My Boyfriend of 7 Years Doesn’t Want to Move In or Get Married. What Should I Do?

My Boyfriend of 7 Years Doesn’t Want to Move In or Get Married. What Should I Do?

I am 40 and my boyfriend is 36. I have been previously married and have three kids 17, 15, and 10. He has none. We have been together for 7 years now. I have wanted to move in and get married since year two. He always says he “isn’t ready.”  

A year ago he started living with me, kind of. He keeps all of his clothes at my house sleeps there every night and spends his down time there even when I am not home. I recently said I want him to fully move in because I think it would be financially better. He still keeps his apartment with his things in it. He calls it his “studio” (he is an artist) and he, after a huge disagreement, finally agreed it was the right thing to do.  

Well, the day before the big move he backed out. He said he wasn’t ready and that he didn’t want to promise me anything in the future for fear of hurting me. He wants to keep it the way it is. I am so confused. We are really happy as long as we don’t talk about this kind of commitment. I believe he is in love with me but what do I do? Wait? I am confused what is going to change in his mind. He keeps saying he will lose himself and everything he loves to do if he moves in and gets married. He just sounds like a child to me. I appreciate your advice. Thank you. 



This is going to be really hard for you to accept, Cahnie, but there’s no other way to say it:

Your boyfriend doesn’t want to marry you.

He’s never going to want to marry you.

If he actually DID marry you, it would be largely against his will and he’d end up resenting you for it.

And if you twisted his arm to get married and he resented you for it, it would probably not be a very happy marriage.

If he actually DID marry you, it would be largely against his will and he’d end up resenting you for it.

I know you just wrote me a three-paragraph email and I’m telling you to completely erase the past seven years, but, well, what were you expecting?

In fact, I’m going to guess that what I’ve just written only goes to confirm what you already know deep in your heart.

“I have wanted to move in and get married since year two.” 

“He always says he isn’t ready.”

“The day before the big move, he backed out.” 

“He didn’t want to promise me anything in the future for fear of hurting me.” 

“He keeps saying he will lose himself and everything he loves to do if he moves in and gets married.”

Honestly, sweetheart, the writing is on the wall in ten-foot fluorescent orange letters. GET OUT!

The fact is that he doesn’t want to move in with you or marry you – if he did, he’d have done it years ago. He has a relationship completely on his terms, and you didn’t have the guts to walk away in Year 3.

Now’s your chance.

Honestly, sweetheart, the writing is on the wall in ten-foot fluorescent orange letters. GET OUT!

Unless you want to write me this same exact email in one year, which is exactly what I predict if you don’t break up with him NOW.

P.S. If you NEVER want to get married and are content with this arrangement, you can keep seeing him, but you know what? He’s STILL going to break up with you eventually, so you might as well begin the healing process now.

Join our conversation (331 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.


  1. 91

    @Rose #90
    From the letter paragraph 2:
    He keeps all of his clothes at my house sleeps there every night and spends his down time there even when I am not home.
    He’s not sleeping at his studio, he’s sleeping with her every night.
    Just a tip: I find it helpful sometimes to actually read the letter before writing a comment.

  2. 92
    Karmic Equation

    I’m with Selena on this one. In # 79 she wrote:

    “SHE has been married. SHE knows marriage does not guarantee permanency. Neither does dumping someone you love in hopes of finding someone else. I’m merely suggesting to the LW (and anyone in a similar situation) to examine what they really have. Maybe, just maybe, it really is a good thing – as is.”

    If LW wants to get married because she thinks that it is the ultimate expression of love and devotion, she is not living in the reality of today. Yes, for the never-been-married, I do think it is the ultimate expression of love. But for those of us who have already been married…and now divorced…we should know better. Marriage is not the ultimate expression of love, DEVOTION is. And DEVOTION does not need a piece of paper. It’s either there or it’s not.

    For the OP if she doesn’t feel that her man is devoted to her, some piece of paper won’t magically make him so.

    So, like Selena, I think OP needs to ask herself WHY it is so important that she be married. And once she can articulate that reason (or those reasons), discuss those reasons calmly and rationally with her man.

    If she TRULY believes that it’s ONLY a financial benefit, she needs to present the reasons to him that way. “Baby, I’ve done the math. If we combine incomes and expenses, we’re going to have an additonal $500 per month between us to spend. That’s $6,000 more than we have right now. And if we marry, we can claim the tax credits for couples, and that’s another $1000. Plus you can go on my health insurance.”

    I know, doesn’t sound romantic, but if it’s the truth, he can’t argue it. And if he says no, then it’s not finances, that’s stopping him from marrying her but something else.

    If she wants to marry because she wants to “take his name” — She can just ask him how he feels about her changing her last name officially (you can do this without marrying, you know) — without getting married. If he’s incredulous, she should find out why. If he says, “go for it.” Then she can go for it.

    Once she can articulate the REAL reasons for her “needing” to marry him to be happy, she’ll have a better chance of changing his mind with sound reasoning than her nebulous “I’m not happy unless I’m married” message.

    “Happiness is a choice.” Sometimes to be happy, all you need to change is your mindset or your expectations. Not always easy to do, but it’s free, and it works.

  3. 93

    Why are we focusing on the value of marriage again?  This woman cannot even get the guy to move in, with or without marriage.  

  4. 94

    Yes you are right Selena realised that after I had already pressed send and re read it
    Excuse is still bullshit though re work. just buy or rent some office space.
    Bottom line is he likes it just as it is. And she doesn’t. So after 7 years they are not on the same page so not compatible.

  5. 95

    Karmic #92
    Love it! Great advice.

  6. 96

    @ #94:
    Sounds like you still haven’t quite read the whole letter.  He already rents an office space.  It’s called his apartment.

  7. 97
    Karmic Equation


    Remember the old saying, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” — That was the question our mothers asked us to try to convince us to to not have sex before marriage. Worked really well, right? lol

    Although not expressly written this way, some articles/blogs I’ve read have deemed “living together” the 21st century cow. Why would a man marry a woman if he’s already living with her and getting the wifely benefits without the responsibility that goes with marriage, as Rose has alluded to?

    Those same blogs/articles have posited that if a woman truly has marriage as her goal, then she SHOULD NOT – AT ALL – EVER move in with the guy before she has a ring on her finger and a date set. If I wanted marriage, that’s the way I’d go.

    So, if the OP really wants to get married, she should actually ask the guy to move out. The fact that he’s not really moved in and not really living apart actually is a worse no man’s land than if he were to just live apart from her, because she really doesn’t have “her own space”. Maybe his “moving in” fully was her way to resolve that no-man’s land feeling.

    Which actually reminds me — when things don’t work out and the man has moved in to the woman’s house, and she wants him out…the law doesn’t help a woman in this case. At the end of my 6yr relationship, I wanted my guy to move out. He wouldn’t. I went to the police and asked about my options. It was MY house, I paid the full mortgage without his help. I thought I had the right to ask the police to MAKE him move. Nope. I would have had to LEGALLY GET HIM EVICTED. I was NOT happy about having to go through that.

    So if OP owns the house, and he fully moves in and things don’t work out, it could be a nightmare for her. That should be a consideration for her…and all women here who want to have their bf’s move in with them. Think about whether you’re comfortable being in the 21st century cow situation and be aware of the legal ramifications should he move in with you and doesn’t feel like moving out when things are over.

  8. 98

    Although not expressly written this way, some articles/blogs I’ve read have deemed “living together” the 21st century cow. Why would a man marry a woman if he’s already living with her and getting the wifely benefits without the responsibility that goes with marriage, as Rose has alluded to?
    I think you have a good point. I’ve never been a fan of moving in together before engagement. One man asked me to live with him and I turned him down, it was the right choice because he wasn’t a good boyfriend. I think its fine once there is a promise to get married to move in together in preparation. I don’t own a home and will likely never own a home on my own so I don’t need to worry about the legality of having a partner reside with me but I think your point was a good one and something more people should know.

  9. 99

    Finding #7. Those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates.

    Cohabitors who do marry experience a 50% higher divorce rate (Horn 1998).
    Cohabiting couples have an 80%+ chance that their relationship will end: 40% breakup before they marry; the other 40% divorce within 10 years of marrying. Those who live together before marriage are the least likely to marry each other. A more comprehensive National Survey of Families and Households, based on interviews with 13,000 people, concluded, “About 40% of cohabiting unions in the U.S. break up without the couple getting married.” One of the reasons may be that those who cohabit drift from one partner to another in search of the ‘right’ person. The average cohabitant has several partners in a lifetime.
    The risk of divorce after living together is 40 to 85% higher than the risk of divorce after not living together. In other words, those who live together before marriage are almost twice as likely to divorce than those who did not live together (Bumpass & Sweet 1995; Hall & Zhao 1995; Bracher, Santow, Morgan & Russell 1993; DeMaris & Rao 1992 and Glen 1990).

    Psychology Today reported the findings of Yale University sociologist Neil Bennett that cohabiting women were 80% more likely to separate or divorce than were women who had not lived with their spouses before marriage. The National Survey of Families and Households indicates that “unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages: 57% to 30%.” Another 5-year study by William Axinn of the University of Chicago of 800 couples reported in the Journal of Demography that those who cohabit are the most accepting of divorce. In a Canadian study at the Univ of West. Ontario, sociologists found a direct relationship between cohabitation and divorce when investigating over 8,000 ever-married men and women (Hall and Zhoa 1995:421-427). It was determined that living in a non-marital union “has a direct negative impact on subsequent marital stability,” perhaps because living in such a union “undermines the legitimacy of formal marriage” and so “reduces commitment of marriage.”
    A 1992 random-sample survey of 993 Christianity Today subscribers found that 78 percent of those who have been divorced engaged in sexual intercourse prior to marriage. The study also found that those who had engaged in sex before marriage were more likely to commit adultery than those who had no premarital sexual experience. (CT Inc. Research Department, “Christianity Today Marriage and divorce Survey Report,” July, 1992.)

  10. 100

    @Karmic & Julia
    What wifely benefits are you referring to?  Pretty much all women I know think that traditional housewife duties should be shared 50/50 with the husband/BF.  Refusing to marry is simply for asset protection. 

  11. 101
    Karl T

    When will women on here view things equally between a man and a woman??  I find it hysterical how so many have said that it is the man’s benefit to live with a woman.  Last I checked most people move in together as a financial benefit- a situation that benefits a woman just as much as a man.  Enough with this nonsense about the poor woman…..  Apparently, I view things more equally than most women on here ever will.  

  12. 102

    I was quoting KE, I don’t utter phrases like “wifely duties” I was referring to a personal choice, of my own, which you must admit I have the right to make, to not move in with a man until he asks me to marry him. One man asked me and I turned him down, it ended up being a good thing because he was a bad partner.

  13. 103

    Julia, you copied/pasted KE’s comment that noted how a man who lives with a women, without being married, is getting the “wifely benefits” without the responsibility or marriage….. and you said that she had a good point.
    Did you write this by mistake?  I’ll admit that I was a little confused by your comment because, after reading a number of your posts on here, I’m pretty confident that you don’t believe that a wife should adhere to any gender roles (no disagreement there). 
    However, that means your comment doesn’t really make sense.  Were you implying that these men are avoiding the responsibilities of a husband even though you don’t believe that they should receive wifely benefits?

  14. 104

    Oops, that would be *with a woman* and *responsibility of marriage*

  15. 105

    I think the confusion lies with the fact that you chose to switch the word benefits with the word duties. The two mean very different things, duties implies a strict adherence to gender norms whereas the benefits implies that a man (or woman) get the benefits of a live in partner, similar to a spouse, without the legal commitment. I do actually agree with KE and her entire post but it would be silly to copy and paste the whole thing. I really don’t want to put myself in that situation unless there has been a clear promise of commitment from a man. I definitely think it makes sense financially to share expenses but I don’t need a partner to pay for half my housing, I want a husband to share my life with.

  16. 106
    Karl S

    My mother always recommended that I live with somebody for at least a couple of years before marrying them because you never really know somebody until you have to share a space for some time. I think it’s sound advice.

  17. 107

    Benefits of having a wife. Someone who lives with you 24/7 loves  and is in love with you. is loyal, comitted and bonded and wants to only be with you forsaking all others is this life, committed to raising future children together and supporting each other in learning and growing together.
    Why should a woman live with a man and give him all that without a committiment of marraige and the man saying to her and the world I want to make that comittiment to you and are future children or the children you already have?
    If he is only offering to be a  for now boyfriend, then you give back equally, he doesn’t get yoo all to himself and you keep yourself open to dating others for dinner coffee getting to know each other in incase you do meet someone who wants what you want which is to create a future family life together in a lovng loyal committed relationship.
    If you are already loyal and have closed your options down and he has still got one foot in and one out after seven years he really is not that bothered about you and doesn’t want to claim you all to himself, so  if he hasn’t claimed you and offered to take you of the market then don’t behave like you are his and off the market to others. He is just taking what he can and what you are making yourself available for. When there are other men out there who would want to be part of a family commit and claim you and be a family unit. Seven years is taking the pissssss and you tolerated it . How is that for a woman and children that after 7 years nobody even knows if he actually wants to stick around for the long hall.
    Don’t waste another minute on him. He doesn’t value you or your family enough. Why are you and have you given him your exclusivity and committiment and let him mailnly live in your house before he has offered or given you his? His got one foot in the door and one out. Until someone wants to put two feet well and truly next to yours and say ” let’s do this together” only give them the same back. He doesn’t want to be a team and be there for you and your family and be a family.
    He wants all the benefits without the committiment. So learn and next time don’t give and offer all the benefits to you get all the committiment that you want. He leads you follow. At the moment you are way leading this and he is not wanting to follow. He is saying he doesn’t want to.

  18. 108

    I believe that the duties (or better put: responsibilities) of the wife is implied because the comment refers to the man avoiding the responsibilities of marriage.  I interpreted that to mean that a husband has specific responsibilities/duties that come with being married.  I could be wrong in that interpretation… please feel free to point out what I’m missing.
    At any rate, I was originally going somewhere that tied back to the OP’s dilemma, but I see that we’re veering further off-topic with each additional post.  So, I’m going to assume that you’re a fair-minded person, and that you certainly didn’t mean that you thought that husbands have specific responsibilities in a marriage and that wives do not.

  19. 109

    I don’t want to judge anyone who has moved in or wants to move in first before marriage/engagement.  I do think that for certain personalities it does work better to be engaged first before officially moving in, so in that sense I agree with Karmic and Julia.  For example, my fiance and I are both Builders (referencing Alison Armstrong) so we like the idea of making the decision of level of commitment before moving in and having the engagement as a “cornerstone” from which to build a strong and permanent foundation for our relationship.  We wanted to make the conscious decision first of where our relationship was going to go instead of sliding into a multi-year cohabitation without a specific goal in sight.  We did not want our decision to be clouded by convenience or too much proximity and we had spent enough time together staying over to be comfortable with each other’s habits. 
    Until he met me, my fiance had never really thought about it this way.  His past gfs made it easy on him by just moving in without any demands so he was never forced to consider where the relationship was heading.  He just fell into it, and then fell out of it.  Sometimes he spend years co-habitating without any end goal and was always somewhat surprised when the woman suddenly brought up marriage or kids (when he had expressed at the beginning he wasn’t ready for that).  Nothing was ever discussed upfront and no expectations were set.  But with me, he knew my expectations and had to go through a period of soul-searching.  Once he had decided and surprised me with the engagement (I had gone through the soul-searching too and decided I would say yes if he ever asked), he felt from then on, every action we took was deliberate and we were building something together that was going to be permanent.  Was going to be for our future and that of our potential family.  For example, we do things like invest and save together, and we even adopted two little kittens from a shelter, something he had always wanted to do but never did with his past relationships because at the back of his mind he never felt a sense of permanence.  There was always an easy escape hatch and one foot out the door.
    I do think even if you don’t get fully engaged, that these types of expectations should be addressed before moving in so that you are not just floating around out there and then one person expects something and gets crushed.  If you are going to have a trial period of 1 year to live together then stick to that, for example. 
    In the OP situation, I don’t know if she tried to have such a conversation or not.  I agree with Karmic that she probably should not have been “giving away the milk for free” but I am not sure what she could do about it at this late date.  Would doing a 180 at this point be helpful and what does that mean to stop giving the milk?  Stop letting him stay over?  Stop sex?  I think he might just decide at this point, screw it, I’m just going to get another cow!

  20. 110

    @ Josh #99
    “Cohabitors who do marry experience a 50% higher divorce rate (Horn 1998).”
    Could it be because the people who believe that living together before marriage is a sin and therefore unacceptable to them, also believe the same about divorce? Not because living together is evil and must be avoided.
    @ Karmic — The legal ramifications are a good point. I’ve never thought of it that way. Then again, after six years of living together, the whole thing probably felt more like a painful divorce than like an amicable separation anyway.
    The whole cow/milk thing strikes me as something from the 19th century, when a woman could give up her virginity but once, and after that, she was damaged goods and not marriageable material. She was also the property of her husband, if memory serves me. Just like a cow is the property of a farmer. Well I do believe that we live in different times, when it is possible to have an equal partnership, if both sides so desire.

  21. 111
    Karmic Equation

    @Chance 108

    If you keep looking at relationships through the ROI lens, you’re always going to find women who care more about money than you. “What the mind focuses on, it will lead you towards.” Like if a woman thinks all men are players, unfortunately, she’ll actually meet more than her fair share of players. Because the mind doesn’t judge what you think about as good or bad, it just knows you think about it and it leads you towards what you think. Probably too zen for most folks.

    So, I’ve been on both sides of that household responsibilities. When I was married, my ex hubby did most of the house cleaning and the laundry; when I was in the 6 yr relationship, I did most of it. Those aren’t the benefits/responsibilities we’re talking about.

    What makes a home a home isn’t who cleans this or that, it’s a feeling. It isn’t the actual act of who drops off or who picks up the dry cleaning, but the caring and thoughtfulness that goes into, “Hey, I’m dropping off my dry cleaning today you have some stuff to go too?”

    In this way, I’m like men in that I struggle with the articulating those feelings, (so women, please help me out here) — Those feelings that sharing a home with a woman, in addition to her warm body whenever you want it, are the benefits I’m talking about. The reminders to go to the doctor, the nurturing when you have a cold, that sense of someone close by and caring about you. You really can’t get that living apart, even if you spend a majority of the time at each other’s place.

    Those are the wifely benefits I’m talking about. You won’t understand until you’ve actually lived with someone you love for a while.

    The reality is that most women puts herself into the position of “auditioning” to be a man’s wife when she’s living with him. The man is not auditioning to be her husband. She’s already chosen by the time they move in together. Unless he shows some real dealbreakers (or sometimes even when he does) she’s not going to dump him. And most men know this. So, yes, men may decide to marry for financial reasons, but once he’s moved in, he knows he’s in the drivers seat, and that “passive aggressive” thing that all you men hate about women, you end up exhibiting when it comes to getting married when you’re in a cozy live-in relationship.

  22. 112

    Goldie @110
    “Could it be because the people who believe that living together before marriage is a sin and therefore unacceptable to them, also believe the same about divorce? Not because living together is evil and must be avoided.”
    lol  You may want to reread your post. Your comments seem to contradict each other.

  23. 113

    Josh, I don’t see how they contradict each other. Maybe I should elaborate?
    “Cohabitors who do marry experience a 50% higher divorce rate”, compared, I assume, to couples that don’t live together before marriage. I think it may very well be because those couples that refuse to live together before marriage, do so on principle, because they think living together before marriage is immoral or whatever. These same people also tend to not believe in divorce. This is why they have a lower divorce rate than the rest of the population. Not because their marriages are more awesome, and especially not because their marriages were somehow made more awesome by the fact that they did not live together before getting married.
    To the rest of us, there’s nothing wrong with living together before marriage, or with divorcing if things don’t work out. Which leads to the statistics shown above. On the surface, the higher numbers seem to mean that people who live together somehow fail at marriage, when in fact they just don’t want to stick it out at all costs.
    Hope this helped.

  24. 114

    It’s not a sin, it’s not in a womans best and highest interest if she wants to have a secure family unit. And wants a Husband and  Father who will commit to looking after them and raising a family together in a secure enviroment. A legally binding cotract shown those intentions with action. Words are meaningless without actions that match. Just hot air.

  25. 115

    My mother always recommended that I live with somebody for at least a couple of years before marrying them because you never really know somebody until you have to share a space for some time. I think it’s sound advice.
    No, it’s not a sound advice. Our grandparents had much better marriages without living together with their potential spouses. Look at it this way: what if you discover, after living with a man for several years, that he is not good enough for you, or you good enough for him? What then? You or he will move out, and you will repeat the same cycle. And, how do you present that scenario to a potential husband, after 3 or more of such cycles? I think it’ll become challenging, because, frankly, your desirability to a man as a future wife and mother reduces somewhat with each cycle of living with another man. Why would a man choose you when there re countless women without such histories?
    Or, flip it this way: would you choose a man who has lived with several women without marrying them when there are men without such history pursuing you? I think it is unlikely.
    I am not being sexist here: I have seen it again and again in business and in life that women generally are poor negotiators. They give up what they have in hopes that the other party would be “nice”, and give them what they need. Well, it doesn’t happen that way.
    In the olden days, a woman would not act as a wife, and fulfill her wifely duties (yes, there are such things as wifely duties), unless the man officially recognizes her as a wife, and fulfills his husband duties.
    That is, until feminism came, and destroyed the age old dance of male-female interactions. Feminism told women that what they had was not valuable, that they must be like men and act like men to be respected. Thus women threw away their valuable leverage in marital negotiations, and sold themselves for cheap on a regular basis.
    I think the modern woman should ask herself this question: why in heaven’s name should a man marry, when he can get all the benefits of marriage without the commitment? Would anyone here go to work everyday, particularly in the dead cold of winter, if they had enough money to last them a lifetime? I don’t think so. I for one would need another motivation to get me out of bed.
    So, I think living together before marriage is counterproductive in most cases.

    1. 115.1

      You had me up until:

      “That is, until feminism came, and destroyed the age old dance of male-female interactions. Feminism told women that what they had was not valuable, that they must be like men and act like men to be respected. Thus women threw away their valuable leverage in marital negotiations, and sold themselves for cheap on a regular basis.”

      Yeah, nope!  Feminism didn’t tell women that what they had wasn’t valuable.  Being a homemaker (as most women were back in those “good old days”) is and was a thankless job – you work well past the regular 9-5 day that a man works (especially when there are babies and small children involved) and you get no appreciation, respect, or pay for it.  You get room and board (if that!) and the privilege of cooking your spouse’s meals, cleaning up after him, enduring the physical pains of bearing his children, raising them (with minimal help from him).  Basically working like a dog and no respect or rights as a member of society.  No one valued homemakers and women realized they had skills that could be both useful and lucrative outside the home.  If being a housewife (house servant) and popping out babies was so idyllic, women would never have ventured outside the home.

      It’s really easy to see why modern men long for those “good old days” (that none of them were actually alive to experience, so they have very misguided views on it!).  They had all the privilege and power, while women were submissive and helpless.  Do you honestly think women were happier back then?  My mom was one of those homemaker’s and she made damn sure that all her kids got the right education and had independent careers, so that they wouldn’t be subjected to a thankless, boring, and submissive life like hers.  And guess what?  Just because the divorce rate was a lot lower back then, doesn’t mean that people were actually happier.  People still had affairs and people became “estranged” (moved out) and men became “deadbeats” rather than file for divorce.  Even if you look up the Hollywood starlets of the golden era (1920s-40s), many of those stars had multiple divorces and marriages – and this was pre-feminism!  Marriage has never been idyllic – please don’t fool yourself about the “good old days” that you never actually lived.

    2. 115.2

      The Thinker ?????

      “Feminism told women that what they had was not valuable”   What garbage!!!!!

      Feminism was about gaining the right to vote , having the opportunity to equal pay and equal opportunity for a job without being discriminated against .  

      In the” good old days” my mother had 2 options of a job A nurse or a teacher at low pay  The rest of the job were advertised as mens jobs only  .I remember that clearly  My mother stayed with an abusive man because she didn’t have the economic means to raise her kids.

      Women in the “good old days” were on massive amounts of valium for depression .

      The modern woman might say why the hell should I marry this man when I have my own economic power. If he’s good to her maybe should should But she doesn’t have to now. Many studies site that men are happier and healthier when married. If he wants to keep moving from one short term uncommitted relationship to the next he should knock himself out doing it.





  26. 116

    Thinker, you mean the good old days when the husband banged the secretary, and the wife banged the milkman, because both felt that they were trapped in their marriage and the only way out was death? Those old days? You know, these days, divorce rate might be up from a century ago, but cheating is about as socially acceptable as picking one’s nose in public. For that alone, I prefer here and now over the good old times.

  27. 117
    Karmic Equation

    @Goldie 116

    I’m with TheThinker on this one.

    Cheating happens nowadays as often as it did back then. Cheating has not changed.

    What has changed is that Equal Opportunity has allowed women to make enough money so that that they’re usually able to extricate themselves out of unhappy marriages. But Sexual Liberation has made it EXTRAORDINARILY difficult for many women to secure marriages, happy or otherwise, in the first place. So most women have “given in” as TheThinker is saying, and “settling” for LTRs when they are in fact looking for marriage (as per OP of this thread).


    I believe a huge segment of Evan’s clientele are the never-been-married-never-had-children-can’t-have-NSA-sex women. Feminism hurt those women more than most because

    1) it made those women postpone looking for marriage partners until she achieved the business success that feminism taught her to value, at which time it’s usually too late for her to get the “best catch”

    2) it freed up the men who normally would have married them to stay single because those men can get sex from all those truly sexually liberated women, which was one of the reasons why men married in the olden days, to get access to regular sex in a socially acceptable way. Sexual liberation made pre-marital sex socially acceptable. Need I say more?

    Unless you can have NSA sex, sexual liberation didn’t help you in the least. What good is birth control if when you’re ready to have children, the man you want to have them with is having sex with someone younger than you who CAN have NSA sex, who has more fertile years left than you?

    I know how EASILY a woman can get pregnant is not significantly different between her 20’s and 30’s, but the fact remains that if a 40 year old man can marry or be in a relationship with a woman in her 20’s or early 30’s who’s having (NSA or relationship) sex with him, why would he choose to be with a woman in her 40’s demanding monogamy from him before having sex with him?

    40+ yo women (maybe even 35+ yo women) who still treat their female body part (after marriage and kids) as if it were a virginal body part that any man would be lucky to get, you’re living in the wrong century. The value of that female body part went down as soon as you lost your virginity, and again when you married, and again when you had kids.

    So if it’s not your female body part that you guard so ferociously, what is it that will win you the man you really want? It’s YOUR PERSONALITY. That’s why I keep harping on improving yourself until you are KIND, FUN, CONFIDENT, SECURE, and HAPPY. For most men, those qualities are hard to come by in a woman. Not your no-longer-virginal body part that sexual liberation helped to devalue.

  28. 118

    @Karmic Equation
    Thanks for answering the question.  I may not agree with all of your points, but I appreciate the debate.
    “What the mind focuses on, it will lead you towards.” – interesting saying.  Is that an eastern thing?  I’ll give that some more thought.
    Fair enough as it relates the wifely benefits you described, but I remain confused what responsibilities, then, the husband is avoiding by simply avoiding marriage as opposed to a LTR?  Wouldn’t the “husbandly” benefits be similar, and couldn’t he provide that when not married?
    “but once he’s moved in, he knows he’s in the drivers seat, and that “passive aggressive” thing that all you men hate about women, you end up exhibiting when it comes to getting married when you’re in a cozy live-in relationship.”
    Have to disagree there.  It never crossed my mind that I was in the driver’s seat when I and my gf started living together, but I could be an exception.  Maybe I’m too stupid to realize it lol.

  29. 119

    I think you greatly overestimate how much sex the average man is having. Sure the top 10% might be having tons of NSA sex but that leaves the other 90% who get laid occasionally, after having to go out with quite a few women. I know many single men and they aren’t having near the amount of sex you think they are. I am a woman who can have sex pretty easily, I’ve stopped mostly so I can focus on finding a partner but even when I had casual sex with ease I didn’t have it with everyone who wanted to, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else. So no, I don’t think that women who are single after 26 or doomed to either sleeping with whomever or just being alone.
    I am 32, all of a sudden I don’t need to date men in their late 30s because there are a whole crop of men my age who are getting to a point in their education/career where they want a relationship and are looking for women their own age. I know we are a different generation but I don’t think what some people like TheThinker pass off as age-old wisdom really applies to us.

    1. 119.1

      I agree with you – KE and The Thinker have some incredibly archaic opinions that do not really apply to this generation or future generations.

  30. 120

    Goldie @ 113
    I was referring to calling something that is sin, not evil. Which would be a contradiction.
    Something else I remember about that study on the correlation of cohabitation and divorce rates. You are right, the point of view is central to the cohabitation and divorce rate. I never said the ones who stick it out have ‘more awesome’ marriages. But I do see the ones who don’t give up as believing in something better.
    The same can be said when a spouse becomes seriously ill. My parents went through that before my Mom died. It lasted for more than a decade. My Dad was there for my Mom through the whole thing. The medical staff told me they hadn’t seen anyone stay married after one spouse became seriously ill for that long. One of my Mom’s nurses said they always saw the healthy spouse divorce and stop caring for they sick spouse. A high view of marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *