

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.

So a commitment. To eventually, maybe, do something, at some point, in the future.

Yeah, that sounds really solid and stable.

That should be discussed as every couple's timeline is different depending on their preferences, finances and circumstances. One couple might want fancy wedding in 3 years, other many want a simple picnic after getting a marriage license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did and we married 4 years later. It was great--discovered that we were truly compatible and saved a bunch of money (lived in NYC at the time0.

Same (almost exactly!) and it’s fun looking back on our 5th floor walkup!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I moved in with my spouse when he was in dental school. We knew we were going to get married. We were dirt poor and he was waiting to afford to buy me a ring.

It sounds like they’re at a different stage both owning condos. He probably can afford a ring but isn’t ready to make the full committment.

This and she shouldn’t waste her time

[Anonymous]

Nope. Nope.

Keep your condo.

So he gets help with rent while you have to go thru the hassle of moving and either renting out your condo?

Tell him you are going to keep your condo for yourself. And that if he wants to, you will move in with him for a few months as long as it is free, since you are keeping your condo for yourself. That way if it doesn’t work out you’ve got an easy out

Tell him he gets a few months to live with you and see how it goes and much beyond that, you are moving back to your condo and he will have to do the schlep to your apartment to see you

[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.

Same.

That’s the equivalent of “I will make this decision by myself”

[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.

Speak for your own shitty husband.

What exactly does your boyfriend do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Nope.

Keep your condo.

So he gets help with rent while you have to go thru the hassle of moving and either renting out your condo?

Tell him you are going to keep your condo for yourself. And that if he wants to, you will move in with him for a few months as long as it is free, since you are keeping your condo for yourself. That way if it doesn’t work out you’ve got an easy out

Tell him he gets a few months to live with you and see how it goes and much beyond that, you are moving back to your condo and he will have to do the schlep to your apartment to see you

Well Op quit the thread but she needed to see this. You don’t give up your rate over a piece of peen. Tell him to sell his place and move in with you.

[Anonymous]

I moved in without a ring but we had an understanding that we were getting engaged within the next few months. My husband did want to live together before we got engaged and I agree with the posters here who think it’s unnecessary. I’m lucky it worked out but we’d been dating for nearly two years at that point and I don’t think there was much else he could have possibly learned about me by officially living together for a few months.

[Anonymous]

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

+1. I hear this opinion on dcum a lot but I actually know very few people irl who didn’t live together before getting engaged. The people who did wait did for religious or cultural reasons and had a lot of family pressure not to live together until marriage.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yeah this is the reason for high divorce rate though.
Perfect compatibility is exceedingly rare. Almost as rare as the idea of adhering to commitment .
Ask anyone who is married for 30+ years and 99%will tell you that commitment to staying married even through times when they did not feel so compatible is key to the longevity of their union.
For most people, marriage is much deeper than whether you have a certain feeling on a test drive.

[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).

+1. I hear this opinion on dcum a lot but I actually know very few people irl who didn’t live together before getting engaged. The people who did wait did for religious or cultural reasons and had a lot of family pressure not to live together until marriage.

I am not religious and am your average American. My family/parents had no opinion on cohabitation before marriage.

I did not live with my husband until we were engaged and had set a wedding date, for all the reasons noted in this thread. Even so, looking back, I kind of wish that I had not moved in until after we were married. Living alone was glorious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I moved in without a ring but we had an understanding that we were getting engaged within the next few months. My husband did want to live together before we got engaged and I agree with the posters here who think it’s unnecessary. I’m lucky it worked out but we’d been dating for nearly two years at that point and I don’t think there was much else he could have possibly learned about me by officially living together for a few months.

How is this different from being engaged knowing you might call it off?

As someone who got the full proposal-with-ring deal 30ish years ago, I do not understand The Youths' fetishization of the various steps in becoming a married couple. "Engaged" just means you're planning to get married. You're not "about to be engaged" or "in the process of getting engaged" if you know you're getting married. For all practical purposes, you're engaged.