I'm moving in with my boyfriend

Eda M. Handly
May 15, 2013


Q: I have been with my boyfriend for a little over seven months and we just signed our lease. I really love him and have never been so in sync with someone before. I feel nervous to move in with him. Am I wrong to be nervous because of the way my last relationship ended? I moved in with the last guy after five months. We were together for two years and he left me for another woman. My current guy is a different person, very affectionate and tender and I can see my future with him. Am I crazy to be nervous just because of my only other experience ended badly? I know it's not fair to my current boyfriend but I can't help but be anxious.

A: You’re not crazy for being nervous but you’re not being rational either. No, it’s not fair to your current boyfriend. It may work out and it may not but that is completely up to the two of you. I can almost guarantee it won’t work if you continually fear things beyond your control. A guy doesn’t move in with you because he has intentions to break your heart. He obviously sees a future with you as well. Don’t make him go running in the opposite direction because you’re insecure and paranoid. Dwelling on your past will only result in missing out on your future.

Q: I've known my partner for three years. I've been in a long distance relationship with him for one year. Lately we've both been fighting and getting mad over the small things. The distance really separates us. But he's been there for me giving me good advice through tough times. He can be a very nice person. 

A couple of months ago he was kicked out of his house for drinking and getting into arguments with his dad. I'm pretty sure my partner has undiagnosed bipolar. His mom is terminally ill and has bad health. He's really depressed and he doesn't have anybody.

A few weeks ago he got drunk and started to threaten suicide. I called him up (he was threatening to cut himself, yelling over the phone) and I was telling him to not hurt himself. A few days passed by and his landlord told him to tell me, "Don't be mean to him, be nice to him, we can hear it when he yells." I don't think we had an argument since then. 

Today he told me that he has until the end of the month to get out of his basement because his landlords think he's no good and causes trouble because they overheard him yelling about cutting himself. I can't help but to feel so guilty. 

He broke up with me. I woke up crying and called him trying to tell him that I love him and I miss him. He has been the only person I've spoken to for a full year. I can't just erase him out of my life. I'm very attached to him. 

He wants to get back together. I want to as well but the guilt is going to eat at me. He is going to be homeless because of me. I can't help but to feel incredibly guilty. I don't know what to tell him. I love him but I feel like I'm causing too many problems for him. I feel like I'm holding him back and I've cost him his apartment and now he has nowhere to go. I seriously feel absolutely terrible. 

I don't know what to tell him. I want to get back together with him but I don't because I just feel too guilty for what I've done.

A: Whoa! There are so many things wrong with this situation I’m not sure where to begin. How about we start with the fact that you cannot take responsibility for his current catastrophe. It’s not your fault he drinks uncontrollably. It’s not your fault he is losing his home. And it’s certainly not your fault he feels so miserable and inept that he threatens to hurt himself. He may very well have bipolar disorder but I’m not a doctor and it’s not your problem. I would wager that his drinking is the more likely culprit for all of his woes. This guy is a train wreck waiting to happen. He broke up with you. Easiest way out ever! You can take the opportunity and run as far away as you can from the tracks or you can lay there with your hands and feet bound by guilt you don’t own, and wait for one his psychotic episodes to run right over the last bit of dignity you have remaining.



Q 2...to quote a Pink Floyd song, ..."run like hell..."

Eph 2 8-10

Don't play house....marry the guy.


Watch Judge Judy before you ever move in with your boy/girlfriend or best friend. It will save you a lot of headaches and money!

The Answer Person

Stop ruining the sanctity of marriage by moving in with him and having sex outside of marriage or they will think you are gay.


To the girl that wants to play house,

Don't move in.
You dont know him. 5-7 months is nothing.
You are infatuated.
Don't play 'hide the sausage',it will cloud your ability to think clearly.
And don't "Ask Eda".



I don't believe this is true in all cases. My wife and I knew each other for 3 mos, moved in together, lived together a couple months and then got married. We have been married 21 yrs. I know we are probably the exception, but sometimes two people just click.

Eda M. Handly

Thanks for reading. The link you provided is terrible advice. Don't have sex or move in together before marriage? This Dr. is suggesting that if you do, eventually you will get to know each other and come down off the "in love high" and end of breaking up because you "get to know each other." That's the whole point isn't it? If it doesn't work out, you're not tied down to a partner that you're not compatible with or wholeheartedly in love with. It takes time to get to know a partner and it takes even more time to know if that love can last. And as knuckdragger points out, relationships and how people should proceed is never a one-size-fits-all. It's time to enter the 21st century...


: )

thinkagain's picture

@4shizzle - Why not ask Eda? I know you wouldn’t want all her hard work obtaining that 30-day online Relationship Counseling certificate to go to waste.

“It’s time to enter the 21st century…”

The misguided’s condescending, amateurish way of saying that moral realism must give way to moral relativism.


Explain the difference between realism and relativism. Please be concise. 150 words or less will do.

Definitions do not count.

Eda M. Handly

Me thinks thinkagain would rather avoid a philosophical discussion, though it was one he began. However, just for the record, I would lean more towards moral evolutionism.

thinkagain's picture

Need my interpretations? OK - I'll give it a go.

Paraphrasing from Charles Taliaferro, “I will define a moral realist as one who believes there exist certain moral truths independent of the approval of any society or individual”.

All rational humans have an innate understanding of right and wrong. The secular humanists, rationalists, liberals (moral relativists one and all) inability to be subject to these absolutes, redefine them according to their own self-interest.

Question - What's the difference between a moral relativist and a person who admits they have no morality at all?

Answer – No difference, they are both sociopaths.

The 'morality' of moral relativism is no different than having no morality at all.

Eda M. Handly

Liberals? LOL! A moral relativist is one who has no morals at all? Your interpretation is bizarre to say the least. I wish I had time to debate with you but, it's been fun. And again, thanks for reading!


Then call me immoral! I love it!!! A freakin' hedonist I am! So much NOT like you and I am proud to say it, as well. Enjoy your pent up frustrations with the rest of the world. We don't mind.

Eda M. Handly

Nope, don't mind at all... :)

Eda M. Handly

As always thinkagain, thank you for reading! From your previous comments on other columns, we all know you're stuck in the 1800's. Who are you to proclaim what is moral or not? Talk about condescending.

Yes, Luv, I would love to hear the difference from thinkagain as well. This could get interesting...

thinkagain's picture

“we all know you're stuck in the 1800's”

Even though instead of an intelligent, professional response, you childishly resort to yet another attempt at a condescending remark, I take that as a compliment.

Eda M. Handly

"I know you wouldn’t want all her hard work obtaining that 30-day online Relationship Counseling certificate to go to waste."

"The misguided’s condescending, amateurish way of saying that moral realism must give way to moral relativism."

I was simply responding to your immature, presumptuous, and passive aggressive, arguably narcissistic, criticism. That is my professional opinion.


Eda, a few weeks ago, you were taken to task in the comments for telling a teen that he wasn't ready for sex - where were your free love modern sensibilities then? You accuse thinkagain of dictating morals here and all I can think is "kettle to pot, color check, over." Before you criticize thinkagain, maybe you should look in the mirror - you're the one making a career out of telling others how to conduct their personal lives, and without demonstrating any qualifications, I might add.

Far from the 1800's, your position has only been accepted for about 30-40 years - it's largely an outgrowth of the welfare state, which steals money from responsible people and uses it to shield irresponsible people from the consequences of their (largely sexual) irresponsible choices, thereby removing the natural motivation not to make them. The difference is, thinkagain's morality is driven by an objective source. Yours is driven by what makes people feel good and what is easy. That's not morality - it's merely a rubber stamp for what your base desires want in the first place.

Thinkagain's position is backed by statistics. Premarital cohabitation correlates strongly with divorce. Those who hold thinkagain's position enjoy greater family stability, and a host of other benefits, whereas your position is tied to a host of social pathologies.

Eda M. Handly

I truly enjoyed your opinion on where my position has been obtained. No qualifications? What are yours Nemesis? It's called advice. Last I checked no one needed qualifications to do that. However, I have thousands of readers here, on my website, and numerous social media that trust me and appreciate my views and enjoying reading what I have to say. I, stand by everything I have ever written. I am not here to convince you or thinkagain, I simply like a good debate and I am never taken to task. I didn't criticize thinkagain, I simply made an observation as to his criticism. As far as those statistics go, did you guys meet over morning coffee? Share them in an email? Statistics... I don't follow those either. Here's a read just for you http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346b...


Eda, try following God's advice and watch your world change.


Whose God? Your's, mine or that other guy's over there>?

Eda M. Handly

Again with those presumptions. Luv asks a good question. Might I add, Eda's world is just fabulous!


The God of the Bible, the one that the Bible points to- Jesus.

You think your world is fabulous.


Oh. That God. The one who is always on point and has our six as well? You didn't read that whole book or else you would not have the POV that you do.

Eda M. Handly

And here, through all my early mornings of being drug to Sunday school as a child, I learned Jesus was the asserted SON of God.

I love how people bring up the bible and God and try to tell everyone else how they should live their lives, how they should think, claim they are immoral unless they fit your ill-advised and one-sided perception of "wholesome and good" people, and have the impudence to inform them of how happy or unhappy they are. And I am condescending? You rely on a book that has been interpreted more ways than I can shake a stick at and conveniently skip over content that fits your agenda or the agenda of others you look up to. Whereas, I'm a free thinker who likes to experience everything the world has to offer, ask questions and educate myself. That means reading opinions and theories and articles and books. Opinions and theories and books as in plural, not just ONE.


You got turned off by a "false" Jesus.

I was like you once. I thought I had all the answers and relied upon my understanding and other people's speculations.

Eda M. Handly

O-M-G! You were once like me? LOL! You don't know me. I never claimed to have all the answers, hence why I ask questions. And yes, I will ALWAYS rely upon my understanding.


I can see that your understanding is in error, just like mine was.

Why say "O-M-G"?



I knew SOMETHING about you prior to this time.


Eda, I said nothing about where your position was obtained - for someone who writes for a living, you sure need to work on reading comprehension. I accurately disputed your assertion that thinkagain's position was out of the 1800's, since it was the dominant view in this country until at least the establishment of the welfare state in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Your position isn't workable without the welfare state to protect people from the natural consequences of the choices it condones.

Regarding qualifications, you're the one holding yourself out as a public resource, advising others on major life decisions, not me. I guess we can take your non-responsive bluster in the face of a direct question to mean you have no qualifications, which makes you a perfect fit for the spelling and grammar challenged staff at the Register. You could be viewed as offering counseling. At least one self-help author, whose defense effectively equated to your "it's called advice" claim, has been held liable under a court ruling that her book was a therapeutic device. As for your thousands of readers, Sandusky is a very small pond, and the majority of your commenters here seem to view you as a joke. You owe more of your following to voyeurism and morbid curiosity than to any appreciation of your views, and if anyone ever did try to hold you responsible for bad outcomes of following your advice, the first defense competent counsel would offer is that your column is merely entertainment, not to be taken seriously.

Your link really doesn't have any value, except to discredit all social science research, which ultimately condemns your opinion in this matter more than thinkagain's, since we all know where the vaunted social science community stands. In any event, there are subjective and objective statistics. The ones that I'm talking about are objective - they don't depend on the opinions or interpretations of survey responsders. Cohabitation, marriage, and divorce figures can be culled from public records. The same goes, since your link brings it up, for statistics regarding the correlation between single parenting and a host of youth social pathologies, as evidenced by arrests and court records, and vital statistics on things like births, deaths, etc, which, again, are not subjective. Whether you choose to stick your head in the sand or not, the fact remains that those who cohabit prior to marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who don't. Of course, to acknowledge these correlations, is politically incorrect these days, because to point out that peoples' situations, and/or the choices that put them in those situations, are anything but optimal, might hurt their precious self esteem.

Regarding LuvBlue's question, all the established faiths are in agreement with thinkagain regarding matters at issue in this discussion.

Eda M. Handly

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I will leave you with an email I received last month from a reader. Because you all love to speak under the guise of anonymity, I will refrain from placing their name here:

"Hello. Im 54yo and happily married. While I don't have any questions for you, I would just like to thank you for writing such a fabulous column in the Sandusky Register. I look forward to reading it every week. You provide very sound advice to these people and I find some of your sayings very humorous and directly to the point. Perfect. I've read alot of articles over the years and while some are good, most are just opinonated, while yours are loaded with good old fashion COMMON SENSE. If only the youngsters of today was equipped with that much common sense, the divorce rate wouldn't be 70%. Keep up the great work young lady, there needs to be more like you."

Thank you for reading Nemesis. Stay tuned for next weeks little dose of common sense...


Even Jerry Springer had SOME fans.


"The one who is always on point and has our six as well?" ( What does that mean ?)

"You didn't read that whole book .." (How would you know?)

"...or else you would not have the POV that you do." (Well then, YOU must have read the "whole book". Tell me you're POV, I'm interested.)

You wouldn't be calling Jesus a liar now, would you?

John 5:39

New Living Translation (NLT)

“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!


Haven't had anyone you know in the military, 4shizzle? "on point" means the front man in the operation. "the six" is known as the rear person covering everyone's backside. And yes, I would call Jesus a liar. He was supposedly as human as you and I and that right there tells me he told a lie or few. That's what being human is all about...we cant always be honest, but we can certainly stir up some crap if we try. :)

PS I did read most of the book. I really couldn't take all that "begot" and "begat" stuff. Some of Psalms are really good while others suck a rock. The two testaments contradict, as well as either testament contradicts itself all on it's own. If you want to live that stuffy, confusing lifestyle, go ahead. Just don't come down and rain on my parade because you disagree.


Do what you want.
God cares way more than I do.




Eda:"I love how people bring up the bible and God and try to tell everyone else how they should live their lives"

Ahem, you make a living on this column telling people how they should live their lives.

Eda: "I never claimed to have all the answers"

Then why do you publicly solicit all the questions?

As you said, it's called advice.

So, basically, you have a huge problem with other people offering advice on how to live based on a systematic worldview that has proven itself pretty well over thousands of years, while you make a living offering advice on how to live based your solitary emotional instincts.



Eda:"Whoa! There are so many things wrong with this situation I’m not sure where to begin"

Oh yeah, no judgment THERE! Yeah, sure.

Transmission from thinkagain to Eda -
Kettle to pot. Color check. Over.


I think she's 'over and out'.