This letter shows why "living together" can be problematic re: people's expectations. Yeah, I've lived with guys. But living together *isn't* marriage (unless you're in a common law state and meet those requirements).

(Actually, I hold both the adults here accountable for the fact that they're living together when there's a child in the picture -- I don't think it's fair to the kid -- gives the impression of "family" when they're not.)

The fact that this couple hasn't gotten married yet -- even though the LW (the woman) insists their relationship is so great -- is a sign. But it sounds like she really wanted everything to be OK, so she overlooked it.

I sympathize with this guy's desire to protect/advance his career. If he does (as the LW says) have great prospects -- then making a permanent decision to sideline his career/ money-earning potential -- that's a big deal. And for a girlfriend? If it was a woman getting ready to ditch her high-paying job for a live-in boyfriend and his kid, what would our reaction be?

In our winner-take-all, crumbling social net society -- if you have a chance to get into a more secure, high-earning career, you better think damn hard before you throw that chance away, because it doesn't come around that often.

And there are some careers where it *really matters* where you live. If you're a financier or financial publishing: New York. If you're into movies or TV: better live in LA. Politics or lobbying? Wash DC. If you want to climb those career ladders, you can't do it long-distance.

Cary said beg. So stop it with the "beg" stuff.

and yes both careers and children are conscious decisions, contrary to what the writer says. She choose to have a child, now the child's welfare should be her first priority. Most single men, who are career minded, think of single mothers as kryptonite, since they are. The x-boyfriend is right.

As a divorced father, I am trying very hard to stay civil to you when I say this: can you try to get your head out of your self-obsessed ass and consider your child and her dad for one second. Quite apart from seemingly being too dumb to realise when you're not loved by someone you are missing the bigger, glaring issue, and that is that you cannot just bugger off when the mood strikes you. Your child will lose her dad to distance and you ex-husband will see his being 'a good guy and a good father' be rewarded with his child being taken away from him to the other side of the country, a decision which in the society we live in is apparently still totally up to the mum (and by the way I am writing from Europe which is no better).

Just consider for a second if you will, how you would feel if the roles were reversed? Being divorced does not absolve you from some sort of human decency and responsibility to two other human beings. Oh, how casual and oblivious you can afford to be!

The woman sounds like she's already in a good situation, I don't think it's worth it to muck it up by having a boyfriend around.

She laments her situation because she wants unconditional love from a man, the kind of love that makes sacrifices. Yet she's unwilling to risk the stability of herself and her child by making a sacrifice herself.

You don't think her boyfriend has been living a sacrifice by purchasing a house with a divorcee, helping raise the daughter of her and her ex-husband (who she says is a good guy and good father... making one wonder why exactly there was a divorce)? Her relationship (and likely every relationship she has in the future) is going to consist of compromise and hidden agendas, as she navigates the rocky waters that is the dating world of mid-30s single parents (whether they be male or female).

Another letter writer made a comment about "the bell being rung", and it applies excellently in this case. She married for passionate, grand, huge love once before, and all it got her was a divorce, an ex husband, and a child support check. Maybe she needs to rethink her relationship goals in light of her history?

In short, in light of her relationship history she seems to be the one with selfish goals, not the boyfriend. She should "divorce" from this boyfriend now (just like the good-guy-and-good-father ex-husband) and get ready for a string of similar relationships... unless she relects on what's truly important in a relationship.

In the immortal words of the best-selling book, and from one who's been there, it's time to end this relationship. This, I think, is the problem with living together without a marriage commitment. When something like a job opportunity comes up, splitting up becomes an option, which it is not in a marriage. That's why when people are really into each other, they go ahead and get married, or at least get engaged. If you were married, he would know that part of the deal is he stays in the city where you now live. Since you both chose not to get married, that gives him the freedom to place a job opportunity over your relationship. You don't want to stay with someone who values their career more than their relationship with you, believe me.

Your first obligation is to your child, and living in the same city as her father is something you can't just toss aside. If it means you lose this man, that's the tradeoff you make for having a child. I don't mean this to be judgmental, like some of the people who admonish "having a child is a choice." I mean that you were blessed with this child, and maybe that means you don't get some other things in life that you want. No one can have everything all the time. When you feel frustrated at the limitations that having a child places on you, try to think about all the infertile women -- single or married -- who would give anything in the world to be able to have a child. You have the greatest love of all. Other love will follow.