waiting is so painful, I really need advice.

[Deleted User]

YES to adoption, I've always loved the idea. I don't think he would be opposed to it if we ever came to that, but I don' think he's as keen on it as I am. It's one way we differ a bit.

We did have a brief conversation this summer, when he mentioned things moving forward within the next couple years... and I made it clear to him I didn't want to wait that long to move forward in a relationship at this point in my life. He seemed very relieved I said that, and I was relieved at his relief! I also expressed my fears about fertility, and he said he wanted to be with me even if I never had children, etc. It was a very emotional conversation, and reassuring.

Swazzle

Well, I guess I'm fucked. I moved in with my H after 3 months and he didn't propose to me for 4 more years after that. 

ETA: Basically, you're saying that you love this man so much that you want to marry him and spend the rest of your life with him. However, you'll gladly move on to the next if he's not ready to propose and have children with you right this very second. 

Did I get that right?

Swazzle

buggle2 said:

istril said:My principles on cohabitation have nothing to do with punishing anyone. There is actually a healthy body of evidence that shows cohabitation before marriage can weaken commitment, and is associated with an increased chance for divorce. Recently however, research has suggested that it isn't cohabitation before marriage that raises chances for divorce, it is cohabitation before *commitment* (which includes engagement, not just marriage).

Cohabitation before marriage? It's no greater divorce risk. -- New divorce and marriage research shows that cohabitation before marriage carries no extra risk of divorce - at least not when a couple plans to get married.

So...there is no commitment until engagement? You don't plan to get married before you actually get engaged? I'm pretty sure every couple I've ever met would disagree with this.

*****

This. Exactly this. 

Just because there was no ring on my finger until 4 years into our relationship, doesn't mean we weren't 100% committed to each other and planning to get married someday.  

lennonkdc

I realized that in my first post I didn't say that I was sorry about your father. I really am sorry about his illness, and I know this must be very difficult for you. 

In general I disagree with you about living together before engagement, because I think that a couple can be committed to having a future together without being engaged "Dating" has as much validity as you give it. If you are your BF are in love and both parties are 100% committed to building a life together then you don't need a ring (engagement or wedding) to make your feelings valid. Case in point my FI and I have been dating for 10 years, didn't get engaged until 9 years in, and won't be married until I'm 34, but we've been living together most of that time and been 100% committed to our future. During our time together our relationship has outlived the courtship and marriage of 4 friends of ours. Marriage/engagement doesn't = lifelong happiness in a committed relationship. Love, respect, honesty, communication and compromise are the only things that keep a relationship going year after year.

 I know you feel you 'wasted' time with an ex who promised a future that never came, but if you had married him you might be 32 and divorced, or 32 and unhappily married, who knows. To me saying "I won't let you move in without a ring" is just another type of ultimatum.

cu97tiger

istril said:

And yes, Phira, excellent post, as well as Amapola14 way up top, and many others in this thread.

Phira is exactly right, I'm having trouble coping.

But there are several things going on here... I wouldn't break up with him because he won't propose in time for my dad to be at the wedding, but I would consider moving on if he showed significant uncertainty after a year of dating seriously.

Why have you picked a year as the time when someone must know if they want to get engaged? Why can't you 'date seriously' without being engaged. My now-husband wasn't ready after a year. We talked marriage before our 2nd anniversary but he still wasn't ready to propose. We made other strides forward during the next year, but our 3rd anniversary came and went without a proposal. Two weeks later, we were engaged. He wasn't 'not sure' he just wasn't ready. And I respect the hell out of him, so I waited.

And my fertility issues are another thing, that frankly, I'm not coping with well. This has all come together in a big hot mess and a very difficult thing for me to communicate. But, communicate I must.

I think you need to communicate these things to a counselor... your boyfriend cannot help you sort out real life from your dream life (I don't mean that snarky, I mean you have a desire for your life to go a certain way and it might not happen). Your uterus doesn't dry up on your 35th birthday. Some people have fertility problems at age 21, others have babies into their 40s. It just is not a valid reason to put pressure on a young relationship.

And finally....

I will let a quote from 'The Happening' say what was a profound realization in my life:

Ain't no time two people staring at each other, or standing still, loving both with their eyes are equal. Truth is, someone is chasing someone. That's the way we's built. So, who's chasing?

You will need to figure out a way to come to terms with this situation (you're ready, he might not be, or at the very least, you have two different timetables). This isn't just something that happens during dating, it happens during engagement and during marriage. You are two people with two different views on the world, different feelings, different fears. How you negotiate those is what determines how successful your relationship will ultimately be.

KeptInStitches

It bothers me that you would be so willing to move on after a year if you don't get a proposal. BF and I aren't living together, are NEY, and are highly, deeply committed to each other after nearly 5 years. It almost feels like you're substituting engagement for committment, when they aren't the same thing, not really.

loves2shop4shoes

I'm sorry, but no.  Just no.  You're still blind to so many of the issues you have.  And you're not listening to very good advice because people aren't blowing smoke up your ass.

@cu97tiger is 100% right about patience, marriage, and fertility.  Listen to her.

And as far as living together, @buggle2 & @swazzle are right.  You can be committed without being engaged. 

The only time living together is a bad idea is when you're with someone who will using living together as a substitute for marriage.  Otherwise, living together is a great way to get to know each other even better.

Also, a reason that people who live together MAY be more likely to divorce is because they're likely less traditional (since they're cohabiting), and if a relationship is very unhealthy, they will walk away.  Whereas very traditional, old school people tend to be less likely to walk away from real problems.  Think about it.  How many people walked out of truly disastrous relationships in the 40s or 50s?  Far fewer...

phira

The increase in divorce and the increase in people living together before marriage is a correlation--one isn't causing the other. Both of these increases are due to increasing societal acceptance. It's easier to get a divorce, and it's more acceptable, so more people will end unhappy marriages. It's increasingly acceptable and even expected for people to live together before marriage (or, if you don't want to get married, WITHOUT getting married).

My brother is getting a divorce. It's not because they lived together first--it's because his soon-to-be-ex stopped wanting to spend any time with him and told him to make new friends if he was lonely.

My parents DIDN'T live together before getting engaged ... and got divorced after 22 years because my mom was miserable the entire time and had been rushed into marriage by my father.

The common thread is that both relationships were unhappy.

Living together is often considered less of a commitment than an engagement (since engagement --> marriage = legally binding commitment), as well as a way for two people to test the waters to see if they'd like being married (e.g. sharing a home). It's not just becoming more common because of a generational, "Screw tradition!" attitude--it's becoming more common because for a lot of people, it makes more sense than getting engaged first.

If you don't want to live together until you're engaged or married, I'm not going to sit around and tell you're being silly. But I'm familiar with the articles you're citing, and it's all just bunk. Don't cite, "Well, I don't want to get a divorce!" as the reason you don't want to live together before you're engaged. If your relationship is doomed to end because you lived together before you were engaged, then it wasn't the right relationship for you.

cu97tiger

phira said:

The increase in divorce and the increase in people living together before marriage is a correlation--one isn't causing the other. Both of these increases are due to increasing societal acceptance. It's easier to get a divorce, and it's more acceptable, so more people will end unhappy marriages. It's increasingly acceptable and even expected for people to live together before marriage (or, if you don't want to get married, WITHOUT getting married).

My brother is getting a divorce. It's not because they lived together first--it's because his soon-to-be-ex stopped wanting to spend any time with him and told him to make new friends if he was lonely.

My parents DIDN'T live together before getting engaged ... and got divorced after 22 years because my mom was miserable the entire time and had been rushed into marriage by my father.

The common thread is that both relationships were unhappy.

Living together is often considered less of a commitment than an engagement (since engagement --> marriage = legally binding commitment), as well as a way for two people to test the waters to see if they'd like being married (e.g. sharing a home). It's not just becoming more common because of a generational, "Screw tradition!" attitude--it's becoming more common because for a lot of people, it makes more sense than getting engaged first.

If you don't want to live together until you're engaged or married, I'm not going to sit around and tell you're being silly. But I'm familiar with the articles you're citing, and it's all just bunk. Don't cite, "Well, I don't want to get a divorce!" as the reason you don't want to live together before you're engaged. If your relationship is doomed to end because you lived together before you were engaged, then it wasn't the right relationship for you.

You read my mind. Seriously, I just said this to a few of the girls 45 minutes ago....

Riss2893

phira said:

The increase in divorce and the increase in people living together before marriage is a correlation--one isn't causing the other. Both of these increases are due to increasing societal acceptance. It's easier to get a divorce, and it's more acceptable, so more people will end unhappy marriages. It's increasingly acceptable and even expected for people to live together before marriage (or, if you don't want to get married, WITHOUT getting married).

My brother is getting a divorce. It's not because they lived together first--it's because his soon-to-be-ex stopped wanting to spend any time with him and told him to make new friends if he was lonely.

My parents DIDN'T live together before getting engaged ... and got divorced after 22 years because my mom was miserable the entire time and had been rushed into marriage by my father.

The common thread is that both relationships were unhappy.

Living together is often considered less of a commitment than an engagement (since engagement --> marriage = legally binding commitment), as well as a way for two people to test the waters to see if they'd like being married (e.g. sharing a home). It's not just becoming more common because of a generational, "Screw tradition!" attitude--it's becoming more common because for a lot of people, it makes more sense than getting engaged first.

If you don't want to live together until you're engaged or married, I'm not going to sit around and tell you're being silly. But I'm familiar with the articles you're citing, and it's all just bunk. Don't cite, "Well, I don't want to get a divorce!" as the reason you don't want to live together before you're engaged. If your relationship is doomed to end because you lived together before you were engaged, then it wasn't the right relationship for you.

She pretty much hit the nail on the head. To express a little of my inner math nerd, "correlation does not equal causation".

Swazzle

Safe to say @phira wins the internet today? 

I think so.

cu97tiger

Riss2893 said:

She pretty much hit the nail on the head. To express a little of my inner math nerd, "correlation does not equal causation".

Yay for math nerds (inner or outer)!

bethsmiles

@Phira - Your post was awesome. BF and I aren't living together before marriage but it absolutely has nothing to do with thinking that we will get divorced if we did.

beanbot2002

Swazzle said:

Safe to say @phira wins the internet today? 

I think so.

Absolutely

[Deleted User]

Swazzle said:

[snip]

ETA: Basically, you're saying that you love this man so much that you want to marry him and spend the rest of your life with him. However, you'll gladly move on to the next if he's not ready to propose within the next 6 months and have think about children with you right this very second someday. 

Did I get that right?

Almost. After my edits, it's much closer.

buggle2 said:

So...there is no commitment until engagement? You don't plan to get married before you actually get engaged? I'm pretty sure every couple I've ever met would disagree with this.

I didn't say that. However, to conduct research, you need a clear criteria. The presence of a formal engagement is how the researchers chose to define commitment. I'm SURE you are correct, but the point is, the trend in the research indicates that the presences of commitment--no matter what form that takes-- seemed to be the causal factor.

Its one thing to think about marriage before engagement, but generally, engagement is an indicator that the thinking about has progressed to pretty sure about. It is MY choice to also view a formal engagement as an indicator of commitment. I'm not saying that has to be a criteria for everyone else.

buggle2 said:

What I get from your posts is that you're more concerned about getting married and having babies than you are about being with the man you supposedly love. That's sad.

Why is that sad? I happen to think that there are probably a lot of people in this world I could love and marry and be very happy with. I've just chosen to seek out those of them who prioritize having a family as highly as I do. I love my boyfriend, very much, but if his timetable turns out to be vastly different than mine, YES, I will move on. I will meet someone else, who also wants a family, and I will probably love them very much and be happy with them too.

Everyone has criteria for their relationships. Everyone has dealbreakers. I don't know why everyone is judging mine to be unworthy.

______

Alright. I'm getting tired of people misrepresenting that research. I also get frustrated when a discussion of empirical research is answered with anecdotal arguments and "conventional wisdom".

NO, living with someone first doesn't CAUSE divorce. Phira, never did I claim that, in fact I was very careful NOT to phrase it that way. I understand the very basic difference between correlation and causation.

Cultural norms have something to do with the OVERALL trends, but scientists attempted to apply them for years up till now to explain the higher divorce rate of premarital cohabitors. THIS research is what finally helped them understand that "modern trends" couldn't fully explain it. 

The articles explain that it is currently thought that cohabitation before commitment may correlate with a higher divorce rate because once you are cohabiting, it is harder to "Get out" if the relationship turns out to not be so good. It's MUCH harder to break up with someone if you are living with them. People decide to live together much more "quickly" and without the same deliberation that they might decide to get engaged. However, often, the end result is getting married anyway because that was the "next logical step." The difference is how much couples scrutinze their relationships before taking one or the other path to marriage -- cohabitation first, before you really think about spending your life with this person, or thinking about if you want to spend your life with this person, and THEN cohabiting to try it out.

You say that living together is a more comfortable step than engagement, a stepping stone. but this is precisely why it is dangerous. Moving in together is easier than engagement, but once you are living there, you are much more likely to stay there, even if you should be getting out.

To put it very simply, waiting to cohabit until there is a commitment probably "weeds out" relationships that are ALREADY weak. It doesn't CREATE weak relationships.

I've been burned TWICE (I didn't talk about number two), so forgive me if I want to employ a bit of a weedout process.

I didn't do the research guys. You can disagree with it all day, it won't change what's been published. I'll remind you that research also predicts general trends. In no way does it attempt to accurately predict the characteristics of a specific relationship so I hope everyone stops taking it so personally.

I feel tired of defending myself. I know some of you had really long relationships and they turned out great; mine didn't. Everyone has different experiences and they shape us all differently

poegirlsmores

Hi guys, I'm a lurker.. Been here for a while and I've maybe posted once before. Being so, I understand I have no real right to criticize anyone's decisions or justifications. However, I am also familiar with the research on cohabitation before marriage. I did a research paper on it in college last semester (as I am currently cohabiting with my BF). I'd just like to throw out another point of view on those articles..

To me, they were correlations because there were many issues that could not be addressed. I.e. they could not manipulate the independent variable (cohabitation), therefore you had a lot of people who fell in the "cohabitation before marriage/proposal" category because they were less traditional about marriage. And if you are less traditional about marriage, chances are you're more likely to leave if it turns bad. If you're traditional, you're more likely to stay in it (for better or for worse, no pun intended).

Now, I don't know about you guys, but if I was in a relationship that I wanted to leave so badly, I'd rather get divorced than stay in such a terrible relationship, but that's just me.
But that's not my point. My point is, as many have said, a correlation does not equal causation, and the research even admitted that is is much more likely that these divorces are caused by less traditional views on marriage than cohabitation.

That being said, to the OP, I completely understand what you're getting at, and I respect everything you're trying to do. I know it would feel much less authentic if you have the conversation with him than if he were to propose of his own accord, on your anniversary. If you are certain that he will be proposing then though, than you really need to make the decision of what is more important to you: an authentic and "romantic" proposal, or a speedier proposal-->wedding day, which may or may not guarantee your father be there on your special day. If you choose to have a conversation with him, I would suggest you start off with that you knew he was planning to propose that day. That way, it will not feel like an ultimatum, but you can go into why a sooner proposal would make sense to you. I'm sure if he plans on marrying you, he will not be upset. Maybe disappointed, but not upset or threatened. There is always the option of telling all this to the person who told you when he planned to propose, and having them hint to him that an earlier proposal would make sense, but that may seem very juvenile. I agree with the others that in this case, an honest open conversation with him is probably your best route.

Good luck and best wishes for your upcoming engagement and wedding!

KeptInStitches

OP, BF and I are absolutely convinced we want to spend our lives together. We are NEY. Why is that not "sure enough" for you? I'm not saying you can't have different criteria for your relationships, I'm saying that a formal engagement is not the end-all, be-all of commitment. Please give this some consideration.

ETA: To clarify, I mean that, as sad as it is, engagements can be broken and marriages can fail. While both are public statements of commitment, they are not the only statements of commitment.

phira

@istril I'm a scientist in a PhD program, and I have a degree in sex and gender studies. I'm not misrepresenting the research. I'm pointing out its flaws. Additionally, articles from mainstream media are not primary literature and very frequently misinterpret research.

Anyway, you're implying that people who live together before marriage already have weak relationships. Thanks for that. I'll tell my fiance when he gets home that our relationship is weak because we didn't get engaged first.

adegr097

I going to take a complete left turn here and offer of a new and possibly crazy idea. 

Why don't YOU propose? 

You say you are tired of the modern engagement in society so why does the man have to be the one to propose?

If you are really ready to spend the rest of your life with him, and you are really ready to make that commitment, then simply ask him for it.  It doesn't make this awkward by asking him to ask you, because you are simply asking him the question you are waiting for. 

If you still want a "romantic gesture" like a proposal, let him surprise you with the ring. After I got engaged we decided that he should have an engagement ring to so I did just that. I surprised him with it and it was wonderful. You could even let him know which one you want just a fun little surprise sometime. 

So here is my advice, go out and buy a ring, get down on one knee and ask him for an answer rather than a question.  

doeydo

Why don't you just try talking, in a general sense, about how you are ready to settle down and get married etc.  Also, tell him how you have pictured your dad being at your wedding and how meaningful it would be to you.  You can talk about these things without giving an ultimatum or proposing... My fiance and I talked about our future and marriage a lot before we got engaged, and yes, he was the one doing the proposing.  

cu97tiger

istril said:

Swazzle said:

[snip]

ETA: Basically, you're saying that you love this man so much that you want to marry him and spend the rest of your life with him. However, you'll gladly move on to the next if he's not ready to propose within the next 6 months and have think about children with you right this very second someday. 

Did I get that right?

Almost. After my edits, it's much closer.

buggle2 said:

So...there is no commitment until engagement? You don't plan to get married before you actually get engaged? I'm pretty sure every couple I've ever met would disagree with this.

I didn't say that. However, to conduct research, you need a clear criteria. The presence of a formal engagement is how the researchers chose to define commitment. I'm SURE you are correct, but the point is, the trend in the research indicates that the presences of commitment--no matter what form that takes-- seemed to be the causal factor.

Its one thing to think about marriage before engagement, but generally, engagement is an indicator that the thinking about has progressed to pretty sure about. It is MY choice to also view a formal engagement as an indicator of commitment. I'm not saying that has to be a criteria for everyone else.

buggle2 said:

What I get from your posts is that you're more concerned about getting married and having babies than you are about being with the man you supposedly love. That's sad.

Why is that sad? I happen to think that there are probably a lot of people in this world I could love and marry and be very happy with. I've just chosen to seek out those of them who prioritize having a family as highly as I do. I love my boyfriend, very much, but if his timetable turns out to be vastly different than mine, YES, I will move on. I will meet someone else, who also wants a family, and I will probably love them very much and be happy with them too.

Everyone has criteria for their relationships. Everyone has dealbreakers. I don't know why everyone is judging mine to be unworthy.

______

Alright. I'm getting tired of people misrepresenting that research. I also get frustrated when a discussion of empirical research is answered with anecdotal arguments and "conventional wisdom".

NO, living with someone first doesn't CAUSE divorce. Phira, never did I claim that, in fact I was very careful NOT to phrase it that way. I understand the very basic difference between correlation and causation.

Cultural norms have something to do with the OVERALL trends, but scientists attempted to apply them for years up till now to explain the higher divorce rate of premarital cohabitors. THIS research is what finally helped them understand that "modern trends" couldn't fully explain it. 

The articles explain that it is currently thought that cohabitation before commitment may correlate with a higher divorce rate because once you are cohabiting, it is harder to "Get out" if the relationship turns out to not be so good. It's MUCH harder to break up with someone if you are living with them. People decide to live together much more "quickly" and without the same deliberation that they might decide to get engaged. However, often, the end result is getting married anyway because that was the "next logical step." The difference is how much couples scrutinze their relationships before taking one or the other path to marriage -- cohabitation first, before you really think about spending your life with this person, or thinking about if you want to spend your life with this person, and THEN cohabiting to try it out.

You say that living together is a more comfortable step than engagement, a stepping stone. but this is precisely why it is dangerous. Moving in together is easier than engagement, but once you are living there, you are much more likely to stay there, even if you should be getting out.

To put it very simply, waiting to cohabit until there is a commitment probably "weeds out" relationships that are ALREADY weak. It doesn't CREATE weak relationships.

I've been burned TWICE (I didn't talk about number two), so forgive me if I want to employ a bit of a weedout process.

I didn't do the research guys. You can disagree with it all day, it won't change what's been published. I'll remind you that research also predicts general trends. In no way does it attempt to accurately predict the characteristics of a specific relationship so I hope everyone stops taking it so personally.

I feel tired of defending myself. I know some of you had really long relationships and they turned out great; mine didn't. Everyone has different experiences and they shape us all differently

@istril - I think the main thing you're missing here is that cohabitation IS a form of commitment. For many people, it's a HUGE step that they put a lot of thought into and take very seriously.

I totally agree that it is more difficult to leave a relationship when you are living with someone than if you aren't. But it is ridiculous to say that someone would rather marry someone they didn't want to be with than move out. I mean, come on. It's easier to get married and then divorced rather than break up with someone and find a new place to live??

j+j14sept

I am truly, truly sorry about your dad.  I know what it is like to lose a parent.  I am also sorry about your health issue.  As a 37 year old woman engaged to a 24 year old man, I understand fertility issues and "timelines".  Here are my thoughts...

- If you are not already, please speak to a professional therapist.  You need help coping with all that is going on in your life.

- Fertility is not guaranteed at any age, so as hard as it is please try not to get too hung up on this.  Just as we all know women in the late 30s and early 40s who seem to have babies easliy, we all know women in their mid 20s who cannot.  There are no guarantees.

- Recognize that your previous relationship has shaped you and your beliefs, but don't let this punish your boyfriend or ruin what could be a wonderful lifelong relationship.  Leave room for his beliefs and experiences too. 

-  Understand that 9 months is NOT a long time in the grand scheme of things.  Don't rush this man so much that he is the one who walks away.

saric83

FWIW - I get where you're coming from on choosing not to live together yet.  DH and I moved in together before we were engaged, but we had a very direct conversation about how I didn't want to take the step if it wasn't going to lead to marriage sooner rather than later (I'm talking 1-2 years versus 5-6) and how we didn't want to move in simply because it was the easy next step or financially better.  It wasn't so much an ultimatum as just making sure we were on the same page.  I've had a lot of friends I've watched get kind of stuck in situations where they moved in with their BF's without having that kind of conversation and then were frustrated waiting for a proposal that never happened.  So I get having the boundaries to some degree.....

 

That said, maybe it's time to have a conversation about what it would mean to move in together (without the engagement as a dealbreaker - just for the sake of conversation) and see where that goes. 

 

Also, maybe this was mentioned earlier and I just missed it.  But if he were to propose today, would you plan a wedding ASAP?  If not and you were planning one for next spring or whenever, just take a deep breath and consider that if you wait things out until November and allow him to propose as he intends, you could always bump up the planning and still do it in spring (or whenever).

Hummingbird125

phira said:

If you don't want to live together until you're engaged or married, I'm not going to sit around and tell you're being silly. But I'm familiar with the articles you're citing, and it's all just bunk. Don't cite, "Well, I don't want to get a divorce!" as the reason you don't want to live together before you're engaged. If your relationship is doomed to end because you lived together before you were engaged, then it wasn't the right relationship for you.

THIS. 110% THIS.

I was so nervous about moving in with BF after only 8 months because so many people had told me not to do it. They warned that it would ruin my relationship because we were rushing into that step. I knew we were had an awesome relationship, and even at 8 months, it was the most serious relationship I had ever had, but I had visions of vicious fights and tearfully packing up my belongings to move out from our new apartment. And then I told myself - "If we're not meant to be together, if this relationship is not going to work out in the long-term, well, living together will show me that."

If you have a weak relationship, it's not going to last. It doesn't matter when you movie in together - sooner or later, you'll break. However, if you have a truly strong relationship, living together will just confirm that. 

[Deleted User]

(Bolded for skimmers)

phira said:

@istril I'm a scientist in a PhD program, and I have a degree in sex and gender studies. I'm not misrepresenting the research. I'm pointing out its flaws. Additionally, articles from mainstream media are not primary literature and very frequently misinterpret research.

Anyway, you're implying that people who live together before marriage already have weak relationships. Thanks for that. I'll tell my fiance when he gets home that our relationship is weak because we didn't get engaged first.

No no no! I said nothing of the sort! Where do I say living together first = weak relationships? I said IF the relationship is weak, THEN waiting to live together might help identify it as weak (if it is, in fact, marriage). If a then b does not imply if b then a. Or something like that.

Ironically I think this view reinforces your statement: "If your relationship is doomed to end because you lived together before you were engaged, then it wasn't the right relationship for you." Which I agree with 100% by the way. My argument is, that if your relationship is doomed, living together may prolong it unnecessarily. I believe that thinking about the end goal -- for me, marriage -- before getting comfortable living together, forces people to ask the "scary questions" they need to ask about their relationship instead of circumventing them with "well.... let's try living together..."

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, yes, I know that that not *every* couple that lives together first is just avoiding hard questions. But I do think that this happens some of the time -- and actually I think it happened my past relationships. In fact, I'd say that most of the time, people already HAVE asked the tough questions, and decide to live together before engagement to try things out, and that's perfectly fine. There are a million reasons someone might decide to do this. It's just not what *I* choose.

I wanted to post something a little more general-audience friendly than original research. Point taken about "reported research," and certainly a pet peeve of mine (a misreported study is why most people erroneously think humans only use 10-15% of their brains). However, I have confidence in most of the sources, and especially the Christian Science Monitor. Also, the sources corroborate eachother, which suggests that they are summarizing the research with at least a decent amount of accuracy.

I understand that you are trying to point out flaws in the arguments, but actually, the research itself is highlighting the flaws in YOUR argument -- that is, the "nontraditional" argument, while true to some extent, doesn't account for the whole picture. From one of the articles I posted:

"Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself." Emphasis mine.

So in other words, the research I posted is more recent than the argument you cited, and may even have been prompted because of inadequacies in that argument. BTW I'm fully aware that they say MAY. No causal link has been established. That wording is probably just the annoying reporters trying to spice up their article.

By the way, Phira, I do appreciate your discussion here and all the insight you've offered me--the fact that this is largely due to my failure to cope was the single most important thing I've taken away from this thread. I apologize if some of my responses were a bit prickly. I don't mean to offend.

adegr097 said:

Why don't YOU propose? 

Not crazy at all! I've seriously thought about this. However, from what I know about my boyfriend, I think he would be disappointed. His best friend thinks so too. Ultimately, his disappointment would be superficial -- he's a smart guy, and has good perspective, and I'm confident he understands that it's the marriage that is important, not the 10 seconds it takes to ask the question. So yes, this is just one more confounding factor to my decision. Plain and simple, if he has put in effort to plan a proposal, and if he is looking forward to that, I do have some hesitation in "ruining it." 

Bottom line -- I get that the proposal itself isn't that important, and the success of the long-term relationship is the big picture. So I'm still considering the possibility of asking him myself, and mild disappointment be damned.

Hummingbird125 said:

If you have a weak relationship, it's not going to last. It doesn't matter when you movie in together - sooner or later, you'll break. However, if you have a truly strong relationship, living together will just confirm that. 

I agree with this 100%. I'm simply trying to avoid the "later" scenario. My personal philosophy, that oh so many have taken objection to, is that I want someone to be sure that a seeing if a life together is possible really is the goal of living together.

j+j14sept said:

- If you are not already, please speak to a professional therapist.  You need help coping with all that is going on in your life.

- Fertility is not guaranteed at any age, so as hard as it is please try not to get too hung up on this.  Just as we all know women in the late 30s and early 40s who seem to have babies easliy, we all know women in their mid 20s who cannot.  There are no guarantees.

- Recognize that your previous relationship has shaped you and your beliefs, but don't let this punish your boyfriend or ruin what could be a wonderful lifelong relationship.  Leave room for his beliefs and experiences too. 

-  Understand that 9 months is NOT a long time in the grand scheme of things.  Don't rush this man so much that he is the one who walks away.

Excellent advice, all of it (including some others who said similar things earlier). Thank you. I'm trying to keep all these things in perspective. And I have planned to hook up with a grief counselor this week.

Edited for clarity and emphasis.

[Deleted User]

cu97tiger said:

istril - I think the main thing you're missing here is that cohabitation IS a form of commitment. For many people, it's a HUGE step that they put a lot of thought into and take very seriously.

I totally agree that it is more difficult to leave a relationship when you are living with someone than if you aren't. But it is ridiculous to say that someone would rather marry someone they didn't want to be with than move out. I mean, come on. It's easier to get married and then divorced rather than break up with someone and find a new place to live??

Very good point about the first one. However, while living together probably does represent at least some form of committment, I don't think it is as much of a committment. Several others in this thread have commented that it's "easier" or a smaller step to take before the big step of engamgement.

 

As far as your last comment: "I mean, come on. It's easier to get married and then divorced rather than break up with someone and find a new place to live??" I don't think anyone gets married knowing the marriage will fail. But I do think people are good at deceiving themselves into something they want to believe.

Not true with all couples of course, but probably a factor in some relationships.

KeptInStitches

Hang on there a second. It is a HUGE committment to live together. For BF and I, I guarantee you that finding a place to live together - and actually living together - will be more stressful than planning a wedding. I really feel like you are minimizing the significance of living together.

[Deleted User]

KeptInStitches said:

Hang on there a second. It is a HUGE committment to live together. For BF and I, I guarantee you that finding a place to live together - and actually living together - will be more stressful than planning a wedding. I really feel like you are minimizing the significance of living together.

Perhaps. Please keep in mind, this argument is what was suggested by the articles. The researchers defined the parameters of committment, not me. I'm also citing what other's have stated in this thread -- that moving in together first is "less scary" than getting married.

KeptInStitches

I think you're relying way too much on published research instead of examining your own relationship. And I say this as someone in graduate school, who has to justify my every academic move with a publication to back it up.

[Deleted User]

Actually, I formed my views first, years ago. I only just read these articles this year, and was so excited by them because they seemed to validate something that I "had a hunch" about anyway. (And yes, I happen to agree with the idea that living together first is not *as great* a commitment as marriage or even engagement). I cited them here because I felt like people were being sort of critical of my values, so I wanted to provide something more concrete to try and explain why I felt this way. I'm just lucky I ran in to these a while ago.

I have the values I have because I've spent a lot of time examining my relationships. The research just happens to support them.

Some have suggested that I'm living too much in the past, and letting failed relationships influence this one too much. Perhaps this is true. In my heart, I know that this is "the one," and have NONE of the doubts about this relationship that I did about my past relationships. By that logic, moving in together now or later shouldn't matter, right? It's food for thought, surely.