Should people get engaged before they live together?

[zman]

Several years ago, my sister and her boyfriend were dating, and living in separate apartments. They were very serious and decided that they eventually wanted to get married, but first wanted to live together for a year or so. My parents objected to this, saying that they should get engaged before living together. My grandmother thought they should get married before living together. Of course they said they would love them no matter what choice they made, but they also made it clear that they would be very disappointed if they didn't get engaged.

 

The theory is that by living together with no real commitment, the woman has everything to lose while the man essentially gets the benefits of marriage without having to make a commitment.

 

My sister and her boyfriend said they were totally committed to each other already, and didn't see what a big difference it would be to get engaged. They also said they wanted to save up money by living together for a year so he could afford to get a better diamond ring and then they could save up for a wedding, etc. They said if he had to go out and buy a diamond ring right now then they couldn't buy new furniture for their apartment and do other things they were planning. My parents said that they didn't have to buy an expensive diamond ring to get engaged. A plastic ring from a cracker jack box would do, just as long as it was something to put on her finger to make the engagement official. They said they got engaged with a relatively cheap gold ring, and that back in their day people didn't spend a lot of money on huge diamond rings, because no one could afford it. But now everyone does it, and my sister and her boyfriend wanted to "do it right".

 

Anyways, this caused a big argument and hard feelings between my sister and parents. Eventually they did get engaged right before moving in together, and he bought a big expensive diamond ring for her. About a year later they got married and have been together for 7 years or so, and have two cute daughters.

 

But I'm curious to hear what others think about the idea of engagement, and what role it plays in the dating, living together, and getting married process. Some people I talk to consider engagement and marriage to be essentially the same thing. It's a commitment to spend the rest of your lives together. Usually people who think this way think that an engagement should only last a few weeks or months.

 

Other people, like my parents and myself, think of engagement as kind of a trial marriage, a commitment to get married but not the same as the commitment to be married and stay married. These folks tend to think that an engagement of a year or so before getting married is appropriate and a good idea. Also that getting engaged before moving in together is a good idea.

 

What do you all think???

[quankanne]

To me, an engagement is not only publicly admitting your intentions of marriage to a particular person, but an environment for even more intense "getting to know you" sessions. Some folks even jokingly refer to it as a cooling off period, because this is the time when you seriously look at your future together. In no way does an engagement experience equal a marriage experience because they are two different situations.

 

I think it's a good idea to be engaged at least 6-12 months, especially if you're younger and haven't had much relationship experience (i.e., didn't date a lot), because many people seem to have the wrong idea about marriage being fairy-tale-like. A period of engagement hopefully helps you see the realities that come with marriage -- having to handle finances, helping you put up with the other person's idosyncracies, sticking together through stressful times, etc.

 

Living together is a whole other creature than marriage and engagement, and personally, I think it's a waste of time. The only way you're going to find out what it's like being married to someone is to actually marry them, not live with them in a "trial marriage." Even more so, I think it shows a complete lack of respect for your partner, because to me living together means "I want you badly enough to be with you but I don't respect you enough to marry you."

[zman]

quankanne,

 

So it sounds like you are against living together before marriage, but in favor of long engagements. So does this mean you are in favor of getting engaged before living together, or waiting all the way until marriage before living together??

[quankanne]

huh???

 

So does this mean you are in favor of getting engaged before living together, or waiting all the way until marriage before living together??

 

unless marriage is part of the living together, I say why bother?

 

marriage = what comes after an engagement. No shacking up involved in my version!

[Peco]

My girlfriends(of 2 years) mother thinks that we should be engaged before we move into get there. But my girlfriend pretty much live with me, meaning she eats, sleeps, showers (we conserve on water), Sh_ts here. The only thing that is not here is here personal property. So I guess we are doing the pre-engagement trial period. I guess we are doing good on that so now it's time for the bling bling on her finger!!!!

[moimeme]

I think people should live together to see whether they should marry. I say this because living with a friend convinced me to marry him. We had been friends for several years - even went out with other folks. There was a rental shortage in my town when we graduated university so we decided to sublet a friend's three-bedroom apartment when she moved out.

 

We already were good friends. What I disovered was that he was a joy to live with - he even made doing dishes fun! That was part of the reason friendship turned into love - that he was easy to live with added to the list of qualities I liked about him.

 

The minutiae of daily living can break couples apart; the bad habits, money issues, failure to share responsibilities, etc. You don't what a person is like to live with unless you live with him or her. There just is no other way. People can be on their best behaviour when they aren't together 24/7 but the facade will not hold up to constant scrutiny.

 

My aunt married an alcoholic. He drank when she wasn't around - after their dates, for instance. She had NO idea he was an alcoholic until she lived with him. I'd never ever marry without living together first.

[Ms Understood]

I lived with my fiance for six months before he propeosed and we're due to get married on the 6th September. Living together gives you a more realistic view of how life together should be and I believe everyone should at least try it before getting engaged or even married. it helps make the decisions easier for the future and gives an equal balance in the relationship

[Jamie31]

Call me old fashioned, but I think that people shouldn't live together until after they get married. I mean, aside from the morality issue, if you live together before marriage, then what have you got to look foward to after marriage? Why even get married?

 

It's just my personal opinion, but I just think it's more exciting to wait until after you get married.

 

Then again, it would suck if your hubby turned out to be a complete slob or had nasty habits that you didn't know about or something and you didn't find out until after marriage. But that's why people should date a LONG time before getting married - so they can learn everything there is to know about the other person.

 

I do think it's a good idea for one person in the relationship to have their own place. It will give the other partner and opportunity to see how they live. That's very important when living with someone else.

[Ryan]

I believe it is a horrible idea to avoid living together prior to marriage.

 

No matter how much time you've spent with someone or how well you THINK you know them.....living with someone will drastically increase the degree in which you know that person. This is true for platonic friendships and romantic relationships. People really fail to understand that cohabitation is the only way you will experience that person as they are OUTSIDE of the relationship you currently have. It is VERY easy for people to hide aspects of who and what they are.....but not when you're constantly a few feet away. There is no substitute for this experience.

 

It takes a native to understand all the streets....otherwise, you're just a tourist.

[moimeme]

if you live together before marriage, then what have you got to look foward to after marriage? Why even get married?

 

Um. To spend the rest of your lives together. To say that you've decided to commit permanently.

 

What - to you marriage is some sort of amusement park ride - you do it to see what it's like? It's pointless unless there's a surprise at the end? How very odd.

[zman]

OK folks, thanks for the replies. But we're still skating around the real issue, the specific question that I asked.

 

I agree with all the folks that say you should live together before getting married, for all the reasons mentioned. But the question is, should you get ENGAGED first, or does that not matter? If not, then what purpose does being engaged serve? Nothing? I'm hearing people talk about engagement and marriage like there is virtually no difference between the two.

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, it's a good idea to live together before getting married, but only if you are ENGAGED. I'm against living together without being ENGAGED, and I think being engaged is totally different than being married.

 

To the folks who are in favor of being married before living together: Do you not think it makes any difference if the couple is engaged, or should they still wait until they are officially married? Why does being engaged make no difference??

[Ryan]

I'm hearing people talk about engagement and marriage like there is virtually no difference between the two.

 

There shouldn't be a difference other than a legal piece of paper.

Engagement or marriage should not change the nature of the relationship, aside from adding certainty to where it is going. You should already be at the point where engagement or marriage is largely ceremonial. If it changes the relationship...then you weren't ready for it.

[jalexy]

i used to think, no way! but i think now its vital, actually. each person needs to know what they are getting themselves into. i personally would love to not live together, i kinda agree with jamie, but who knows.

[Jamie31]

if you live together before marriage, then what have you got to look foward to after marriage? Why even get married?

 

 

Um. To spend the rest of your lives together. To say that you've decided to commit permanently.

 

What - to you marriage is some sort of amusement park ride - you do it to see what it's like? It's pointless unless there's a surprise at the end? How very odd.

 

Yep, that's pretty much what I am saying! You can spend the rest of your lives together without being married, and you can even have kids together without being married...people do it all the time.

 

And no, marriage is not an amusement park ride. It's a very serious thing that people step into too lightly, I think. But really...if you live together before marriage, what do you have to look foward to?

 

I admire the newlyweds Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey so much. They didn't even have sex before they got married, much less live together. That's so rare these days..and I really admire them.

[baycityroller]

Although it's a totally personal decision, I believe that living together is an essential eye-opener. There are just so many things about one's partner they can never really find out simply be dating/not living together. Some of these things are: how do they tolerate spending that amount of time together, perhaps in close quarters? how do they work together to solve problems or difficulties? (financial, differences in each other's need for space/togetherness) ...how well do they work as a team when it comes to running the home? (division of housework, who pays the bills and balances the checkbook, chores, upkeep of the place they reside in, etc), how do they each deal with the future inlaws possibly being in their face often? ....how do they deal with each other's individual need (needs may differ) for time spent with interests and friends that don't include their partner? There are just so many things that can't be revealed until actually living together. Now I don't think a couple needs to live together for years.....6 months to a year, while saving up for the wedding and such should be an ample amount of time to fully decide to make the commitment or cut the ties.

[Katie1974]

If living together before marriage really helped to "get to know one another", then why is the divorce rate higher among those who have lived together before getting married then those who haven't. The divorce rate overall is 50-60%, but 75-80% for those who have lived together before getting married. Now common sense tells me that the "getting to know each other" trendy concept of living together IS NOT WORKING! Besides, after 1, 5, or 10 years of knowing someone, there are still things to learn about them. A good example of this is family secrets that come out years later about ones' father, mother, brother, sister, etc. I bet no one reading this has a perfect family who has no secrets...but they should really KNOW one another because they live with one another for many years...right??

 

Also, notice in the last 20-25 years (since the late 70's/early 80's), people have been having bigger and bigger weddings. I think that people have this modern concept that a wedding "has" to have a 100 + attended party, with tons of booze, limo, photographer, DJ, etc. This ends up costing the couple over $10 K easily...which they "can not" afford right away...so, they live together first. No one has to have a wedding that big, and living together before marriage to save for a wedding is such a pi$$ poor excuse. It's either $hit of get off the pot...either you want to be with that person for the rest of your life or you don't, the type of wedding is immmaterial.

 

Basically, I feel whether you are enaged or not engaged, it is a bad idea to live together before marriage. "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" as the old saying goes. People who live together before they marry develop the mindset that they can bail out of the relationship if they want to, and they do not develop a "stick-it-to-iveness" and a strong bond that marriage requires. If a guy/gal wants to just live together before you marry, I feel as though it's time to bail out of the relationship all together...the bond is just not strong enough for marriage.

[zman]

People always say that statistics show people who live together have the same or worse divorce rate than those that don't. However, I've never actually seen any of these statistics published anywhere. I'd like to see an actual published study and take a look at their methodology. All I've ever heard is anecdotal information. For all I know, this is just another urban legend that people pass around. If anyone has a link or info about a primary source of information comparing divorce rates between people that live together before marriage, for both engaged and not engaged couples, and people who don't, please let me know.

 

I agree with Katie1974 that in general it's a bad idea to live together for lame reasons such as convenience, to save money, etc. But if a couple is truely committed to each other, I think it's ok. But that commitment has to be proven for all to see, in the form of a formal engagement. There are too many people out there that are commitment phobes but just want to play house and pretend to have a wife/family without being married and knowing they can split at anytime if they want to, without any legal consequences. At least if you are engaged, then people will be constantly asking when the wedding is, and there will be expectations and plans being made. If the engagement is broken off, then the couple should stop living together and move out on their own.

 

I think it is a little unrealistic in these days to insist upon marriage before living together, and I think it is a good idea to live together before tying the knot. But living together should be done in the context of an engagement only.

[zman]

Originally posted by Ryan

 

There shouldn't be a difference other than a legal piece of paper.

Engagement or marriage should not change the nature of the relationship, aside from adding certainty to where it is going. You should already be at the point where engagement or marriage is largely ceremonial. If it changes the relationship...then you weren't ready for it.

 

Relationships are always evolving. I don't see how you can say that there is no difference in a relationship between the time when you are dating but living separately, then living together, getting engaged, and getting married.

 

Somewhere between dating and living separately to being married, the relationship has changed a lot. Certainly, when you say you love someone, that is a major turning point in a relationship. The decision to move in together is another big step.

 

But it sounds like what you are saying is that the decision to say "I love you" or to move in together are bigger steps that change a relationship more than the decison to get engaged and/or married.

 

People create rituals and ceremonies for a reason. They aren't just pieces of paper, technicalities, or something done for show and entertainment. They mean that a major turning point or decision has been made, a point of no return. They have major psychological, spiritual, and emotional significance, whether you acknowlege them or not.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by Jaime31 Then again, it would suck if your hubby turned out to be a complete slob or had nasty habits that you didn't know about or something and you didn't find out until after marriage. But that's why people should date a LONG time before getting married - so they can learn everything there is to know about the other person.

Marriage is a vow and the traditional, albeit Christian, vows are the most prevalent. For Better or For Worse. That's it. End of Vow. It's all encompassing. There are no stipulations or conditions like For Better or For Worse if Worse consititutes leaving the toilet seat up if male; or putting a rug on the toilet seat if female, but does not include putting the toilet paper on the roll backwards. For a definition of "backwards" see section 1648© of the wedding vows and marriage contract." These nasty habits should be discussed when dating and if not, then they need to be accepted and adjusted to, and perhaps altered if the party with the nasty habit wants to alter it. Anyway, I'm old fashioned, but I don't think people should live together if they are not married, or formally engaged. As for engagement vs. marriage - an engagement is a promise, a marriage is a contract. I lived with my husband before we were married and we were engaged at the time. We lived together because our apartment leases were up within a month of each other, my mom was moving out of state, and it was financially better for us to go ahead and move into our own apartment a few months before we actually got married.

 

 

Originally posted by zman People create rituals and ceremonies for a reason. They aren't just pieces of paper, technicalities, or something done for show and entertainment. They mean that a major turning point or decision has been made, a point of no return. They have major psychological, spiritual, and emotional significance, whether you acknowlege them or not.

This is well-stated! I agree with you 100%

[moimeme]

You should already be at the point where engagement or marriage is largely ceremonial. If it changes the relationship...then you weren't ready for it.

 

I agree completely. Which is why I think that the order should be: live together, get engaged, get married.

 

"Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" as the old saying goes. People who live together before they marry develop the mindset that they can bail out of the relationship if they want to, and they do not develop a "stick-it-to-iveness" and a strong bond that marriage requires.

 

Those are myths and old wives' tales. Sure, there will always be some irresponsible people who don't really mean to commit when they decide to live together but I suspect they're in the minority. To me, living together is the final step that seals the commitment - or proves that it ought not be made.

[zman]

Originally posted by moimeme

I agree completely. Which is why I think that the order should be: live together, get engaged, get married.

 

To me, living together is the final step that seals the commitment - or proves that it ought not be made.

 

First you say living together is the first step, followed by getting engaged and getting married, then you say that living together is the final step that seals the deal. How inconsistent.

 

It seems like you agree with Ryan, that deciding to live together is the REAL big decision, and getting engaged and married are mere afterthoughts or formalities that don't really matter. If that's the case, then why not go ahead and get engaged and married before moving in together, since it's no big deal and doesn't really mean anything compared to moving in together anyways.

 

It seems to me that using your logic, people should first get engaged, then get married, and then finally move in together to seal the deal and the commitment.

[moimeme]

First you say living together is the first step, followed by getting engaged and getting married, then you say that living together is the final step that seals the deal. How inconsistent.

 

The 'deal' that is sealed is the commitment as expressed by the engagement. Living together will finalize for you whether or not to go ahead and marry. To me, engagement is not a stage before the decision, it is the statement that the decision has been made. Marriage is the signing of the papers but, like Ryan, I think the commitment starts before.

[zman]

Originally posted by moimeme

The 'deal' that is sealed is the commitment as expressed by the engagement. Living together will finalize for you whether or not to go ahead and marry. To me, engagement is not a stage before the decision, it is the statement that the decision has been made. Marriage is the signing of the papers but, like Ryan, I think the commitment starts before.

 

 

I agree with that. That's basically what I've been saying all along. The engagement is the expression of a real commitment, and then living together finalizes whether to go ahead and get married. But marriage is more than simply signing papers and making it legal. The marriage ceremony "seals the deal", or confirms the commitment and promise that was agreed to by the engagement and by living together.

 

But simply deciding to live together, with no engagement in the mix, doesn't signify much of a commitment in my opinion.

[pam]

Originally posted by zman

Several years ago, my sister and her boyfriend were dating, and living in separate apartments. They were very serious and decided that they eventually wanted to get married, but first wanted to live together for a year or so. My parents objected to this, saying that they should get engaged before living together. My grandmother thought they should get married before living together. Of course they said they would love them no matter what choice they made, but they also made it clear that they would be very disappointed if they didn't get engaged.

 

The theory is that by living together with no real commitment, the woman has everything to lose while the man essentially gets the benefits of marriage without having to make a commitment.

 

My sister and her boyfriend said they were totally committed to each other already, and didn't see what a big difference it would be to get engaged. They also said they wanted to save up money by living together for a year so he could afford to get a better diamond ring and then they could save up for a wedding, etc. They said if he had to go out and buy a diamond ring right now then they couldn't buy new furniture for their apartment and do other things they were planning. My parents said that they didn't have to buy an expensive diamond ring to get engaged. A plastic ring from a cracker jack box would do, just as long as it was something to put on her finger to make the engagement official. They said they got engaged with a relatively cheap gold ring, and that back in their day people didn't spend a lot of money on huge diamond rings, because no one could afford it. But now everyone does it, and my sister and her boyfriend wanted to "do it right".

 

Anyways, this caused a big argument and hard feelings between my sister and parents. Eventually they did get engaged right before moving in together, and he bought a big expensive diamond ring for her. About a year later they got married and have been together for 7 years or so, and have two cute daughters.

 

But I'm curious to hear what others think about the idea of engagement, and what role it plays in the dating, living together, and getting married process. Some people I talk to consider engagement and marriage to be essentially the same thing. It's a commitment to spend the rest of your lives together. Usually people who think this way think that an engagement should only last a few weeks or months.

 

Other people, like my parents and myself, think of engagement as kind of a trial marriage, a commitment to get married but not the same as the commitment to be married and stay married. These folks tend to think that an engagement of a year or so before getting married is appropriate and a good idea. Also that getting engaged before moving in together is a good idea.

 

What do you all think???

 

 

Originally posted by quankanne

To me, an engagement is not only publicly admitting your intentions of marriage to a particular person, but an environment for even more intense "getting to know you" sessions. Some folks even jokingly refer to it as a cooling off period, because this is the time when you seriously look at your future together. In no way does an engagement experience equal a marriage experience because they are two different situations.

 

I think it's a good idea to be engaged at least 6-12 months, especially if you're younger and haven't had much relationship experience (i.e., didn't date a lot), because many people seem to have the wrong idea about marriage being fairy-tale-like. A period of engagement hopefully helps you see the realities that come with marriage -- having to handle finances, helping you put up with the other person's idosyncracies, sticking together through stressful times, etc.

 

Living together is a whole other creature than marriage and engagement, and personally, I think it's a waste of time. The only way you're going to find out what it's like being married to someone is to actually marry them, not live with them in a "trial marriage." Even more so, I think it shows a complete lack of respect for your partner, because to me living together means "I want you badly enough to be with you but I don't respect you enough to marry you."

 

 

Originally posted by zman

quankanne,

 

So it sounds like you are against living together before marriage, but in favor of long engagements. So does this mean you are in favor of getting engaged before living together, or waiting all the way until marriage before living together??

 

 

Originally posted by quankanne

huh???

 

So does this mean you are in favor of getting engaged before living together, or waiting all the way until marriage before living together??

 

unless marriage is part of the living together, I say why bother?

 

marriage = what comes after an engagement. No shacking up involved in my version!

 

 

Originally posted by Peco

My girlfriends(of 2 years) mother thinks that we should be engaged before we move into get there. But my girlfriend pretty much live with me, meaning she eats, sleeps, showers (we conserve on water), Sh_ts here. The only thing that is not here is here personal property. So I guess we are doing the pre-engagement trial period. I guess we are doing good on that so now it's time for the bling bling on her finger!!!!

 

 

Originally posted by moimeme

I think people should live together to see whether they should marry. I say this because living with a friend convinced me to marry him. We had been friends for several years - even went out with other folks. There was a rental shortage in my town when we graduated university so we decided to sublet a friend's three-bedroom apartment when she moved out.

 

We already were good friends. What I disovered was that he was a joy to live with - he even made doing dishes fun! That was part of the reason friendship turned into love - that he was easy to live with added to the list of qualities I liked about him.

 

The minutiae of daily living can break couples apart; the bad habits, money issues, failure to share responsibilities, etc. You don't what a person is like to live with unless you live with him or her. There just is no other way. People can be on their best behaviour when they aren't together 24/7 but the facade will not hold up to constant scrutiny.

 

My aunt married an alcoholic. He drank when she wasn't around - after their dates, for instance. She had NO idea he was an alcoholic until she lived with him. I'd never ever marry without living together first.

 

 

Originally posted by Ms Understood

I lived with my fiance for six months before he propeosed and we're due to get married on the 6th September. Living together gives you a more realistic view of how life together should be and I believe everyone should at least try it before getting engaged or even married. it helps make the decisions easier for the future and gives an equal balance in the relationship

 

 

Originally posted by Ryan

I believe it is a horrible idea to avoid living together prior to marriage.

 

No matter how much time you've spent with someone or how well you THINK you know them.....living with someone will drastically increase the degree in which you know that person. This is true for platonic friendships and romantic relationships. People really fail to understand that cohabitation is the only way you will experience that person as they are OUTSIDE of the relationship you currently have. It is VERY easy for people to hide aspects of who and what they are.....but not when you're constantly a few feet away. There is no substitute for this experience.

 

It takes a native to understand all the streets....otherwise, you're just a tourist.

 

 

Originally posted by moimeme

 

 

Um. To spend the rest of your lives together. To say that you've decided to commit permanently.

 

What - to you marriage is some sort of amusement park ride - you do it to see what it's like? It's pointless unless there's a surprise at the end? How very odd.

 

 

Originally posted by zman

OK folks, thanks for the replies. But we're still skating around the real issue, the specific question that I asked.

 

I agree with all the folks that say you should live together before getting married, for all the reasons mentioned. But the question is, should you get ENGAGED first, or does that not matter? If not, then what purpose does being engaged serve? Nothing? I'm hearing people talk about engagement and marriage like there is virtually no difference between the two.

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, it's a good idea to live together before getting married, but only if you are ENGAGED. I'm against living together without being ENGAGED, and I think being engaged is totally different than being married.

 

To the folks who are in favor of being married before living together: Do you not think it makes any difference if the couple is engaged, or should they still wait until they are officially married? Why does being engaged make no difference??

 

 

Originally posted by Ryan

 

 

There shouldn't be a difference other than a legal piece of paper.

Engagement or marriage should not change the nature of the relationship, aside from adding certainty to where it is going. You should already be at the point where engagement or marriage is largely ceremonial. If it changes the relationship...then you weren't ready for it.

 

 

Originally posted by jalexy

i used to think, no way! but i think now its vital, actually. each person needs to know what they are getting themselves into. i personally would love to not live together, i kinda agree with jamie, but who knows.

 

 

Originally posted by Jamie31

 

 

 

Um. To spend the rest of your lives together. To say that you've decided to commit permanently.

 

What - to you marriage is some sort of amusement park ride - you do it to see what it's like? It's pointless unless there's a surprise at the end? How very odd.

 

Yep, that's pretty much what I am saying! You can spend the rest of your lives together without being married, and you can even have kids together without being married...people do it all the time.

 

And no, marriage is not an amusement park ride. It's a very serious thing that people step into too lightly, I think. But really...if you live together before marriage, what do you have to look foward to?

 

I admire the newlyweds Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey so much. They didn't even have sex before they got married, much less live together. That's so rare these days..and I really admire them.

 

 

Originally posted by baycityroller

Although it's a totally personal decision, I believe that living together is an essential eye-opener. There are just so many things about one's partner they can never really find out simply be dating/not living together. Some of these things are: how do they tolerate spending that amount of time together, perhaps in close quarters? how do they work together to solve problems or difficulties? (financial, differences in each other's need for space/togetherness) ...how well do they work as a team when it comes to running the home? (division of housework, who pays the bills and balances the checkbook, chores, upkeep of the place they reside in, etc), how do they each deal with the future inlaws possibly being in their face often? ....how do they deal with each other's individual need (needs may differ) for time spent with interests and friends that don't include their partner? There are just so many things that can't be revealed until actually living together. Now I don't think a couple needs to live together for years.....6 months to a year, while saving up for the wedding and such should be an ample amount of time to fully decide to make the commitment or cut the ties.

[lilone]

Okay, so I want my boyfriend and I to live together and get engaged and he keeps saying that his parents don't want us living together until we're married- which is fine I guess, but we've been together a year and a half now and I know he's the man I want to spend the rest of my life with and when I talk about marriage, he says that he doesn't know yet, not to rush it, that he's not sure and I would think after this period of time, you would know, and it's not about the money issue, so- I don't know what to think. It's as if we already live together because I'm staying at his house all the time, but I still have my own apartment, and it feels like he's just not wanting to move forward- he keeps saying if didn't think about us being together forever, I wouldn't be with you - but then why not get engaged? I don't want to push anything, but he's 27 and I'm almost 24 and I feel that we know each other inside out- so what' s stopping him? In my opinion, you should live together but only if your engaged, because otherwise what's the committment? the guy gets it all without a committment.