Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Tell me about the 'Two Year Rule'

72 replies

RockinSockBunnies · 15/12/2010 11:23

Just reading another thread and the 'Two Year Rule' has been mentioned. Basically, it seems to boil down to the fact that if, after two years together, you're not engaged or married, then you (almost certainly) never will be with that individual.

I know married couples who have bucked this rule (gotten engaged/married after five/six/seven years together) but then, being the slightly neurotic individual that I am, have begun worrying about this with DP. We've been together for a year, have discussed marriage and children, we live together, have a joint account etc. Obviously I'm jumping the gun slightly since there's another year til I need to panic.

But....how true do you think the two year rule is? If you are married/engaged, when did this happen in your relationship?

Stories please

OP posts:

HelenRosie · 15/12/2010 12:47

you are in a similar situation to me. I'm 29 next month and DP is 48. We've also been together a year, but we aren't planning on moving in together for another 6 months. He's never been married before but we've both been engaged. We are happy taking it slowly to make sure we get it right this time.

IWouldNotCouldNotWithAGoat · 15/12/2010 12:56

Nonsense. I think there may be a case for 5 years, though.

We got engaged after 2.5 years.

proudnscary · 15/12/2010 13:02

Who's fucking rule is that? What a load of stupid, sexist, vacuous twaddle.

I was with dh 10 years before WE decided to get married and we had our two dc by then.

I was not waiting around like a Victorian maid for a proposal.

HowToLookGoodGlaikit · 15/12/2010 13:06

We got engaged after 2 years together, married after 5 years.

AbsofCroissant · 15/12/2010 13:09

Rubbish rule (regards being married or engaged), but I do kind of agree that if it's been two years, and you're not talking about being together long term, or have not had any thoughts or made any moves in the direction of "this is it", then it is time to start rethinking the relationship.

One of the happiest and most stable couples I know only got married after 9 years together. His parents had had a horrific divorce, so he was terrified of failing in the relationship so refused to get married for years. Now he is, he's SUPER happy.

EatingAngelPie · 15/12/2010 13:18

i think if you are at that stage in your life when marriage/kids/ nesting are on the cards then not to have that sort of commitment two years in looks.....not hopeful.

people who start their lives togeher younger/ settle down later...no reason why any kind of firm commitment would exist in that time scale

marantha · 15/12/2010 13:46

Going to buck trend slightly.
If, and only if, marriage/getting engaged is of importance to either both or one of couple then I don't think they wait years and years to do it.
But if marriage/engagement has no significance for them, I don't think any conclusions can be drawn about state of relationship.
I sometimes think that those that do wait a long time to get wed eventually do so out of a sense of things going stale. The marriage doesn't work as a permanent sticking plaster and they often break up soon afterwards.

marantha · 15/12/2010 13:47

I certainly would not dismiss the 'two-year rule' as out and out rubbish.

marantha · 15/12/2010 13:50

I would also ask the opening poster this: Marriage seems to be of importance to You, fine, fair enough; but (no offence intended as such) what are you doing having a joint bank account with someone if your definition of commitment i.e. marriage is not there?!
Sorry, but it strikes me as being a bit nuts!!

bairn24 · 15/12/2010 20:57

like proudnscarey we were together for 10 years before we got married. 14 years and 2 gorgeous children later we couldn't be happier...

RorysRacingReindeer · 15/12/2010 21:00

Baloney - aren't rules meant for breaking anyway. And why would you judge your relationship on what other people think - surely if you both feel good about it it works.

I would've run a mile if my DH had suggested it in our first 2 years. Thirteen years later he proposed and we've been married 3 now.

Hassledge · 15/12/2010 21:04

I think the 2 year rule is nonsense , but I do think there might be something in the Seven Year Itch. DH and I had a rough year then (which happily we got through), and it was at 7 years that first DH and I had real problems (which we didn't get through). You do come across the 7 year thing quite often.

QueeferSantaland · 15/12/2010 21:05

Bolleaux.

I did hear however that if after a year you don't think you want to be with your partner for the duration, then you should knock it on the head.

SleepyCaz · 15/12/2010 21:05

One of the happiest couples I know, got married in September after nearly 12 years. They have 2 beautiful daughters and are still so in love.

warthog · 15/12/2010 21:06

there is a statistic that says the longer you're together before getting married, the shorter the marriage. but then that's statistics for you!

houseproject · 15/12/2010 21:14

Hi,

Dont agree about 2 year rule for committment but I do feel it takes at least 2 years to know someone i.e get through the honeymoon phase, go through a 'normal' phase and then the 'this is how its going to be' phase. If after 2 years they are no major red flags then I think arelationship has a good chance.

blueshoes · 15/12/2010 21:36

If marriage is important to you, you should ditch him after 2 years if nothing is on the table. Don't waste time with timewasters. If he truly valued you, he will come back.

Otherwise, just move on. I think a lot of women spend far too long in dead end or ho hum relationships, end up having children, then complain about having to do all the running/childcare/housework etc

blueshoes · 15/12/2010 21:37

Totally agree with Queefer: "I did hear however that if after a year you don't think you want to be with your partner for the duration, then you should knock it on the head."

ValiumShimmer · 15/12/2010 21:53

totally agree with marantha actually.

if you don't care about getting married then the two year rule isn't relevant to you is it, but if you do care, then it's relevant.

darleneconnor · 15/12/2010 22:04

I'll buck th trend with this thread and say that if you are pro-marriage you shouldn't waste 2 years waiting for a proposal.

I wasted spent 3 years with DP before he told me he was anti-marriage, by that time it was too late to leave (we had DD by then).

fluffles · 15/12/2010 22:07

weird nonsense

if after two years you're still at the 'shall we see each other this weekend or not' dating stage then i suppose that's not a sign of a longterm committed relationship with marriage and babies, but apart from that it's just weird.

DH and i were together 5 years before our wedding, 4 years before getting engaged and nearly two before i even moved in with him (i'd just bought my first flat when i met him and didn't want to give it up )

marantha · 15/12/2010 22:15

warthog, I actually think that that statistic may be true. If people live together for years on end without getting married, then I think it is reasonable to say that marriage means little to them (and fair enough) so why get married after years living together? What's the point (for the couple). It's not as if there is any stigma to cohabitation any more or anything. Seems to me that it is often a way to 'freshen' up a flagging relationship that should really be laid to rest.

Squitten · 15/12/2010 22:17

Very strange rule!

Me and DH moved in together after 2yrs, got engaged at 4.5yrs, married at nearly 6yrs.

marantha · 15/12/2010 22:23

More I think about this rule, the more I think the essence of it is correct but the wording wrong.
I think it's just saying 'don't waste time with people if the relationship is going nowhere after a few years without firm commitment on either side. Don't drift'
It would be better if it were worded: marriage OR firm commitment.
As not recognising that people can be 'in it for life' even if not married complicates the issue.

Original poster

RockinSockBunnies · 16/12/2010 10:30

Thank you for all messages! Been hectic with DD's Christmas play, then work Christmas party, so just been catching up with reading everything.

I think a lot of my worries with not yet being engaged stem from the fact that my mother, in her youth, was inundated with proposals which she never fails to tell me about. I, on the other hand, am still awaiting just one proposal. I'd like to think that DP was so swept away by being with me that he'd be desperate to marry me. However, he doesn't see marriage in the same way that I do and would be happy to be together, have children but not get married.

In terms of the actual wedding, I would be absolutely content just going to a Registry Office, with a few close friends and tying the knot. I have never wanted the big white wedding, or the dress, or any of that (though would like a nice honeymoon!). I just want concrete proof of DP's committment and to me, that's the biggest committment you can make with someone.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3