To ask whether you agree with the ‘2 year rule’ for engagement

[EstelleGP]

Recently I’ve been hearing a lot both on social media and from friends about a supposed ‘2 year rule’ for getting engaged. I’m not sure if it’s a new thing but if it’s not, it’s the first I’ve heard of it?!

Basically it’s considered that two years together in a serious relationship should be enough time to establish whether or not you want to commit to being with that person and getting married and if no such sign of commitment is forthcoming at that stage i.e. engagement, it’s time to walk away.

I’ve had a number of friends and family members who were lead on for years with partners who promised they wanted to commit but “just needed more time” or allegedly were totally against marriage yet later ended the relationship and almost immediately married their next partner, so I have to say I can see some logic in this though of course every relationship is different and there’s no blanket rule which fits everyone’s circumstances. AIBU?

I’m interested to know what everyone thinks?!

Like all this shit, if it is helpful to you then go for it! Believe it. 100% true.

If it suppresses the way you want to live in any way, upsets you, or makes you feel like what you're doing is wrong (but you still want to do it) just see it for what it is - a load of bollocks made up for clicks, likes and to legitimise a judgemental viewpoint.

My sister and her husband met in May, engaged by September and married by December - all in the same year. 4 years married this December.

My brother and his wife met in May, lived together from June, engaged by December and married by January the next month. Just celebrated their 11th anniversary a couple of months ago.

What my siblings did won't work for everybody and some will definitely disagree; however, I think when you know, you know. There are no hard fast rules.

I've yet to follow in their footsteps 

In your early to mid 30s if you want kids - yes
While I wouldn't be hard and fast with it. I think 2 years is pretty good yardstick for knowing whether you want to stick or twist.

If you are in your 20s or if you arent interested in having children - absolutely not. 2 year rule is pointless.

I can see the point of the "get married within two years of getting engaged" perspective, at least if you're going to announce it to everybody, but everyone's different I guess.

I think if this rule is a private decision for someone as their own boundary it could be quite helpful in empowering them not to allow the kind of fuck aboutery you describe.
On that basis though I would have married my previous partner who I met at 20 and was with till 26, and if he had asked I would probably have said yes and even think we would have had quite a good life together, but I'm glad I didn't. For me, I was too young when I met him and he wasn't the right one. So I think maturity/ life stage has a part to play too.

What a load of rubbish . Knowing the way this country's been going lately though, it probably will be a rule sooner or later

Though to add, with my DH (met him at 26, got married at 27, knocked up at 28, DS along at 29) the "rule" would have made a lot more sense then. If he hadn't been serious from the start I wouldn't have stayed with him.

People that live their lives based arbitrary rules or with overly high expectations based on social media will never be happy.

Surely it depends on circumstances.

I met DH at 18 - he was 21 - 2 years in I was at one university in final year and he was at another doing PhD.

We got engaged when I was 24 - married at 26 - we were only living in same city few months before marriage - we've now been together 20+ years.

I've know some people wait longer than 2 years as there were childen involved and were waiting for something - either children being more comfortable/settled or just older.

I image it may make more sense early 30s when things are perhaps more settled and maybe there some thought round having kids but as a blanket rule I think it's a poor one.

I actually think that 2 years in is a good time to get engaged... if there works for the couple. Obviously everyone is different so there is no hard & fast rule. But I can see some reasoning behind this, ie if marriage is important to one person then why waste your time on someone who doesn't want the same thing.

Depends on the reason. I think if they aren't showing commitment (e.g. not living together), and keep saying they're not ready then I agree with the 2 year rule. I think if it's about money/situation e.g. not being able to afford a wedding, going through a tough time/situation where getting engaged wouldn't be appropriate, then I disagree

Rubbish, not everyone is bothered by getting married. Though one thing I think there should be a rule for is if you make a song and dance about getting engaged, you should be handing out the save the date cards. I don't understand the trend for announcing engagements but not marrying fairly sharpish. I don't know if we will bother getting married but it has no reflection on our commitment, more somebody (me) hasn't got round to getting divorced, it's only paperwork

Never heard of it and why should there be a rule?

Never heard of it. We were together 2.5 years, then got engaged and we were married 9 months later. We were engaged and married in the same year.
I couldn't bear a long drawn out engagement but I know lots of people who have been engaged for very long times for one reason or another and it obviously works for them.

I was 29 meeting dh, 33 getting engaged and married and he was 26 meeting and 29 getting married.

Entirely depends on age, stage in life, situation etc.

If you're both in your 30s, settled in jobs, all your friends are getting married and having kids - then yes, a commitment after 2 years would be reasonable, and it would be slightly concerning if someone didn't want to commit at that point.

If you're 18 then no way! Having several long term relationships in your late teens and early/mid 20s is perfectly normal.

Equally when you're older it's different. I'm 54, been with my partner for 6 years, we don't live together, and both have dependents (kids and parents) near where we live. We're committed to each other but have no plans to live together any time soon, so engagement would be pointless.

Every situation is different.

DH and I were together for 18 months when he proposed. Be ause we were 30ish, same values, in love, wanted children. I had previous so's where those important things weren't there so for me there was no future. One so didn't believe in marriage; one turned out to have different values - so I left because we wanted different things for a long term relationship and individual lives.

Why follow the crap crowd, do you own thing and be happy and comfortable

If I went by this rule I'd be engaged at 19! We got engaged at 27 (almost 28) and married at 29. Moved in together when we bought our first place at 25.

No this is utterly daft. Where to start:

1. Engagement is meaningless anyway. It’s easily broken
2. This takes no account whatsoever of scenarios where getting engaged/getting married is not possible or desirable in the medium term. Such as where children are involved or one partner has to sell property/move house or where the woman has a higher income and assets and marriage is a bad idea anyway

But mainly:

1. Any rule based on some arbitrary finger in the air time limit is suspect. Why two years and not one or three? There are lots of these silly old wives tale rules on here atm.

I think this works only after completing post school education & training and being in work for a couple of years, so say by 25.

You are an adult by then, and if you are looking for a long term relationship with, two years of dating is long enough to know if someone is right or not. Then a year or two planning the wedding, to see what they are like under pressure.

If you are a man, you know that having children is very financially risky for women, and puts their career back, so the protection of marriage means that what you have been building financially as a couple is recognized, and she isn't literally 'left holding the baby' if things go wrong.

People who have a level of financial literacy understand that if a shared house is bought together then if an unmarried partner dies, without the tax exemption of marriage, many are forced to sell in order to pay inheritance taxes.

People understand that a spiteful parent can refuse a partner visitation in hospital as the unmarried partner is not next of kin. There are no spouse benefits.

Some might have a philosophical objection to marriage, in which case they can make sure that they might that they manually ensure that their unmarried partner is next of kin in things like life insurance policies. They legally draft power of attorney documents they legally draft medical next of kin documents etc.

All the much more simple way to grant all these rights to your partner is to sign a marriage certificate.

Most people who do not get married do not bother to do any of this believing in some magical common-law marriage which upon things going wrong either death or separation they discovere they have no rights.

The majority who do not marry also do not bother to ensure there is any paperwork in place. They just want to make it easy to leave if they want to. Which is the opposite of the commitment marriage is.

I've never heard of it. I don't think there can ever be a rule because it depends so much on circumstances. Especially people's age, and whether they have children already and/or want children.

It depends on people's views about cohabiting and marriage, too. Personally I wanted to live together for a while before getting engaged and then married. Some people (admittedly not many these days) want to get married or at least engaged before they live together. And of course plenty of people are not bothered about getting married but I'm discounting them for the purposes of this thread!

You don't have to apply it to your own situation, there's no need to get het up with melodramatic exclamations about rules and the state of the country today.

I'd probably apply it to myself, given that I'm in my early 30s and want to get married. Two years seems sensible. I've no time to be strung along for years on end.

Sorry for all the typos I was doing voice to text. But you get what I mean I'm sure.

I think this is an old rule, but it makes sense to me. Two years is enough time to know whether you want to commit to someone or not.

Never heard of it before. I dated my dh for a year or so, got engaged and got married a year later, so met, engaged and married within two years. That wasn’t uncommon in the early nineties.

To be honest, I think the biggest indicator is whether you can live together first. That’s when you really get to know someone, warts and all.