Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One of my female friends has been dating a man for about a year and a half. He's mentioned wanting to get married a couple times, but hasn't initiated a real conversation on it, set a timetable, talked about engagement rings, etc. which has frustrated her a bit.
The other day, he mentioned moving in together and she let him know she wasn't comfortable living together until after they were married. He was upset over this and implied requiring marriage before living together means she doesn't value him as a person.
I said that this seems like a huge red flag to me. He makes more money and doesn't need to be supported, but it feels like one of those "get the milk for free" things. Like he gets all the perks of a wife without any of the risk or responsibilities. And that if he valued her as a person, he'd respect her values.
Because that's exactly what this means. Look I'm feminist all day and twice on Sundays but casual talk of marriage with no real meat behind it, coupled with an invitation to shack up, do not spell commitment to me.
And yes, she can initiate these conversations. And no, there's no problem with people who want to cohabitate before engagement/marriage. But *she* doesn't want that and that's the point.
I'd skip all the "doesn't value me as a person" nonsense and keep it simple. If they've been dating for > a year and aren't in their 20's this thing is either going somewhere or it's not. Now does a wedding need to happen before moving in? I'd think not. But a ring and a date? Yep or I'd say it's been nice and keep it moving.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is a gigantic red flag is you using the getting the milk for free trope.
MYOB
OP. I don’t necessarily mean sex, and it’s not a judgement on women. What I mean is that he gets the perks of a wife - not just easier access to sex, but let’s be real, women tend to contribute much more around the house than men. So he basically gets a free cook, maid, household manager, and half the finances are covered, but without putting himself in the more vulnerable position of legally committing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is a gigantic red flag is you using the getting the milk for free trope.
MYOB
OP. I don’t necessarily mean sex, and it’s not a judgement on women. What I mean is that he gets the perks of a wife - not just easier access to sex, but let’s be real, women tend to contribute much more around the house than men. So he basically gets a free cook, maid, household manager, and half the finances are covered, but without putting himself in the more vulnerable position of legally committing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's a red flag when the person who doesn't want to get engaged wants to move in first. Usually, in my experience, that person doesn't really want to commit in the first place and wants to lower their bills instead.
My experience is the opposite.
She is getting the sausage for free, but still wants to buy the pig.Anonymous wrote:If we're going to use the woefully outdated concept of getting the milk for free, he presumable already is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is a gigantic red flag is you using the getting the milk for free trope.
MYOB
OP. I don’t necessarily mean sex, and it’s not a judgement on women. What I mean is that he gets the perks of a wife - not just easier access to sex, but let’s be real, women tend to contribute much more around the house than men. So he basically gets a free cook, maid, household manager, and half the finances are covered, but without putting himself in the more vulnerable position of legally committing.
Anonymous wrote:What is a gigantic red flag is you using the getting the milk for free trope.
MYOB
Anonymous wrote:One of my female friends has been dating a man for about a year and a half. He's mentioned wanting to get married a couple times, but hasn't initiated a real conversation on it, set a timetable, talked about engagement rings, etc. which has frustrated her a bit.
The other day, he mentioned moving in together and she let him know she wasn't comfortable living together until after they were married. He was upset over this and implied requiring marriage before living together means she doesn't value him as a person.
I said that this seems like a huge red flag to me. He makes more money and doesn't need to be supported, but it feels like one of those "get the milk for free" things. Like he gets all the perks of a wife without any of the risk or responsibilities. And that if he valued her as a person, he'd respect her values.