"Boston marriage" - any experience?

Do you have enough bedrooms that every person in the house can have their own? I do agree with the person who said you should each rent out your places and rent somewhere together. I would definitely agree to split all bills and a half and keep your money separate. You earn more and shouldn't have to subsidise her.

Given that neither of you has been a single parent for very long, I wouldn't make big decisions at this stage. Living together as a quasi-married non-sexual couple isn't that big a decision for either of you, and is relatively easy to unscramble if need be. But it's a huge decision for your children. If it were to go wrong for any reason, and they had become attached to your friend and her children, they would be bereft.

In a way, you'd be better moving next door to one another, or to a house which is in some way divided so that you could all have companionship when you wanted it, but would also symbolise (to the children) that you are still separate entities. It would also make things much more straightforward financially. If you were next door neighbours/in two halves of one house, you could quite easily share childcare in either one house or the other, which would save a lot of money.

I just wouldn't plunge into a 'marriage' even of this type quite so soon.

If you are going to do a trial for 6 mths don’t rent out the other home - the costs involved with setting up a tenancy are not worth it for just 6 mths and worst case scenario is the tenants won’t move out and it will take another year to evict them. Wait until you make the arrangement permanent

Is suggest it’s worth renting somewhere new together rather than one family move in with the other

Doing that will set up a guest / visitor dynamic which will be unhelpful to making it work.

If I were you I’d trial for one year with a break at 6 months in case it really doesn’t work.

And then consider longer term arrangements after.

It might be this works for a few years while the kids are young and then you both prefer to have your own places to move back to.

I love the idea and have often thought living more collectively - the old multiple generations together/ extended family together idea but with people I choose would be great during the years our children are young and it’s tough and honestly other women get it and can help and support each other in a way some men never will.

I think it sounds amazing and sounds like you’ve thought it through and continue to do so.

How about an annual renewable “contract” (like four weddings and a funeral) and a bi-annual review. So that you have a point where you both affirmatively decide you each want to continue and if one or both does not, it’s less dramatic. And you each have a scheduled time to talk about what’s working well and what you’d like to change.

From PP lots think it’s a good idea (& a friend & I planned to do similar when our children left home) but as suggested I’d be cautious & give it a trial period before you commit to anything that takes time/money/effort to get out of.
Given that you plan to outsource the elements that tend to cause friction in a couple it could work, but I’d be concerned about the children if it went wrong after a few years.

This is the second time I’ve heard of a Boston Marriage but the first time it was considered euphemistic for a lesbian relationship!

Anyway - back on topic - I love the idea. I kind of love the idea of communal living and this just seems like a good compromise.

My aunt and her friend did this for a while. They met in antenatal class so their sons were very close in age, by a few days. It worked well for a few years, but I don't think it was ever meant to be permanent.

I can see loads of benefits to this BUT you would have to think very carefully about how this will affect the kids if they come see the other adult as a parent, and then one of you meets someone and you end the arrangement. It would essentially be putting them through a break up of their home/"family". It could also cause huge issues with them resenting a new partner if they see their other "parent" being replaced. Also how will the children feel if have to move put while the others stay. I think it could potentially be less damaging if you had a home where you both have your own space/some separation so there is a clearer divide between the two families, but you still get the benefits whenever needed.

You won't be able to risk losing your job - a claim for UC would result in them refusing to accept you aren't a couple.

I think this sounds fantastic!

The only issue I see is if you’re used to living on your own could it might be a big change to have someone there all of the time.

However if you both work, DCs at school all day and you each have your own rooms then you’ll probably hardly ever see each other.

Another scenario to think about is what happens if one of you gets ill or disabled and needs a lot of day-to-day care, either temporarily or permanently.

@TractorAndHeadphones The other family were completely unrelated to me - just friends. But, yes, I think the multigenerational aspect was one reason it worked well. The grandparents (one of their sets of parents) were also temporary residents as they have just moved back from abroad and were house-hunting.

Yesss I love this idea! PPs have raised good points about making sure you're both on the same page but it sounds like you have a great relationship established and it could be a great solution for both of your families.

I'm part of a large women-only online community and we constantly joke that we should buy an island and all live together like a commune, and I swear the idea gets more and more attractive by the day. DH is convinced it's a lesbian cult but it's just such an inclusive, supportive space and I have deep (platonic) love and admiration for so many women I've never met in person.

My marriage, and my best friends marriage both broke up, just a few months apart.

We decided to pool our resources and she moved into my house. It made sense financially and also socially. We would both have been very lonely otherwise.

That was 12 years ago. We have gone through a lot together - and are still best mates. The two of us, plus her DD made a new family together.

It sounds a brilliant idea. I'd love that set up.

So if she moves into your place would she be your lodger? What happens to the rent she would get from letting out her place?
On paper it sounds nice.

I think the world would be a better place if more non- partners co-housed.

I'm on the fence.

My DC and I did a variation on this, through necessity. It worked very well, though it was always clear that it was for a finite period. There were some points of irritation, and some fallings-out between the DC (we have 7 between us), but the main reason it worked was that we kept a degree of separation as well as being blended. We did lots together, but lots just with our own children. You also need money and a lot of indoor and outdoor space. I liked it because it was mad and noisy and slightly anarchic, which suited all of us - also included two grandparents, three cats, three dogs and a housekeeper. I'm not sure I would like it so much with just one other woman, even if she were a very good friend. I think I'd feel it as too intense, and a commune would suit me better (also think DC benefit from lots of adults around, telling them to behave, whereas one other adult in the house would be a bit like having a parent who isn't your parent).

I would also say that I wouldn't fancy doing it now that the DC are all teenagers.

Otherwise, I'd echo what PP say about making sure it's watertight legally, if you decide to do it.