Boyfriend bought me a ring but won't let me have it

egoode

Milliebob wrote: »

....
ANYWAY I just wanted to update those of you who might be interested in our conversation last night. It went very well I think and I'm feeling better for it. I asked if when he'd bought the ring had I pressure him into and he felt he couldn't say no, to which he responded that no he didn't feel pressured but wasn't expecting the finance to be approved, so he didn't expect that day to be coming home with a ring. I asked if he regretted buying it and he said no, that he's glad he has it now for when the time is right, which he doesn't think it was when he bought it. He said he was 99% going to do it on Christmas Day but didn't for whatever reason, and then he said he should have done it on New Years Eve with hindsight.
I've told him I won't mention it again and I'll just leave him to it, an I'm happy with that decision, I slept better last night anyway.

I know you had this conversation back in January but I'm not sure I would have just accepted his answers without further discussion. He clearly has doubts about getting married and after you have been living together for so long and have a child together I'd be wanting to know exactly what doubts he's having. You said in one of your earlier posts he doesn't plan things in advance. Have you both sat down and discussed what you want from your future together. Are you wanting to save to buy a home, have more kids, etc. Have you explained to him why it's important to you to be married.

Milliebob wrote: »

To answer some of the questions; Yes he still has the ring, it's on a shelf in our bedroom. I followed a lot of advice on here from last time I posted (in Jan) and 'chilled out', and I haven't mentioned it.

.......

Oh and lastly (this will make you spit out your drink) he's always saying things like we'll be married this time next year etc etc and yet... still.... no..... engagement.....

I would not be happy with this at all but the next time he says something like we'll be married this time next year I'd be tempted say something along the lines of that's great I accept your proposal when should we set the date for the wedding and see what the response is.

victory

I agree there is no need to have to pay off a ring for three years:eek:

I have the most beautiful ring I bought from the pawn shop, it's obviously second hand and I just love that it has a story behind it, I would like to think its a beautifully romantic one that the ring was priceless to a lady whose love of live gave it to him ( rather than it was traded in for money because it was needed) it means a lot to me and a lot lot cheaper than a 3 year payment plan:o

It's the man, the love, the relationship, the happiness the togetherness brings that count, not the ring:D

burnoutbabe

egoode wrote: »

I would not be happy with this at all but the next time he says something like we'll be married this time next year I'd be tempted say something along the lines of that's great I accept your proposal when should we set the date for the wedding and see what the response is.

yes, agree or just say "yes, looking forward to it, shall we tell everyone now about the engagement and I'll start wearing the ring"

I pretty much assumed i was engaged once he had said "i want to buy you a ring", we just agreed to announce it a few weeks later (on my birthday).

jaylee3

catkins wrote: »

A couple may decide to live together without actually talking about whether they both want to get married if things work out (I am always amazed how many couples never talk about things before living together or getting married).

I personally would never have lived with my now OH unless I knew that he wanted to marry me nor would I have been content to live with him for years before that happened. As it was, he didn't want to live together anyway as he felt marriage was special and living together wasn't.

I could have written this. I believe passionately in marriage, and can not understand why people live together for many years and even have children together, and never get married. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but I think I would find it impossible to be in a relationship with someone who point blank refused to get married, as to me, he would be saying that he doesn't love me enough to make that ultimate commitment. Also it gives a message to your children, that their father doesn't think that their mother is good enough to marry.

I am with the OP 100%, and don't know what the answer is to this, other than - as many have said in here - the OP needs to talk to him and tell him exactly how she feels. They have been together a few years, but it's actually shocking how many people have been together 4-5 years and sometimes quite a bit more, and have even had a child (or more than one) together, but don't communicate much, don't do much together, and don't actually have a lot in common. I am not saying that this is the case with the OP, but I don't know that this isn't the case either.

As someone said earlier, I would also hate to have kids with a different surname to me, and I find it most odd that women almost always let the kids have the man's surname. Why? I have a theory that it's because they are hoping that the man will eventually marry them. Otherwise, why does the mother not just give them their surname? Because the child/children will ultimately more than likely end up with the mother if the relationship ends.

Finally, an engagement ring that takes THREE YEARS to pay for? Seriously?! :eek:

maman

jaylee3 wrote: »

I could have written this. I believe passionately in marriage, and can not understand why people live together for many years and even have children together, and never get married. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but I think I would find it impossible to be in a relationship with someone who point blank refused to get married, as to me, he would be saying that he doesn't love me enough to make that ultimate commitment. Also it gives a message to your children, that their father doesn't think that their mother is good enough to marry.

I am with the OP 100%, and don't know what the answer is to this, other than - as many have said in here - the OP needs to talk to him and tell him exactly how she feels. They have been together a few years, but it's actually shocking how many people have been together 4-5 years and sometimes quite a bit more, and have even had a child (or more than one) together, but don't communicate much, don't do much together, and don't actually have a lot in common. I am not saying that this is the case with the OP, but I don't know that this isn't the case either.

As someone said earlier, I would also hate to have kids with a different surname to me, and I find it most odd that women almost always let the kids have the man's surname. Why? I have a theory that it's because they are hoping that the man will eventually marry them. Otherwise, why does the mother not just give them their surname? Because the child/children will ultimately more than likely end up with the mother if the relationship ends.

Finally, an engagement ring that takes THREE YEARS to pay for? Seriously?! :eek:

I don't necessarily agree with all your reasoning but I find the current situation odd too (both OP and many similar couples in general).


I suppose I am old-fashioned to a point but I have no problem with couples living together. Personally I wouldn't have a child/children without being married but that's not my point. What I find so sad (and it's invariably the woman in the relationship) and demeaning is that the woman who lives with her BF and then has children with him really wants to get married desperately.


I think the name thing is another outward sign of perhaps wanting to be married but also showing the outside world that they're his children not just from a one night stand.


What I find hugely illogical is that there are people who out there who have a child (especially more than one) but don't get married because they need to save up for a big, flash wedding. Saving for a home can come third on the list if at all. This is where I'm probably most old-fashioned of all: home, wedding, children that'd be my list.


I know there'll be exceptions but it bothers me that so many don't even aim for that.

heartbreak_star

I would love to marry but OH isn't very much of a believer in marriage. We don't intend to have children.

However, I am happy to live with him as I would rather have him without a wedding ring than be married to anyone else

HBS x

Cottage_Economy

heartbreak_star wrote: »

I would love to marry but OH isn't very much of a believer in marriage. We don't intend to have children.

However, I am happy to live with him as I would rather have him without a wedding ring than be married to anyone else

HBS x

So why does his preference come before yours?

Why not:

"well I'm not a great believer in marriage but heartbreak is so I decided to propose and we're getting married. I'd rather be married and with Heartbreak than not and be with someone else. Or worse have her be with someone else."

Why are you so accommodating to his needs when he isn't accommodating to yours?

burnoutbabe

If he was fine to say "we'll get wills drawn up and do POAs, plus life insurance" which covers everyone legally, that would be acceptable?

ie he is happy to show commitment that way and ensure everyone is protected on death but just not be legally married.

Lily-Rose_3

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

So why does his preference come before yours?

Why not:

"well I'm not a great believer in marriage but heartbreak is so I decided to propose and we're getting married. I'd rather be married and with Heartbreak than not and be with someone else. Or worse have her be with someone else."

Why are you so accommodating to his needs when he isn't accommodating to yours?

Hmmmmmm, good question. I have seen this a lot with friends/colleagues/family over the years. The man's choice seems to be the one that becomes the overall decision. One colleague of mine was passionate about Christmas, but never ever had decorations or a tree up, because her 'husband' hated Christmas. So because 'he' hated it, she couldn't have Christmas in the house.

And he threw away all of her pop memorabilia, from when she was a child, because it was 'stupid,' and she was childish for keeping it. 'He' wanted purple and green walls, so that is what they had. She was 26 when they got married - he was 33. The marriage lasted 5 years before she left him. Finally realised what a git he was.

I think it's a slippery slope TBH when you start letting someone make the final decision and you are not necessarily happy with it, but are just 'tolerating' it, because ultimately, resentment will set in.

Not going to lie, this happened with me many years ago: I always let my DH make the decision because it was easier than having to put up with his mardy face and several days of the 'cold shoulder' and his passive aggressive behaviour if things didn't go his way. We actually never went abroad together til I was FORTY (we had been together about 15-16 years then,) because he didn't want to go.

It was only when I said that I am going to go to the states for my 40th and take our daughter with us, and he can stay at home if he wants, that he begrudgingly agreed to go. He loved it and we have been to many other countries since.

I have got bolder and more sassy over the years, and encouraged him to get outside his comfort zone and try new things, new places, and making new friends etc, and we actually do give and take a lot now, rather than every decision being all about what he wants.

I have however, known several quite awful stories of a woman sacrificing for her man, to make sure they stay together, and just so she doesn't lose him. One was a friend who sacrificed having a child, because her partner didn't want one. She was with him from age 23 to 41, (he was 26 to 44,) and they remained childless.

You can probably guess how the story ends. They split after 18 years; he left her for a woman 20 years younger than him, and within 6 months, the woman was pregnant. She never got over it, and has suffered from depression ever since. She had to give up her career at 42/43, (5 years ago,) and is a shadow of her former self. Her ex now has 2 children by this same woman, who he married (even though he wouldn't marry my friend.)

I think the OP needs to tell this man that she doesn't see the relationship going anywhere. From where I am standing, it isn't. He is stringing her along. I have seen it happen: to many many women. It always ends in heartache.

Person_one

burnoutbabe wrote: »

If he was fine to say "we'll get wills drawn up and do POAs, plus life insurance" which covers everyone legally, that would be acceptable?

ie he is happy to show commitment that way and ensure everyone is protected on death but just not be legally married.

Marriage is also about protection in case of separation, not just death.