Feel like I'm being nagged.

[thornz]

Just a little update, we still haven't had time to discuss this properly but a few brief discussions on various things have brought up a few things.

 

He has since decided he wants to buy a larger house to modernise and sell at a profit. When discussing how awkward this Xmas dinner arrangements would be I suggested we might be renting a bigger place together next year so could host Xmas dinner there if that was the case. He replied by saying that he is still very keen to buy this big house. I asked if he would be living there and he would not. I took that to mean he expected the cost of the house would be too much to rent together as well.

 

We just briefly discussed via text that long-term he would like to move in together. I asked him to define long term, what is his timescale. He said he's "not really got one". Useful. He said he didn't want to pressure me so what's my timescale? I told him I think 18 months is a good point to move in unless you plan to move into your first home bought together. He told me we could discuss it at the weekend when we see each other.

 

Pretty annoyed I didn't get any immediate feedback about it to be honest. In my experience if a man tells you that you can discuss something when they see you it's because he's expecting you to be unimpressed with what he's got to say.

[Batya33]

This sounds more like a business interaction than a friendship, much less a romantic relationship. Some people prefer to discuss important things in person.

[thornz]

This sounds more like a business interaction than a friendship, much less a romantic relationship. Some people prefer to discuss important things in person.

 

Interesting. What makes you say that?

 

And yes they do, so if he also wanted to do that (it was my suggestion) I would prefer he left it to be discussed at the weekend instead of pressing me for details then leaving me hanging.

 

At least he's not pressuring me to move in now. Had a total turnaround on the front. I think it's a good sign.

[Ms Darcy]

Would suggest you stop conducting important relationship communication over text.

[Batya33]

Because the discussion was had over text and seemed to be focused on financial and practical considerations and generalities about "18 months" being a good time. I think it's crucial to discuss financial concerns, practicalities and all that - sometimes people get too caught up in the romance - but since this was so on the other end of the spectrum and on text I don't blame him for wanting to talk in person -maybe he would like to have eye contact with you and see if you're also motivated by love, by being enthusiastic about living with him, etc.

 

Nothing to do with xmas dinner - he could rent out a private room in a restaurant or rent a house for a few days as a vacation, etc - if you're wanting to be with him because you love him or see that potential then focus on that as well as the practicalities.

[thornz]

Would suggest you stop conducting important relationship communication over text.

 

Yes I'll tell him next time I'm not discussing it via text. Ironic that he would pester me for a response when he has stated before he feels it's not good to text as it can be misinterpreted.

[thornz]

Would suggest you stop conducting important relationship communication over text.

 

In fact tbh if I'd responded to his initial text that we should discuss it in person that would sound like a break up haaa. It was "Are you still happy with us and how things are going"

[thornz]

Because the discussion was had over text and seemed to be focused on financial and practical considerations and generalities about "18 months" being a good time. I think it's crucial to discuss financial concerns, practicalities and all that - sometimes people get too caught up in the romance - but since this was so on the other end of the spectrum and on text I don't blame him for wanting to talk in person -maybe he would like to have eye contact with you and see if you're also motivated by love, by being enthusiastic about living with him, etc.

 

Nothing to do with xmas dinner - he could rent out a private room in a restaurant or rent a house for a few days as a vacation, etc - if you're wanting to be with him because you love him or see that potential then focus on that as well as the practicalities.

 

Sorry, this might not have been clear. The initial discussion about living together at Xmas was in person last weekend. I was shocked by his response after his being so eager to move in together and felt that somewhat shut the conversation down. We weren't talking about spending Xmas together, we were discussing impracticalities of his family Xmas dinner being held at his brothers because my brother would not be invited. I was saying that I would want to spend it with my brother this year and next year we might have a big house with a dining room so we can host it and invite my brother.

 

The text discussion was brief and essentially I am happy are you?

Yes could you be more happy?

If we live together long term I will be.

Define long term What's your timescale?

I don't have one what's yours?

I'm surprised you don't have a timescale. You didn't answer my question. Answer the question.

Give me chance about 18 months is a good point to rent together.

Ok we'll talk in person.

That's not fair.

 

 

Yes I would agree I'm not overly romantic and like to think practically. I generalised because you're ready when you are, 18 months seems a point that is expect to feel ready to seriously consider it and make arrangements to live together. If I didn't feel committed at that point then maybe it's not a good fit?

[Batya33]

I guess I don't see the direct connection between living together and being committed. I agree that after 1.5 years where you're dating to see if there is long term potential, you probably should know at that point where it's headed but I'm not sure where sharing physical space is such a focal point in that discussion. I found your texts putting him on the spot and a bit confrontational so to me it's no surprise he decided to go with the alternative of talking in person.

[thornz]

I guess I don't see the direct connection between living together and being committed. I agree that after 1.5 years where you're dating to see if there is long term potential, you probably should know at that point where it's headed but I'm not sure where sharing physical space is such a focal point in that discussion. I found your texts putting him on the spot and a bit confrontational so to me it's no surprise he decided to go with the alternative of talking in person.

 

Yes I can see where you're coming from about them appearing confrontational but him repeating for me to answer him appears just as confrontational to me. As far as I'm concerned I've tried to bring it up in person a few times after we agreed to discuss it and not got any kind of response.

 

I see living together as a pre-cursor to marriage. The nuptial ceremony/paperwork just finalises the arrangement. I wouldn't dream of living with somebody unless I had a strong incline that we would marry if the living arrangements proved successful.

 

I think you're probably in the minority not seeing living together as a sign of commitment? People make a big song and dance of it. Some people celebrate/share their decision to live in together. Some even gift the key or put it in a box to present like a wedding ring. For those who don't plan to marry, moving in together probably is THE commitment.

[Batya33]

I don't see sharing physical space as having anything at all to do with commitment unless the couple discusses that as their intention in sharing physical space. I do see situations where one person "assumes" it's a step towards further emotional commitment and then is disappointed when it doesn't lead to marriage.

 

I don't think exchanging vows is a perfunctory '"finalizing" the "arrangement or "just paperwork". Not for me anyway nor would I have married anyone who was that dismissive of what marital vows mean. Certainly couples who don't value marriage for emotional reasons or commitment reasons and want it for financial reasons or to raise children within a marriage rather than not probably feel that way -nothing wrong with that at all as long as they both feel that way.

[thornz]

I don't see sharing physical space as having anything at all to do with commitment unless the couple discusses that as their intention in sharing physical space. I do see situations where one person "assumes" it's a step towards further emotional commitment and then is disappointed when it doesn't lead to marriage.

 

I don't think exchanging vows is a perfunctory '"finalizing" the "arrangement or "just paperwork". Not for me anyway nor would I have married anyone who was that dismissive of what marital vows mean. Certainly couples who don't value marriage for emotional reasons or commitment reasons and want it for financial reasons or to raise children within a marriage rather than not probably feel that way -nothing wrong with that at all as long as they both feel that way.

 

You don't only "share space" with your partner when you move in together, that is an arrangement you have with a housemate. You are giving up your independence and some of your privacy to become one unit and financially enmeshed (potentially dependent) upon this other person. You are exposing yourself emotionally to progress the relationship. That is a commitment.

 

You can exchange vows and make commitments to one another without getting wed and to my knowledge you can officially become husband and wife without any form of ceremony or exchange of vows/rings. You can just sign the contract and that's that. You're officially married. I'm not dismissive of marriage or vows, I'm dismissive of the need to make a big song and dance about it and spend a small fortune that could instead be put towards your life together. The purpose of the wedding is to sign the legally binding contract to offer financial and emotional advantages/protection to your spouse and (if you wish) announce to each other and your family/friends that you have made that emotional and financial commitment. That is an entirely separate thing to your marriage and if people put half as much energy into their marriage as they do their wedding day, perhaps more marriages would be successful?

 

I don't see the need to have a big show to tell my partner anything (vows) we could say between us in private. I don't see the need to spend a fortune to sign a piece of paper. I see the need to invest time in your spouse and marriage, not the wedding day. I would not marry someone who considered the wedding the important part of the marriage.

[thornz]

Seem to get getting a little off track here hah

[Batya33]

," I'm dismissive of the need to make a big song and dance about it and spend a small fortune that could instead be put towards your life together. The purpose of the wedding is to sign the legally binding contract to offer financial and emotional advantages/protection to your spouse and (if you wish) announce to each other and your family/friends that you have made that emotional and financial commitment. That is an entirely separate thing to your marriage and if people put half as much energy into their marriage as they do their wedding day, perhaps more marriages would be successful? "

 

You misunderstand what I wrote. You're writing about a wedding reception. I wasn't. I was writing about the wedding -the ceremony, the exchange of vows, not the party. I had 10 people at my wedding celebration at my inlaws' home and we went out for lunch after. I planned it -meaning the lunch, what to wear, who would be my matron of honor, the honeymoon, the getting the rings and license -in less than 6 weeks. I would not marry anyone who saw the wedding reception as more important than the wedding.

 

I think people share physical space for all sorts of reasons when they are in a romantic relationship -might be convenience, might be financial, might be emotional, any and all of the above. I don't think a couple who shares physical space are necessarily more emotionally committed to each other than a couple who does not. It depends on the individual couple and how they view the sharing of physical space. Sharing physical space doesn't automatically increase the level of emotional commitment in my opinion.

[thornz]

I was referring to the entire wedding day including the ceremony and vows. The purpose of a wedding day for me is to sign a contract that makes us legally responsible for one another and a legally official family. That can be done in a registry office for roughly £50 and 2 witnesses. No need to exchange vows or have a ceremony if you don't wish. I can make vows to my partner any time. I'm not much for celebrations in general, I don't even tell people when it's my birthday and I only like Xmas for the food.

 

I would never choose convenience and finance as the main reasons for living with a romantic partner and would be quite devastated if I found my partner wanted to live with me for those reasons. I don't think it necessarily increases the level of emotional commitment either, but certainly the level of intimacy. I think moving in with a partner is an expression of commitment not the cause of it.

[Batya33]

I think moving in with a partner is an expression of commitment if both people want it to be. But sharing physical space isn't necessarily an expression of emotional commitment.

 

I don't agree that there is such a thing as a "wedding day". The wedding ceremony -whether it's an exchange of vows or as you would prefer, signing a contract, is no matter - I was referring to the ceremony. The celebration is a separate thing, it's not part of a wedding ceremony -it's a party to celebrate the marriage.

To me my wedding ceremony was far more than simply making a legal commitment. I think that's true of many people. And it doesn't have to cost much. It wasn't an "any old time" vow either -and I think many would agree with that.

 

As long as your boyfriend sees marriage the same as you do it's all good.