A man (OP) and his long-term girlfriend (31f) of seven years disagreed sharply regarding their future plans, specifically concerning marriage and children.
The core conflict began when the boyfriend expressed a desire to start trying for children soon, which prompted the OP to restate a long-standing boundary: she would only have children within the context of marriage.
The boyfriend reacted negatively to this boundary, stating he did not want to get married due to fears of financial loss in divorce.
When the OP firmly maintained her position, stating that no marriage meant no shared finances and no children, the boyfriend became very upset, claiming she was punishing him.
The OP is now left questioning if her stance on marrying before having children is justified given the emotional distress it has caused.















Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The OP is facing a difficult crossroads where her fundamental personal values regarding commitment and family structure directly clash with her boyfriend's desire to become a father quickly, especially given his concerns about his limited life expectancy.
Her actions stem from a desire for security and a belief in traditional relational steps, while her boyfriend feels constrained by these prerequisites.
The central issue is whether the boyfriend's urgent biological desire, amplified by health concerns, overrides the OP's non-negotiable requirement for legal commitment before parenthood.
Should the OP compromise her deeply held values for the sake of her partner's dream, or is she correct in insisting that the terms of their shared future must align with her es**blished boundaries?
When the Crowd Speaks, It Echoes Loudly:
The crowd poured into the comments, bringing a blend of heated opinions, solid advice, and a few reality checks along the way.