Replies

I still think you're reading too much into it. They were dating for six months and she wanted a committment (and sex). He never said he wasn't in love or that he didn't think their relationship was going anywhere; he just wasn't going to sleep with her unless they were married. Perhaps he was considering proposing to her; perhaps not. Six months is just not that long to be dating. We don't know whether they saw each other once a week, maybe only 24 dates, or every other day.

I'm almost 40. About three years ago, a friend my same age was married to a man after knowing him for about six months. She was certain she was in love; so was he. They divorced six months later. For some it may work, but six months is certainly not the definition of enough time. Courtship can take YEARS. I think it should take years. People are complex and getting to know a person, really know a person, takes time. Given the prevalence of divorce in our society, why rush into marriage?

Naw, just because he doesn't know if he wants to marry a woman in six months doesn't mean he's a control or any other type of freak. It means he's careful. That's a good thing. That he doesn't want to sleep with her unless and until they're married is an even better one.

Look at it another way. Let's say he gives her the committment after six months. The ring, the plans for the wedding, the whole nine yards. They have sex before marriage and then she decides that he's not the guy for her. He's blown his principles for nothing.

The strangest thing is this story all turned around. Women used to be in his shoes upholding morality. Now women (in general) are so slutty that they have no morality. I'd say N.O.W. has done its job.

No, I don't think I'm reading too much into it.

They were dating for six months and she wanted a committment (and sex)

No, she was willing to abstain until marriage also. She just wanted to know that it was all LEADING to marriage, so that the abstinence would be (a)bearable (b)OVER with, someday, and he couldn't assure her of his good intentions in that department.

Even though I'm only hearing his side of things, I will take him at his word, and here's what HE said she said: "But after six months, she wanted me to make a commitment. She felt if she knew we were going to marry then she could abstain."

That doesn't say anything about marrying there and then, or even setting a date. They were already abstaining from sex with each other, so there was also no question of their getting engaged and then having sex before the wedding. The problem was, she's on the marriage path, he's obviously not. Not with her, anyway.

He should have let her down easier and earlier. What woman wants to wait indefinitely for a man to determine his own feelings? The fact that he didn't "use" her sexually doesn't change the fact that he still messed with her head.

And that's not nice either.