Dear Carolyn: I am a single working woman in my early 60s. My previous long-term marriage ended in an amicable divorce. I continue to maintain a good relationship with my former spouse, the father of my adult children.
For the past four years, I have been in a relationship with a retired man in his early 70s. He is divorced and has been married twice before. He also has adult children. We are both financially independent. We keep our finances separate. I work online from my home office. I own my home. He owns his home. We share friendship, love, companionship and romance together. We communicate well. We are very happy and spend most of our time together. We are committed to one another.
Two years ago, I moved into his home. It has been wonderful.
There is one thing, however, I am struggling with. He has said he is reluctant to get married again because of his two failed marriages. For reasons of establishing a commitment, I would feel more comfortable with our living arrangement if we became engaged, even without ever setting a date. He recently said if we are still together 10 years from now, then he would marry me.
I am still trying to figure out the meaning of that statement. What is he waiting for? Is he waiting to marry me so he can be guaranteed a caregiver as he gets older? I am not sure what to do. I have thought about moving back into my home and returning to dating status with him.
Should I stay or should I go?
— A.
A.: I appreciate your trusting me with this, but it’s your happiness so you’re the one you need to trust.
He has set out his terms with, from my perspective, enough clarity for you to make an informed decision. Maybe that’s because anyone packing two divorces gets a pass from me on providing better reasons for not marrying again, but, as I said, this isn’t about me.
The 10-year promise is a bit of an eye-roller, but mostly for its utter transparency in attempting to kick the thing down the road.
In fact, if he really does have the ulterior motive of manipulating you to his advantage, then he need only propose disingenuously and never act on it. You’ve said yourself you’d abide that.
In Fact II, the Sequel: If he were in it just for a caregiver, then he’d have played the odds and married you on the spot the moment he sensed you were willing. His preference to remain unmarried and unentangled financially leaves him just as “leave-able” as you are. More so, if you account for his being retired and a decade older, though those could prove irrelevant.
This puts you, with him, exactly where his words and actions put you: in a loving, romantic, companionable, “happy,” “wonderful,” indefinite cohabitation.
So. You have a basic choice now between the man you want or the terms you prefer. You can’t have both. And when you can’t have both, you do what we all have to do — you prioritize.
The one (more) thing I will say about your decision is to watch for irony. If you move out over this, then you will be doing so because you would rather live apart for sure now than live with a risk of parting later that would be, due to your merely cohabiting, slightly elevated above what the risk of parting would be if you got engaged (possibly for show) or legally married.
Mouthful, sorry.
And emphasis on slightly elevated, given the three breakups-while-married between you. We don’t need a reason to challenge our priorities, but you have a great one here.
Write to Carolyn Hax at tellme@washpost.com. Get her column delivered to your inbox each morning at wapo.st/haxpost.
