ladies....waiting on a proposal

Eviledna

sdagasd wrote: »

Some guys these days are all liberal when it comes to the bedroom, but super-cautious
when it comes to the commitment side of things.
Friend of mine, her OH told her he needed to live with her for at least a year before deciding whether or not he wanted to get engaged to her, as she was "high risk", having lived at (her family) home for a period of time recently. Both pushing 30& dating 4years.
Gf is uber sociable& in no way scarred/repressed by living at home.
So folks. How far SHOULD a gal go to get engaged? Should she have to jump through these hoops whilst he makes up his mind?/

Jebus H Bicycle! It's not about getting engaged in that case, it's about the quality of her relationship.

IMO, if you are ever in a situation where getting engaged is a power play or a dangled carrot, it's time to get the hell out. It's supposed to be two people deciding to spend their lives together, not a guy deciding to buy a girl with a diamond and waiting to see if she's worth the investment!!

Having said that, I do believe people should live together before getting hitched. Test drive and all that. But it should be her choice, not a requirement!

Dudess

Basq

I've been with my girlfriend for 10 years in February.. and although she makes all-too-occasional jabs and comments about marriage, it's not for me!

Maybe my opinion will change in time.. but I have absolutely no inclinations towards marriage. I love her obviously.. but why is marriage requires to prove that? Yeah.. yeah.. it's the "ultimate dedication of love.. and yada, yada, yada!"

She knows my feelings on the subject.. and it may or may not affect our relationship down the line (not gonna turn this into a PI).. but I hate the thought of a woman "waiting to be proposed to".

No offence to anyone, but it's all a bit depressing tbh!

iguana

basquille wrote: »

Maybe my opinion will change in time.. but I have absolutely no inclinations towards marriage. I love her obviously.. but why is marriage requires to prove that? Yeah.. yeah.. it's the "ultimate dedication of love.. and yada, yada, yada!"

Marriage is actually a very real legal step. It's an important legal change which makes your partner your next-of-kin and means that in all legal ways your partner is your nearest family, ahead of your biological family. As it currently stands if your gf was in an ICU you would be in a situation where you have no right to visit her and it would be illegal for medical personnel to update you on her condition. Never mind be given a voice in any decisions which may have to be made on her behalf. And vice versa if you were ill.

You can love each other just the same without it, but you are severely disabled in terms of legal rights which may feel unimportant in day-to-day life but will mean absolutely everything on the actual most important days of your life.

metrovelvet

Its also very different if you have a child. As someone who had a child out of wedlock there is a deep insecurity on both sides because there is no legal/social contract there to protect the family or the child. Either side can pull out at anytime. This is doubly so as I am not involved with my sons father but even if i were, that shadow would still follow the families around, becuase it would always be a possibility.

These people who spout 'ah its just a piece of paper'. So was the treaty of Versaille and the Declaration of Independence. So is my passport. Pieces of paper mean things.

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Pieces of paper mean things.

Well, yes, and for a lot of men these days, that is just the point! Especially the ones who say it's just a piece of paper...

I am glad in a way that I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt, although it failed miserably. When you come through the other side of marriage, you realise that it didn't matter a jot to the actual development of the relationship, piece of paper or not. Therefore you'd be hard pressed to find yourself wanting to tie yourself to another person in that way ever again.