Anonymous wrote:So many live separately but sex regularly.

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.

Anonymous wrote:OP - if it’s a predicament for you, don’t do it. Why would you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m in this predicament, and I’m wondering if it’s wise for me live in without a ring?

Only a synthetic

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

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.

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

Anonymous 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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I’m in this predicament, and I’m wondering if it’s wise for me live in without a ring?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. engaged with a date maybe.

No rush to jump into wedding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

You do know this is outdated right?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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:No. engaged with a date maybe.