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: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There is an ancient, outdated, anti-feminist way of doing things being endorsed quite a bit on this thread.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.

I feel like this rule gives men more power or something. Like women have to manipulate to get the ring from the more powerful man.

If you want to live together then do it. If you don't then don't.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Words mean nothing, only your behavior counts. You have a boyfriend until you have a fiancé until you are married to a husband. A man who had married you is your husband. A man who lives with you and promises someday you’ll be married is a boyfriend.

And a ring weighs more than a commitment? Any man can give you a fake $100 ring to make you move in with him?

But he hasn’t really given her a real committment unless he says he agrees with her timeline.

That my friend is the real issue.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Words mean nothing, only your behavior counts. You have a boyfriend until you have a fiancé until you are married to a husband. A man who had married you is your husband. A man who lives with you and promises someday you’ll be married is a boyfriend.

And a ring weighs more than a commitment? Any man can give you a fake $100 ring to make you move in with him?

Oh for crying out loud. Is English your second language? Nobody means literally the piece of jewelry!

English is actually fourth language I learned but being engaged has no legal or religious value so why is it a big desl?

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.

Words mean nothing, only your behavior counts. You have a boyfriend until you have a fiancé until you are married to a husband. A man who had married you is your husband. A man who lives with you and promises someday you’ll be married is a boyfriend.

And a ring weighs more than a commitment? Any man can give you a fake $100 ring to make you move in with him?

But he hasn’t really given her a real committment unless he says he agrees with her timeline.

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.

Words mean nothing, only your behavior counts. You have a boyfriend until you have a fiancé until you are married to a husband. A man who had married you is your husband. A man who lives with you and promises someday you’ll be married is a boyfriend.

And a ring weighs more than a commitment? Any man can give you a fake $100 ring to make you move in with him?

Oh for crying out loud. Is English your second language? Nobody means literally the piece of jewelry!

Ring is basically a token of a man's intent to socially honor the woman. Why would a modern woman care though?

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.

Words mean nothing, only your behavior counts. You have a boyfriend until you have a fiancé until you are married to a husband. A man who had married you is your husband. A man who lives with you and promises someday you’ll be married is a boyfriend.

And a ring weighs more than a commitment? Any man can give you a fake $100 ring to make you move in with him?

I loved living independently when I was single. Could not imagine giving that up without a wedding bend (forget the diamond). Happily married now 20 plus years. I will say it was thrilling setting up a home with my husband. Guess I’m a bit old fashioned, but it really was a magical time. Good luck,

Is the ring the engagement ring or the wedding ring?

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.

Words mean nothing, only your behavior counts. You have a boyfriend until you have a fiancé until you are married to a husband. A man who had married you is your husband. A man who lives with you and promises someday you’ll be married is a boyfriend.

Yup. No matter how much jewelry he buys you.

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.

What's marriage's social value? To announce the reunion so others know these people are off limits and if these people to break up, there is a fair way to divide lives.

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.

Since divorce rate is highest among married couples, marriages should be avoided to avoid divorce.

Hehe