Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

New Here--so frustrated

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Thanks girls. I actually got a job offer that I wasn''t expecting which will be much more challenging than my current one (unfortunately, I like my cushy job!), but has a great title, salary, bonus, vacation,etc.etc. So that has been distracting me! Part of me is nervous I may have less time for my relationship and *maybe* wedding planning (plz may this not jinx me), but gotta do what''s best for me. Anyway, I guess my point is by default, I''ve backed off, so we''ll see!

I agree with everyone that the living together statistic is a bunch of hogwash. It must be based on young people who move in together before even knowing each other, and without any discussion about expectations. Because that''s the only way it makes sense to me. People don''t divorce because they lived together before, they divorce because they grow apart, or realize they want different things or are incompatible. Reasons 1) and 2) are things we can''t predict or foresee, someone today might be different in 10 years. BUT, living together certainly alleviates the chances of divorcing due to incompatibility. What makes you last through the long haul is realizing you and your bf are best friends, and a share a great partnership with a strong foundation--things that come through loud and clear (or not) when you''re together 24/7. Yea, the guy may get complacent as a result which puts us girls in the uncomfortable position of having to pressure, but in my case, I don''t think I''d be pressuring any less if we weren''t living together and just dating long term.
 
Congrats on the job offer!!! More challenge is always a good thing.
 
congrats on the job offer alwayswaiting! Are you going to take it?

I think it''s pointless to argue about statistics when we''re discussing an individual couple. What statistics supposedly point to doesn''t have any bearing on *this* couple or on anyone''s personal relationships. It''s like someone being given a 20% chance of survival of some disease based on what statistics say. For that particular person, they are either going to 100% live or 100% die.

I don''t have any stats to back me up, but what I glean from this place is that people tend not to live together *just* to see if they are compatible. Usually there are other factors involved, like geographical logistics, finances, real estate, etc. If you one of the reasons you move in with your boyfriend (or girlfriend) is because your city is a high rent district, or you need both your savings for a down payment, don''t confuse this with true love! I often wonder if women feel that the guy they''re with is *the one* because he truly is or because they''ve already invested so much time in the relationship. I think that''s one of hte dangers of living together first (not for everyone but some couples). They move in together because it''s an easier decision than committing to marriage and then, even though it isn''t an ideal relationship for one or both, they end up getting married because it''s the logical next step.
 
there has been a growing trend in this country toward a kind of religious fanaticism that condemns modernity as sinful and terrible. interestingly, some of the members of that movement are guilty of the most perverse behavior. newt gingrich is a wonderful example (the ultimate "do as i say not as i do" ... his second divorce, the result of appalling infidelity ... but i''m sure he''d agree with these conservative value judgments.) need we mention the catholic church here? and the funniest part about it is that these arguments rely on misconceptions at best, or delusions at worst, of how their religious founders viewed the world. in times when women married just after getting their periods, pregnancy could not be controlled, and paternity could not be proven, there was good reason to say NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE EVER (and might i add there was a LOT of sex before marriage).

we live in a different world. if women today waited to "live as married couples" and didn''t find the right person until their 30''s or 40''s, it would turn tradition on its head, not remain faithful to it. the "don''t have sex," "don''t live together" mentality encourages people to marry younger than they would otherwise, and i''m not a statistician, but i''d bet there is a high correlation of marriage at a young age and divorce. (my parents married very young and have stayed together 35 years and change, so i''m not saying it never works). and what would people think if a 14-year-old showed up on ps saying she was ready to get married, without dating another person, or having sought out more life experiences? would we encourage her? for the sake of tradition?

it is incredibly frustrating to hear judgmental suggestions about living together, even if they are cloaked in a disclaimer that "whatever you do is ok." i''m sure that those here who have broken their engagements are relieved, not guilt-ridden, that they broke off the solemn promise to be soulmates. isn''t engagement arguably the emotional equivalent of living together?

and more importantly, why be a cow that gets bought?
 
Date: 8/27/2006 12:46:10 AM
Author: SadieShoe


there has been a growing trend in this country toward a kind of religious fanaticism that condemns modernity as sinful and terrible. interestingly, some of the members of that movement are guilty of the most perverse behavior. newt gingrich is a wonderful example (the ultimate 'do as i say not as i do' ... his second divorce, the result of appalling infidelity ... but i'm sure he'd agree with these conservative value judgments.) need we mention the catholic church here? and the funniest part about it is that these arguments rely on misconceptions at best, or delusions at worst, of how their religious founders viewed the world. in times when women married just after getting their periods, pregnancy could not be controlled, and paternity could not be proven, there was good reason to say NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE EVER (and might i add there was a LOT of sex before marriage).


we live in a different world. if women today waited to 'live as married couples' and didn't find the right person until their 30's or 40's, it would turn tradition on its head, not remain faithful to it. the 'don't have sex,' 'don't live together' mentality encourages people to marry younger than they would otherwise, and i'm not a statistician, but i'd bet there is a high correlation of marriage at a young age and divorce. (my parents married very young and have stayed together 35 years and change, so i'm not saying it never works). and what would people think if a 14-year-old showed up on ps saying she was ready to get married, without dating another person, or having sought out more life experiences? would we encourage her? for the sake of tradition?


it is incredibly frustrating to hear judgmental suggestions about living together, even if they are cloaked in a disclaimer that 'whatever you do is ok.' i'm sure that those here who have broken their engagements are relieved, not guilt-ridden, that they broke off the solemn promise to be soulmates. isn't engagement arguably the emotional equivalent of living together?


and more importantly, why be a cow that gets bought?
Click to expand...

*stands up and cheers!*

Interestingly, I had a discussion with my FF last night about this very topic. He's doing his PhD in Clinical Psychology, and he loves Statistics.

I asked him about the statistics people have been mentioning about people living together being more likely to divorce. He seemed offended and said 'one of the first things you learn is correlation does not imply causation; it is the golden rule of descriptive statistics'. Looking back at the thread, I realize that FetusStyle also called foul on the claim that statistics 'prove' that couples who live together are more likely to get divorced.

We've also recently seen an example of how the findings of studies were hijacked to suggest that women having a career was a recipe for misery (Don't Marry Career Women). I recently read an article about how many strippers, prostitutes, and 'adult film actresses' came from destitute families with absent/abusive/alcoholic father figures, but I'm not about to assume that just because I am the daughter of an abusive drunk and was raised by a mother on welfare that I'm destined to become a sex trade worker.

I'm also happy to say that my FF is marrying me because he loves me and wants to share his life with me, even after living together.
 
I have to say that I totally agree with the last couple of threads. I think that its good that people realise that they mightn''t be compatible after living together-its far better than finding that out after signing the marriage certificate. I also think that its very unfair to say that people who live together without being married dont care as much or try as much as someone living together when they are married. I dont live with D at the moment but I never think that someone who lives together without being married values their relationship any less than a couple who are married.
 
i haven't read the whole thread so maybe this was already brought up...

but when i read the stats that said living together before marriage leads to a higher divorce rate, i also read that there was a reason, and i can agree with this reason having been there, done that kinda thing...it's the living together AIMLESSLY for me that can cause something in the relationship where you view it was committment free. like 'we're just seeing where this is taking us' kinda thing. i think it's harder for those couples to make it to a successful marriage and then long-term because i think it's very hard to SHAKE off a way of thought if you have been doing it the whole time you have been in that relationship. i did this with my ex bf....we moved in together very quickly because we had already been friends and knew we got along fabulously, and it was so much fun to live together and see where things were going! well 3 years later and one house purchase, we broke up because we had been just seeing where things were taking us but not really ever sitting down and going is this working, is this what we want, etc. it was just a lets see where this goes and if it's to marriage, great!!

when i met my now husband, he'd also been in one of those kind of relationships and we both didn't want to go there again, so we didn't move in together until we had already bought an e-ring stone and the ring was being made. we wanted a finite timeline on things, and whenever we dicussed things in the future live moving in it was to the ultimate goal for us, marriage. we wouldn't have moved in together just to live together or be together more or whatever, we were already together quite a lot, he even had a little wardrobe set at my house for weekends etc. but it's not the same as living together, that meshing of minds that to me comes with marriage in the future. anyway it worked out wonderfully for us this way, we were able to move in together with none of that 'well lets see if this works' because we already knew we could MAKE it work because we knew our personalities meshed well, it wasn't about seeing if we could live together, i have realized as i have gotten older that that whole thing is just kind of a recipe for another 'lets see'. we got engaged, bought a house, got married.

so i don't believe that just living together leads to unsuccessful marriages, to me it's that aimless lets see where this goes or if we can get along while living together or i just can't be without you so lets see if we can live together that can create that kind of casual, lets see mindset that to me does not benefit the tenacity you need to make a marriage work long term.

just my thoughts!!!
 
Date: 8/27/2006 12:46:10 AM
Author: SadieShoe

we live in a different world. if women today waited to ''live as married couples'' and didn''t find the right person until their 30''s or 40''s, it would turn tradition on its head, not remain faithful to it. the ''don''t have sex,'' ''don''t live together'' mentality encourages people to marry younger than they would otherwise, and i''m not a statistician, but i''d bet there is a high correlation of marriage at a young age and divorce. (my parents married very young and have stayed together 35 years and change, so i''m not saying it never works). and what would people think if a 14-year-old showed up on ps saying she was ready to get married, without dating another person, or having sought out more life experiences? would we encourage her? for the sake of tradition?


and more importantly, why be a cow that gets bought?
Click to expand...
I understood your point of view until that paragraph, now I''m a bit confused. Yes, the "don''t have sex mentality" would encourage younger marriages. But, since living together is pretty much marriage without the piece of paper, the mentality that considers cohabitation de rigueur is in fact *encouraging* younger "marriages," not discouraging them! We see couples living together at a much younger age than they would marry.

I''m not sure what the 14 year old analogy has to do with anything. Why not encourage girls to be independent and have the sense to use birth control. When they are older, encourage them to earn enough money so that they can live on their own and take care of themselves first and foremost. Then, when they want to share their lives with someone, with or without that piece of paper, they can do it as equals and not feel "stuck" in their arrangements.

And what''s with the "cow" thing? I honestly don''t get it.
 
Date: 8/27/2006 4:59:04 PM
Author: Maria D
Date: 8/27/2006 12:46:10 AM

Author: SadieShoe


we live in a different world. if women today waited to ''live as married couples'' and didn''t find the right person until their 30''s or 40''s, it would turn tradition on its head, not remain faithful to it. the ''don''t have sex,'' ''don''t live together'' mentality encourages people to marry younger than they would otherwise, and i''m not a statistician, but i''d bet there is a high correlation of marriage at a young age and divorce. (my parents married very young and have stayed together 35 years and change, so i''m not saying it never works). and what would people think if a 14-year-old showed up on ps saying she was ready to get married, without dating another person, or having sought out more life experiences? would we encourage her? for the sake of tradition?



and more importantly, why be a cow that gets bought?
Click to expand...
I understood your point of view until that paragraph, now I''m a bit confused. Yes, the ''don''t have sex mentality'' would encourage younger marriages. But, since living together is pretty much marriage without the piece of paper, the mentality that considers cohabitation de rigueur is in fact *encouraging* younger ''marriages,'' not discouraging them! We see couples living together at a much younger age than they would marry.


I''m not sure what the 14 year old analogy has to do with anything. Why not encourage girls to be independent and have the sense to use birth control. When they are older, encourage them to earn enough money so that they can live on their own and take care of themselves first and foremost. Then, when they want to share their lives with someone, with or without that piece of paper, they can do it as equals and not feel ''stuck'' in their arrangements.


And what''s with the ''cow'' thing? I honestly don''t get it.
Click to expand...

I believe this is a reference to the saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" that was used earlier as a reason why men don''t have any motivation to marry their live-in girlfriends because they are already getting the ''milk'' without having to propose/get married aka ''buying the cow''.

This saying being used in that context offends me, because it implies that women want men to ''buy'' their sexual favours/housekeeping with a ring/marriage.

(I believe that Sadie was explaining that certain marriage traditions come from a time when people got married at 14. It''s easy to avoid pre-marital relations when you are married off right after your first period.)
 
Date: 8/27/2006 6:25:32 PM
Author: Galateia


I believe this is a reference to the saying ''Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?'' that was used earlier as a reason why men don''t have any motivation to marry their live-in girlfriends because they are already getting the ''milk'' without having to propose/get married aka ''buying the cow''.

This saying being used in that context offends me, because it implies that women want men to ''buy'' their sexual favours/housekeeping with a ring/marriage.

(I believe that Sadie was explaining that certain marriage traditions come from a time when people got married at 14. It''s easy to avoid pre-marital relations when you are married off right after your first period.)
Click to expand...
I understand where the reference comes from, I just don''t understand it in the context that sadieshoe wrote: "why be a cow that gets bought?" Does that mean a woman should continue to live together with a man when she''d rather they were married because otherwise she''s acting as if she''s a cow to be bought? Or does it mean that a person has no right to feel that marriage is necessary in the first place; that''s only for "cows" who insist on being "bought" before they are "milked?" I don''t get what the point of the "don''t be a cow" admonition is.

I too would be offended by the phrase if I took it in the context that you do. Maybe it''s the wording: why "buy" when you can get it for "free." It makes it sound like prostitution is being discussed! I take the "cow question" in the context of human nature: why change things if you are happy with the way things are. That''s how the guys in question must feel. The women who feel things aren''t moving fast enough might want to think about the corollary to that: If you are unhappy with the way things are, why not change things?
 
Date: 8/27/2006 6:25:32 PM
Author: Galateia

I believe this is a reference to the saying ''Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?'' that was used earlier as a reason why men don''t have any motivation to marry their live-in girlfriends because they are already getting the ''milk'' without having to propose/get married aka ''buying the cow''.

This saying being used in that context offends me, because it implies that women want men to ''buy'' their sexual favours/housekeeping with a ring/marriage.

(I believe that Sadie was explaining that certain marriage traditions come from a time when people got married at 14. It''s easy to avoid pre-marital relations when you are married off right after your first period.)
Click to expand...
Actually, though it''s not the nicest way of putting it, I think the point is the same one that''s been made already in this thread: when a man is already getting all the benefits of marriage, he tends to not have a lot of motivation to actually get married.

I mean seriously, what IS in it for a guy who''s already living in a marriage-like state? Most guys don''t care anywhere near as much as we do about the ring, the dress, the dream wedding, but they''re supposed to put out a bunch of money and do all this stuff that doesn''t change anything they care about. I can kind of see their point of view . . .
 
Good posts... once again I'm impressed by both Maria and Mara's explanations/stories... I agree with both. As for the whole "why be the cow that gets bought" thing, if buying the cow is marriage and providing the milk is sex and/or living together (as it has been used here previously) then in Sadie's context, it sounds like she's saying that women should not have sex OR live together... instead, they should just wait until they find an equal partnership but not get married at all.

Definitely okay for some people... but for AW (whose post we've now successfully hijacked... but with valuable debate!) marriage IS important. And I agree with her.

Being a psychology grad student myself, I've spent years studying statistics... and while correlation may not indicate causation, it is still considered an extremely useful tool for noting patterns and trends that DO exist in today's world. In other words, whether or not living together CAUSES broken relationships, if you are a couple living together, several studies have shown it is more likely to happen to you than to a couple NOT living together, when considered in the greater context of American society.

Is your individual relationship still the most important thing? Of course... but the responsible use of statistics is to evaluate them for what they are, and respect their existence as an indicator of other underlying variables that may be causing negative effects (ie., Mara's illustration of the "let's see" mindset) rather than write them off altogether as just "numbers".
 
Date: 8/27/2006 11:48:03 PM
Author: Christa

I mean seriously, what IS in it for a guy who''s already living in a marriage-like state? Most guys don''t care anywhere near as much as we do about the ring, the dress, the dream wedding, but they''re supposed to put out a bunch of money and do all this stuff that doesn''t change anything they care about. I can kind of see their point of view . . .
Click to expand...
There it is in a nutshell! well said...

This is not to say that there aren''t *any* people out there that care about things like commitment, tax breaks, societal views, legitimacy issues, etc. But the ones who aren''t moving forward after testing the waters either don''t care much about this stuff or don''t really want to marry the person they are currently living with. What else can it be?

>>I''m also happy to say that my FF is marrying me because he loves me and wants to share his life with me, even after living together.
I don''t think anyone here is saying that if you live with a person he/she is never going to want to marry you. Clearly that can''t be the case since the majority of couples who marry today live together first. The point is that just because two people live together doesn''t mean that they''ll move on to marriage. That''s just common sense, right? If the point is to test then sometimes a couple isn''t going to pass the test. When that happens, it''s not going to be a clean ending, like when you interview for a job and don''t get it. It''s going to happen over time, probably with one person wanting to move forward and the other holding back, and it''s probably going to be painful. (I wonder if it''s really that much easier than divorce.)

Ya know, in old-fashioned times, when the guy proposed, HE was giving an ultimatum. If the woman said no to the proposal, the gig was over. If she said "maybe" in the form of "I''m not ready yet" it was understood that although they might continue dating, both could see other people. The guy didn''t have to take a maybe to mean, "I''m not ready to marry you, but you must continue to exclusively date only me until I make up my mind." If the guy wanted to wait, that was his decision. Now a proposal is no longer considered an ultimatum. If the woman has been discussing "time-lines," the guy already knows the answer and the proposal is part of the progression. The women in these situations should face the fact that *they* have already proposed. (This is not an insult! It''s a modern world. Women can have sex, jobs, power...they can certainly propose.) They got the "not ready yet" answer and they have to decide if they want to wait it out or "see other people." The catch is it''s kind of hard to see other people when you already have a de-facto husband!

By the way, does FF mean Future Fiance? Is that different from boyfriend?
 
Date: 8/27/2006 4:59:04 PM
Author: Maria D
I understood your point of view until that paragraph, now I''m a bit confused. Yes, the ''don''t have sex mentality'' would encourage younger marriages. But, since living together is pretty much marriage without the piece of paper, the mentality that considers cohabitation de rigueur is in fact *encouraging* younger ''marriages,'' not discouraging them! We see couples living together at a much younger age than they would marry.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I''m 21, so it wasn''t so long ago that I''ve seen a LOT of friends fresh out of High School at 16-17 and entering CÉGEP (two years between High School and college here in Québec), and friends fresh out of CÉGEP entering college at 18-19, moving in with their girlfriend/boyfriend. They said it would be "fun", and were very convinced they were ready. Quite a few of those couples moved in together after less than a year of dating... And very few of those couple had even discussed the issue of marriage, most didn''t even know if they wanted to get married at all! None of those couples that I know are still together today.

I also know quite a few girls out of college who want to marry their boyfriend, but their boyfriend either doesn''t believe in marriage or just doesn''t care. Those girls are moving in with them anyway because they''d rather be with a man who won''t marry them than be alone. It breaks my heart because I know they deserve better and they still have plenty of time to find someone who loves them enough to marry them... And once they are living together, it''s just the same as being married, so the guys has absolutely no incentive to marry their live-in girlfriend.

It was seeing all this and because I strongly believe in marriage that I refused to move in with my now fiancé before the engagement. I didn''t want us to rush it without really thinking it through like my High School friends, and I didn''t want to sell myself short like my college friends. It has nothing to do with being a cow that gets bought or not, it''s about standing up for what I believe in and what I want out of life. If my fiancé had told me he didn''t believe in marriage and he had no intention on marrying me when we discussed this last summer, I wouldn''t have stayed with him. It turns out proposing around our 3rd anniversary this summer was on his mind even then, and we''ve since agreed to move in together next summer, one year before the wedding. Everybody wins.
 
Date: 8/28/2006 10:40:23 AM
Author: Maria D

This is not to say that there aren't *any* people out there that care about things like commitment, tax breaks, societal views, legitimacy issues, etc. But the ones who aren't moving forward after testing the waters either don't care much about this stuff or don't really want to marry the person they are currently living with. What else can it be?


>>I'm also happy to say that my FF is marrying me because he loves me and wants to share his life with me, even after living together.<<


I don't think anyone here is saying that if you live with a person he/she is never going to want to marry you. Clearly that can't be the case since the majority of couples who marry today live together first. The point is that just because two people live together doesn't mean that they'll move on to marriage. That's just common sense, right? If the point is to test then sometimes a couple isn't going to pass the test. When that happens, it's not going to be a clean ending, like when you interview for a job and don't get it. It's going to happen over time, probably with one person wanting to move forward and the other holding back, and it's probably going to be painful. (I wonder if it's really that much easier than divorce.)


Ya know, in old-fashioned times, when the guy proposed, HE was giving an ultimatum. If the woman said no to the proposal, the gig was over. If she said 'maybe' in the form of 'I'm not ready yet' it was understood that although they might continue dating, both could see other people. The guy didn't have to take a maybe to mean, 'I'm not ready to marry you, but you must continue to exclusively date only me until I make up my mind.' If the guy wanted to wait, that was his decision. Now a proposal is no longer considered an ultimatum. If the woman has been discussing 'time-lines,' the guy already knows the answer and the proposal is part of the progression. The women in these situations should face the fact that *they* have already proposed. (This is not an insult! It's a modern world. Women can have sex, jobs, power...they can certainly propose.) They got the 'not ready yet' answer and they have to decide if they want to wait it out or 'see other people.' The catch is it's kind of hard to see other people when you already have a de-facto husband!


By the way, does FF mean Future Fiance? Is that different from boyfriend?
Click to expand...

Re: the bolded comment above; I totally agree with you. I also think that today's society encourages people to move in together who don't necessarily have a long-term future together because we are now permitted to cohabitate without being married first. I can easily see how people who have been living together for some time get stuck in a 'rut' where they don't really have much cause to break up, so they stay together. Outside pressures like family and friends may encourage them to get engaged because it's 'expected' of them.

I am thinking of the scene in Fight Club where Brad Pitt's character is discussing his father's expectations of him (while in the bath). He describes his father instructing him to go to school, then get a job, then get married. That 'conveyer belt' mentality can lead people into trouble. It could easily lead people to get married who aren't keen on the idea, but it seems the next logical step and they can't figure out a good enough reason to avoid it. This could be a factor in why the divorce rate among couples who cohabitated first is so high.

So if it's so easy to assume that you will end up married, why are there so many girls wondering why their live-in boyfriends aren't proposing? I think it's because they aren't interested in getting married, either at all or to the girl in question. (The third option is that the guy has a 'plan', etc, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here.)

This makes clarity of intentions all the more important, I think. If you are living together, and you are interested in marriage, you need to explictly state as much.

As for the 'cow' thing: the point, I believe, is that no one wants to be a commodity that is purchased.

And FF does mean Future Fiance. Yes, it is different than boyfriend, at least in my eyes-- we have already decided to get married, and are filing the paperwork to make that possible. We are not yet officially engaged. We have not yet purchased the ring, but we have picked it out. I see 'Future Fiance' as that stage between 'any old guy that you happen to be dating' and 'someone who is about to propose, now that marriage, children, etc. has been discussed and agreed upon'.

I have an issue with people who suggest that women are 'giving up their assets' without being them first being 'purchased' by a proposal and diamond ring. No man should have to 'purchase' a wife, and no woman should be 'purchased'. It makes a mockery of all that the feminist movement accomplished.

I'm all for the modern advancement of marriage being a mutual decision made between two people of equal standing and power in the relationship, regardless of what their living arrangements are.
 
ok, some interesting posts--albeit off topic (no worries, not like there''re any updates from me!).

I guess we just have to AGREE that everyone is different and every situation is different. My point was just that I do not believe there is correlation b/ween living together and divorcing and I still do not believe so after everything I''ve read. Nor do I believe living together means the guy won''t propose. If you move in with a guy and he is stalling, my guess is he would have stalled if the couple hadn''t moved in together either. And if not, he probably is proposing to just "get the cow at full price", and surely doesn''t signify long term chances of the marriage''s survival anymore then having it free first. In fact, some might say the guy rushed into marriage for superficial reasons, and perhaps the foundation of the relationship wasn''t established firmly enough first.

As for the prior poster, you are 21 and that is a whole different ball game. At that young an age, I would agree moving in haphazardly (as it sounds many of your friends would like to), is not the wisest move if you''d like to be married. Most guys are no where near marriage minded in early 20''s, they are still boys.
In my case I am in my mid 30''s, my bf is in his late 30''s, we are both professionals living in NYC, and we are both adults with a firm view of what we want out of the future. Living together was meant to be a short term phase to just see if we felt the same after seeing each other in all lights. This was important to my bf because of a past living experience with a gf. I hear some of you saying "oh but if he wants to marry you, why all the uncertainty?" This is where we have to let go of the romantic views that people just "know" and violins are played and things happen. In today''s age, we all know perception is NOT reality when it comes to couples happiness, and covering hard ground work before a marrriage (instead of after), and REALLY knowing the person inside and out (goals, hopes, fears, insecurities) goes a long way and is invaluable to the long term health of a relationship. Living togehter is a big part of that. I know my previous posts seem very dire, but I think to be fair to my bf, I should say he is a good man who is also a cautious individual who does not take big decisions lightly or act spontaneously. We both are on the same page with being together forever, married, kids (all discussed) but our timelines awere off. He also, like many men, wanted to have all kinds of ducks in order first (investments, new apt, etc etc), which were not important to me in MY timeline. Hence all our discussions. If things don''t work out in the end, they would not have worked out if we were just dating either.
I know some couples who lived together and broke up. Based on some theories, if they had not lived together, the guy would have married her. But knowing what I know now, I can also say they would have quickly divorced. Having said that, if 2 people get engaged and live together, that''s not a bad route either. But it''s not too different in theory from 2 people who live together and then become engaged. ALL my friends (all in their 30''s) have lived with bf''s before marriage, and are still happily married. I only know of 1 who lived togehter, but then broke up. Hopefully, I will not follow the latter route. Ultimately, and despite everything I''ve gone through, I stand by the fact that living with my bf first was the correct decision, and has not harmed my long term prospects of marriage. I think if we do marry, lving together first will have stregthened our chances. But I digress...I STILL need to see a ring first and I guess only then will my argumentl hold some merit!
 
Always.Waiting, I think people in this thread have gotten too heated and caught up in justifying their own choices and why they''ve done what they''ve done. Everyone likes to think that they''ve made the right decision in their own life. You sound mature and hopefully you can make the best decision for you. I think the bigger issue for you is this whole ultimatim issue -- is it what, another 2 weeks?
 
oh the one thing i wanted to say that was relevant to you AW was...is 3 weeks enough time to really let him feel like he's making this decision on his own and not being pushed into it?

i gave my husband 6 months from the one discussion we had about it to say 'YES it's you i want in my life and i will take appropriate steps to do it'. he was ready before that and we were engaged by 6 months. it was more than i hoped for on that particular timeline, but i let him do it on his own timetable with just small reminders such as 'are you thinking about what we talked about?'...i didn't want to be having THE TALK over and over and drive us both insane. and we both had a timeline we both could live with, so i had to respect it.

i don't know if i had said, hey make it or break it in 3 weeks if i would have been disappointed, probably. so i'm just a little concerned you have set yourself up for failure here. i don't know your guy but more than one guy in my life (friends, my father) has to think stuff over for a long time before they make a 'decision'.
 
Thanks for the nice words/feedback Mara and Lindsey.

I actually started talking to my bf about the whole marriage/future issue 6 mo''s ago, so I guess that''s why I''m not willing to give a longer timeline. I know 3 wks sounds ridiculous, but it''s more like a clarifying of how much time is left--and I think he knew anyway, and just wanted me to have a timeline so I could stop going crazy for a little bit. Why he waited until the last minute is beyond me, but maybe 6 mo''s was my internal timeline, and a year was his, and now he''s moving it up (best case scenario). I constantly remind him even though I KNOW I should back off. It''s like I have uncontrollable engagement verbal diarrhea or something! Anyway, as soon as I start veering off into conversation about how I''m so stressed about my future and lack of control, he tells me I "should just relax" (he says it in a reassuring tone) and the conversation ends. This makes me "think" that he must have something planned. Either that or he is just totally clueless and shooting himself in both feet. I have some faith, but not too much b/c I''m a realist and I respond to actions not words.

Six more months is just too long for me because we are at the point in our lives and relationship where we are ready and need to start planning the future (where to live long term, what to buy, city vs. suburbs, kids). We need to start these talks now or very soon. Right now we just dance around it and put it on hold since it''s clear we have to take the next step in this relationship first (ie engagement!). I also am starting a new challenging job, and I need my personal life stabilized. I won''t have time to be on top of him and constantly worrying about my "plan B" options, where to live if all falls through etc. So yea I guess 2 more wks. Yikes, I''m terrified. I''ve done the standard checks of looking at his phone log and asking trick questions and still no signs. Either I''m in for devastation or he knows me too well and is covering his tracks extremely well.
 
Date: 8/28/2006 12:48:00 PM
Author: Mara
oh the one thing i wanted to say that was relevant to you AW was...is 3 weeks enough time to really let him feel like he''s making this decision on his own and not being pushed into it?

i gave my husband 6 months from the one discussion we had about it to say ''YES it''s you i want in my life and i will take appropriate steps to do it''. he was ready before that and we were engaged by 6 months. it was more than i hoped for on that particular timeline, but i let him do it on his own timetable with just small reminders such as ''are you thinking about what we talked about?''...i didn''t want to be having THE TALK over and over and drive us both insane. and we both had a timeline we both could live with, so i had to respect it.

i don''t know if i had said, hey make it or break it in 3 weeks if i would have been disappointed, probably. so i''m just a little concerned you have set yourself up for failure here. i don''t know your guy but more than one guy in my life (friends, my father) has to think stuff over for a long time before they make a ''decision''.
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread AW explained that this wasn''t a 3 week deadline out of nowhere--the marriage discussion has been ongoing for the last six months and the BF seems to be pushing the timeline back every time it comes up.
 
AW...ahh i get it...sorry i looked through the thread earlier, but it wasn't clear to me if you had actually had the discussion six months ago and SET a an actual deadline that you'd stick to...it seemed really nebulous and then suddenly it was three weeks firm.

when we had our 'discussion' i made it very clear that within 6 months i needed XYZ or i was done...i said i love you and i know that i want to spend my life with you but i won't wait around hoping you feel the same, my life is too valuable for that and i hope you can respect that. and i would have done it. and he knew it...i think that was part of why it wasn't as stressful. i knew he knew i meant what i said and there would be no other chance.

the one other thing i wanted to say is you DO need to relax about asking him about it all the time. i know it's hard to back off a bit but i would trust him because that's all you CAN do right now.

good luck...!!!
 
Date: 8/28/2006 12:48:00 PM
Author: Mara
oh the one thing i wanted to say that was relevant to you AW was...is 3 weeks enough time to really let him feel like he''s making this decision on his own and not being pushed into it?

i gave my husband 6 months from the one discussion we had about it to say ''YES it''s you i want in my life and i will take appropriate steps to do it''. he was ready before that and we were engaged by 6 months. it was more than i hoped for on that particular timeline, but i let him do it on his own timetable with just small reminders such as ''are you thinking about what we talked about?''...i didn''t want to be having THE TALK over and over and drive us both insane. and we both had a timeline we both could live with, so i had to respect it.

i don''t know if i had said, hey make it or break it in 3 weeks if i would have been disappointed, probably. so i''m just a little concerned you have set yourself up for failure here. i don''t know your guy but more than one guy in my life (friends, my father) has to think stuff over for a long time before they make a ''decision''.
Click to expand...
I agree AW...you have already determined what is important to you. You have to decide in what ways you are comfortable with making it clear. I believe you said you aren''t willing to leave him because of it (although I may have missed it if you did), and while I don''t really believe in ultimatums, sometimes it''s the only way to make push come to shove.

As for living together and the hijacks...hm....

I live with my FI for reasons beyond our control...he moved here from Australia to be with me. Personally I am glad we lived together, and I am especially glad that it is VERY difficult for both of us to get out of the situation...i.e., it would take time for him to leave and go back to Oz. Without that ball and chain, so to speak, we may have taken the easy way out and gotten out of the relationship instead of figuring out how to make it work. They say living together that first year is the toughest for a reason!

However, I do think that marriage, and living together AFTER marriage really gives that extra bit of "ball and chain" to exhaust all options before you make a break for it. If you live together before marriage, a lot of it is to see if you can make it happen. After marriage, the option of "seeing" is a less, even if that means only slightly so. I speak for only myself, of course.
2.gif
I just know that personally, we would not have made it this far if it were a simple "trial". He came here for me, and I was pretty much already married and bound. I also AM marrying him because I think that piece of paper is important...I feel with all the effort he has made to be with me, I should give him my 100%, which is to marry him. Anything less is not 100% (again, personally speaking.) I''m scared of marriage, so this is a big step for me.

As for the premarital sex thing...obviously I''ve had it.
9.gif
I grew up in a religious environment, but don''t attend church or anything myself. I may be going out on a crazy limb here, but I think there are modern day practical reasons not to have sex with anyone else but the one you marry....

The first guy I had sex with, I was in love with. I thought sex with him was wonderful...and it was pretty good...

Until the second. Third. Fourth...you get the drift.

Moral of the story is I realized there was better sex out there. I''ve tasted the fruit! Now, if I had married guy #1, I *may* have wondered what sex with someone else was like, but I would''t have known for sure if there was better sex and probably wouldn''t have strayed to find out. If I had sex with lots of guys and fallen in love with a guy where sex was only decent, I''d know what I was missing...and being the immoral sinner that I am, be tempted to cheat more (whatever more means) than if I didn''t know any better. Does that make any sense? Maybe I am immoral, a sinner, and on drugs...hehehehehe...

Thank goodness my current man IS the best I''ve ever had!
3.gif
 
hi traveling gal,
sounds like things fell together for you and thanks for the post.

on a side topic, it''s not always the case that when a guy moves across countries to be with you, it''s a more secure set up. I had a friend who''s bf moved from Oz, lived together for a few years. She pressured, but no engagement and they broke up. This is after living with her a couple years, finding a job, establishing short term residency! For reasons I''ll never understand, she moved out (they were renting) and so he had an apt in her name (bills, lease). He then proceeds to move his new gf from Oz (who he was seeing "long distance" while living with my friend) to the apt! They''ve since married and moved back to Australia!
Now that is an awful scenario and he is not a good person, but geesh, can you believe it? My friend is still single..
 
Date: 8/28/2006 3:10:35 PM
Author: always.waiting
hi traveling gal,
sounds like things fell together for you and thanks for the post.

on a side topic, it''s not always the case that when a guy moves across countries to be with you, it''s a more secure set up. I had a friend who''s bf moved from Oz, lived together for a few years. She pressured, but no engagement and they broke up. This is after living with her a couple years, finding a job, establishing short term residency! For reasons I''ll never understand, she moved out (they were renting) and so he had an apt in her name (bills, lease). He then proceeds to move his new gf from Oz (who he was seeing ''long distance'' while living with my friend) to the apt! They''ve since married and moved back to Australia!
Now that is an awful scenario and he is not a good person, but geesh, can you believe it? My friend is still single..
Click to expand...

Whoa! What a cad! (Don''t normally use that word, but he seems like a caddish kinda guy). How did he move there? Mine won the diversity lottery...I wouldn''t marry him to get here.

I never pressured my man to get married...I just let him think it was his idea.
2.gif
 
AW, forgive me for another hijack!

My FF just linked me to a discussion of US divorce rates statistics. Just to show how dangerous it can be to confuse causation with correlation, take the follow statistic: "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics." (Based on the rest of the article, it should be 'including Atheists and Agnostics') According to this statistic, if you believe that stats 'predict' trends, being religious actually increases your chances of getting divorced!

If you would like to read the page I was reading (the references are located at the bottom of the page) you can find it here.
 
Date: 8/28/2006 2:07:09 PM
Author: always.waiting

Anyway, as soon as I start veering off into conversation about how I''m so stressed about my future and lack of control, he tells me I ''should just relax'' (he says it in a reassuring tone) and the conversation ends. This makes me ''think'' that he must have something planned. Either that or he is just totally clueless and shooting himself in both feet. I have some faith, but not too much b/c I''m a realist and I respond to actions not words.

*snip*

I also am starting a new challenging job, and I need my personal life stabilized. I won''t have time to be on top of him and constantly worrying about my ''plan B'' options, where to live if all falls through etc. So yea I guess 2 more wks. Yikes, I''m terrified. I''ve done the standard checks of looking at his phone log and asking trick questions and still no signs. Either I''m in for devastation or he knows me too well and is covering his tracks extremely well.
Click to expand...
So you took the job, congratulations! I don''t know if I missed it but I was wondering if you were going to take it. Good for you.

In reading your story, I totally agree -- he''s either got something planned or he is clueless. Maybe he had been planning to propose on your third anniversary and wants to stick to that plan? I think it''s funny (not in a bad way) that you have so much access to his personal stuff that you know whether there''s been phone calls/credit purchases... it''s easy for me to keep this stuff from my husband and I''ve been married for 17 years. On top of that, I barely contribute to household income and yet I''d have no problem sneaking a major purchase by him if I wanted to. (OK, maybe my husband is the clueless one!)

Anyway, I hope you can take a deep breath and relax. I have been in this situation, where it feels like your future is in someone else''s hands, and I know how stressful it is. But if you really think about it, you''ve always controlled your own future. You put yourself out there emotionally, you let your feelings be known, you will do what it takes to have the life you want/need. If things work out the way you hope, great! But if not, no matter what happens, you are not going to be devastated for life. You''ve done all the right things; you put yourself out there and doing so makes you vulnerable. But only the strong can afford to be vulnerable! Best of luck.
 
That must be the secret of my successful marriage (so far)... we stay out of church!
2.gif
I didn''t get through the whole article. It seems like there''s a lot of study about the leading causes of divorce -- cohabitation, not cohabitating, religion, young marriages, etc. -- when the reality is that there''s just a heck of a lot of divorce across the board! When I consider the very long and crappy marriages of some (not all) of my relatives my thoughts are they would have divorced if it had been acceptable and the women had been self-supporting. Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread in a new direction, just trying to say who cares about the divorce rate? It is what it is and doesn''t factor into any one individual relationship.

Thanks for the explanation of FF. It took me a while to realize that FI meant fiance. Everytime I saw it, I thought "future inlaw."
 
LOL, Maria D! You must have thought you''d stumbled onto this alternate universe where people talk about their in-laws with such love and anticipation!
 
AW-

I think I missed something, but when exactly is the deadline? Did you say it was Labor Day? My boyfriend officially has until October, but I am hoping for soon!!! I am getting impatient again.

Melibk
8.gif
20.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top