Not happy with husband’s new living arrangements

I always think it's a huge self-own when "cool wife" gets trotted out as an insult. No, I'm not paranoid about other women, even when they're interesting or attractive - I love it when I see other women thriving. No, I'm not so distrustful of DP that I need to monitor his movements or who he socialises with - he can do what he wants, as can I. Sounds cool to me, in a very enjoyable way.

Well I’m not a cool wife so in this situation yes I wouldn’t like it either.

OP's discomfort has nothing to do with the living arrangement or even the socialising. She'd be fine with it if he was staying with a man or an older or more boring woman.

The discomfort is entirely about her territorialism when her husband is in the vicinity of an interesting, attractive woman, which suggests levels of either insecurity or distrust or both that I couldn't be dealing with in a relationship.

He is married and he is also a flatmate. The two are not mutually exclusive if your lifestyle involves working away 5 days a week. One of my old flatmates stayed at our place 5 days a week and was also engaged to his fiancee in a different city. The two things were true at the same time.

Why on earth would dinner out or going to the cinema cross a boundary? These are again things that I do frequently with male and female friends, in groups and one-on-one.

"Playing house" is a weird way to put it. He's lodging. That means he lives in a house and does domestic stuff. He's not playing at anything, he's doing the normal boring daily things that come with living in a house with someone, whether that's your flatmate or sister or brother or partner or landlady. These are not activities that are reserved for spouses only.

The alternative is a week in a soulless business hotel, which is frankly miserable (I've been there and done that) - hence the reason some people prefer to seek lodging arrangements. But the domestic/house stuff is inherent in that. It's the point.

Semantics. I’m married and stayed away from home for work for about 18 months. I shared a house during that time so I was a house mate Monday to Friday.

He is married, he’s not a ‘flat mate’ to anyone, he’s staying somewhere during the week for work.

dinner out and a cinema trip... again, you're suggesting activities that are completely platonic! Yes, people might do them on dates, but they're also very normal things to do with a friend or housemate.

Well he’s not gaslighting her or calling her delusional and crazy, he’s taken how she feels on board, no one appears to be behaving unhinged.

OK.
But not everyone's, was my point.

Does he? Or is he just keeping her happy?

OP’s dh understands where she is coming from and that aligns with my thought process.

You say 'playing house', I say 'lodging' and 'eating/cooking together and being sociable'.
We seem to divide into people who think that spending relaxed time in a house (and doing necessary things like eating!) with someone of the opposite sex is/should be the preserve of couples, and people who don't.

Another person who ‘gets’ it. As I’ve said in pp, it’s not just about the possibility of sex it’s about as you say, playing house, when he already has a home. Some posters are fine with their DH not only living with another woman during the week but hypothetically going shopping with them and doing domestic stuff with them. What next, dinner out because neither felt like cooking, or a cinema trip? Where does the boundary stop? My friend’s husband works away but he stays in different rent-a-room set ups, he doesn’t have a second ‘home’.

Agree it’s good to see OP’s dh understands, unlike some on here.

Well, it is a combo of being like a flatmate and having dinner and a glass of wine with a mate of the opposite sex. Those are the obvious comparators. Sure, it's more than 'now and again', but obviously it is, because of the number of days he's required to work away from home.

I'm not sure why you'd even marry anyone if this is really how you see the world.

Are you really so unaware of the countless incidences where a man and a woman share the same space and don't end up having sex? You may be sex-obsessed and governed by animal instincts but most people can control them.

Yeah this.

Others will bang on about trust about how their husbands would never do that and they trust them.

Well good for you. I trusted my husband, he would never do that to me. Well he did.

Look at all the threads on Relationships, women tying themselves in knots because he is suddenly mean and picky and having a go. No, he cant be cheating, doesnt have time...wouldnt do that....think he is having a breakdown.

They were all found to be cheating. Some were players but most were not. Most were men who got cosy with someone else and then took the next step. Why do you think that the "work wife" often ends up being the Second Wife?

Hard no to this arrangement if it was me.

I don't agree that they will likely end up having sex. But I think the possibility of an emotional bond is very likely, and that's what I'd be uncomfortable with.

If she is single, interesting and under eighty they wlll very likely end up having sex. Let’s be clear that is likely given how well they are getting on. So it’s up to you. You can either let it happen or you can put your foot down - your choice.

No op . Just No. And you know why.

"Attractiveness" is usually a synonym for "good-looking" so who can possibly say why I jumped to looks.

"Months at a time" is inherent in the set-up. He's lodging there for months at a time so yes, basic socialising around the house will happen for months at a time. That's what happens when someone works away and lodges.

Setting boundaries just because she's interesting makes it even clearer that this isn't a problem with the set-up, it's about your insecurity. Your husband isn't allowed to socialise with interesting women in a standard lodging set-up because you feel boring (and so have to ensure he doesn't get to talk to interesting women?).

It's not an insecurity I'd pander to in a relationship, that's all I can say. The idea of DP insisting I curtail my socialising with men because they're interesting and attractive is ludicrous.

But your husband is so good luck to him in his joyless Premier Inn with no human contact from now on. Or only human contact with other men and dull women, I guess.

Why would going to the supermarket together be an issue? The romantic thrill of the condiments aisle? I've been to the supermarket with everyone I've ever lived with.

Never shared laundry and that's not the norm but I also wouldn't have an issue with it because again: not romantic, not sexual, not crossing boundaries.

If you lodge somewhere, that is a domestic set-up. It's a home, not a hotel. That's the point. Business hotels can be awfully soulless - living in someone's home means as well as your own room you probably have access to a communal living room to relax in, a kitchen to cook in and at least one other person to chat to. That's the entire reason people seek out lodgings rather than just staying in a Premier Inn for a week. And I'm not sure why having a domestic set-up is even a problem or a threat. No, people don't usually have two domestic set-ups, but people don't usually work away from home - and OP has explained why that's necessary.

In any case it's clear the set-up isn't actually the problem - it's the attractiveness of the woman.

I was told I was ‘weird’ and ‘controlling’ in a similar situation. Turns out I was right. He was shagging her and telling me I was nuts for not trusting him. It’s ok to say you’re not happy. Why can’t he share with males?

Well yes… why would going to the supermarket together or sharing laundry be a problem? He might have his main home but Monday-Friday this is is temporary home, so from a purely practical point of view it would make sense for him to leave his work clothes there which could mean they end up taking turns with laundry to make it fair. I don’t really see the difference between a lodger and a housemate tbh except one has a live-in landlord and the other doesn’t. Like I said earlier though there is no rule that says lodgers must be banished to their bedroom and never socialise with their host. I completely agree with gannett on this.