Yes, it's a rule. I would not date anyone more than two years without a ring on my finger if, like the poster, my intention was to get married.

If that's not your intention, then it clearly doesn't apply.

If you're young, then I think that the rule still applies. It's important to date other people so you can be sure that "he or she IS THE ONE". If that means taking a break from your boyfriend or girlfriend, then I feel that's a good move.

How can you know if that person is truly right for you when you have little or no basis of comparison?

When I interview job candidates-- the first person may be THE ONE.. but I interview others just to be sure. I feel the same applies to a potential marriage partner.

Here is what's so dangerous about what you're saying -- you post the rule about having a ring on your finger after two years of dating in response to the original poster. Did you read any of what she's posted about him? He doesn't want to help out with her BC pills and she mentioned that the issues go deeper than just that. He pretty much had her stalked while she was out one evening. And you're saying that if he put a ring on her finger she should marry him -- since it's been over two years?

It sounds like you're saying that if you've been dating for two years, it's time to get engaged, whether the person you are with would be a suitable spouse or not, and that is ridiculous. I don't know why she'd want to waste her time dating this fool, but she would be a fool to get engaged to or marry him now.

Interesting you bring this up, since I posted more recent research that indicates younger generations are increasing the propensity to live together, and also bringing the difference in divorce rates back to the mean if not eliminating it all together.

So if the 'increase' in divorce rate is -1% (which it would be for me, according to the most current research in this thread), the odds are against me? Fantastic conclusion, MENSA.

Val-- you have an incredible talent for taking my words out of context. Once again, the original poster felt he is the ONE, and wants to marry him. So again, my advice is that after two years, it's time to move on if he won't commit.

Is divorce such a bad thing?

I mean most people enter marriage with the best intentions. If things don't work out, are you supposed to remain married and miserable? There are plenty of people on this message board and in real life who are divorced and prefer that to a miserable marriage.


My friend lived with her bf without any intention of marriage or a ring. After less than a year, it was over. She was so grateful that their biggest decision was who kept the sofa and chairs and not how to split their assets and the custody of children. She learned many things about him that she could only learn by living with him, things that made it impossible to build a life with him.


Also, free love and living together started long before the baby boomers. I think it just became trendy in the 1960s.

Technically, you're taking the OP's words out of context as well:

Nowhere does she say he's THE ONE. She says: "I am in no hurry, but I atleast need to know if he has been thinking about it as much as I have. I have tried to talk to him about it more, but he seems to change the subject on me. I really do love him and want this to work!"

She did indeed imply that she thought he was "THE ONE"--

"I really do love him and want this to work!"

Blue -- how am I taking your words out of context? The context here is that of the original poster, who is asking for input on her current situation with this guy she's been dating. I'm trying to make sense of your words in that context, and frankly, it's not easy.

When are you going to respond to Rob's questions, anyway?

Rob did not reply to my question-- and that was to provide data which disputes the studies I provided.

I think that's just it. Divorce has become much more acceptible, so naturally divorce rates will be higher.

If divorce was still taboo, you'd probably find a low divorce rate, but a higher incedence of unhappy marriages.

I totally worship you! My mom taught me about the 2 years rule and I totally followed it (after 24, that is, when I thought I was getting on marriage age)....in fact, I told the guy who later became my husband pretty early on about my 2 year rule (just in casual conversation, not in an "I am expecting a ring from YOU way) and he proposed at 1 year and 9 months!

Sorry, but IMHO, "I really do love him and want this to work!" does not equal "He is THE ONE and I cannot live without him!"

Maybe that's just me.

Regardless, she needs to dump him. Not continue this cycle of post whatever recent shitty thing he did, let us lambast him, and then announce she "has a lot of thinking to do". Lather rinse repeat.

If by 'dispute your figures' you mean 'provide a detailed study that accounts for the very problems people have introduced in this thread, finds that as a result the differences are far lower than your data, then continues to state that in many cases the differences are nil . . . oh yeah, also the reasons behind the cohabitation phenomenon are probably not at all related to the literal cohabitation', then I'm pretty sure I did that.

Oh yeah, this study is from late 2003 as well.

Don't you have, like, a job? A grown-up person job? That requires you to do work from 9-5ish?


Sidenote: I watched the True Hollywood Story on Dr. Phil once . . . it was pretty enlightening.

Anyway, regardless of what statistics say or don't say:

Two years is the MINIMUM amount of time I would be dating somebody before getting engaged. I've had two-year relationships before. Trust me, two years is not that long. I think it's going to take me at least that long before I can figure out if the guy and I are actually compatible enough to ever get married.

And I never say never, but I would think long and hard about getting married to somebody I hadn't lived with (or "basically lived with" -- i.e. we're at each other's apartments for days at a time anyway).