To wonder why living together has become the benchmark for others to recognise you’re in a serious relationship?

[AllHeart1]

I’ve read on here on numerous occasions that “if you’re not living together then he’s not your partner, he’s your boyfriend.” “If you don’t live together then it’s not a serious relationship,” and most recently “we didn’t invite anyone who wasn’t living together to our wedding.” And no this is not a TAAT, it’s a lot more common on here than that example.

Thing is, it wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t live together until they were married. yet they were engaged, planning a wedding, finding a house, wedding gifts were generally things they’d need in their new home.

And yet some people would think now that because they’re not living together, the relationship can’t possibly be serious? When actually couples move in together after five minutes of starting a relationship and their relationship is seemingly more real than that of the couple planning to move in together after the wedding.

There are all sorts of reasons why couples can’t live together such as geographical location/not wanting to blend families while children are small/both being used to their own space now., But that surely doesn’t mean that that relationship can’t be a serious one and that that person is just a boyfriend?

Couples who don’t live together before getting married / don’t have kids before getting married are more likely to STAY married than couples who live together / have kids before marriage.

I think it’s a commitment thing. It’s easier to move in with someone and makes financial sense ( share bills ) than it is to make the commitment of marrying them.

People are more likely just to move in with virtually anyone than to marry virtually anyone x

What’s your situation OP?

You mention blending families being an issue. I think not wanting to blend is exactly what makes it less committed. Moving in together when one or both people has children is a significant step and you don’t blend or become a family unit until you do live together. Choosing not to is a defining factor about the relationship. There will be plenty of good reasons for this but they’re reasons that say something about the relationship.

I think you can have committed, serious relationships in a number of different ways.

Obviously the norm is to live together, but it doesn't have to be, and as a previous poster said, age group etc can have a big impact.

I'm married and hope to stay so for a long, long time. But if I didn't, maintaining independent finances, property, children's inheritance etc would be a big blocker for me to formally cohabit again , even through I may love and care for another partner.

Probably because you think you know someone until your living together :D then you TRULY know them.

I dont think people HAVE to live with eachother but i do think it changes the dynamic, i knew my husband when we lives seperately but then when we moved in together it was different, he had things he did that i didnt know etc and sometimes its the make or break of a relationship... some people are lovely but living with them would be a nightmare

If you're not living together then it's not that serious, is it? More like a hobby.
As opposed to as job..?
YANBU OP. I was married and cohabiting with my ex husband for less time than I have been with my current partner. The fact that I know my teens need space, my DP needs peace sometimes and I need ALL my wardrobe space just means I'm making grown up decisions NOT that me and DP are not in a committed relationship. One day we will live together, its planned, but not now.
Sometimes people astonish me with their lack of imagination but what can you do?

Yes, me too. If my relationship with DH failed, I do not imagine I'd be amenable to the prospect of radically altering the dc's home by blending with another family.

But I also wouldn't consider the relationship to be serious or commited because, emotions aside, there's no real skin in the game and can be dissolved without any real effort.

In my parents generation it was commonplace to be dating around a year and get married. Now many people are together for years - decades even - an either don't get married at allo or do so a ways down the road. So marriage isn't the social signifier it used to be. Sharing a home is a fairly good alternative. Ditto having children together.

Obviously there will be some outliers - those who move in together at the drop of a hat, just like there were married people who split up after a few months - but on the whole it's a shorthand for difference between a boyfriend/girlfriend and a partner.

'Partner' suggests (1) that two people are sharing a life together and (2) equality in the relationship in terms of contribution, effort, time, etc.

While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's not typical that the above criteria is met by two people who aren't living together because each person has a limited amount of resources.

If they are contributing to their own household (financially, domestically, temporally), they're unlikely to be able to put as much of that stuff into someone else's life too. And certainly not as much as the other person is able to contribute to their own home/life.

It doesn't mean the relationship isn't serious or committed, but it does suggest that the relationship isn't a priority for their resources.

Like you say, OP, there might be good reason not to live together. People will always judge, especially if someone does something differently. So if you're happy, then ignore them.

Its not about judging, it is just assuming the relationship is not so committed that they want to live together.

I think MN gives an unrepresentative sample to be honest - people post when they need advice on a situation and often those situations are out of the ordinary.
Whilst I totally appreciate others mileage may vary, I've just done a head count of all the married/ engaged//dating couples I can think of. I've got to over 100 across all social classes and circumstances and only 1 of those live apart ( in their case one travels a lot for work to another country and has kept their house there.)

So whilst I don't really give a monkeys about what other people do, I don't think it's commonplace, no.

For me it was a huge step. Unless I thought there was a big chance I’d marry him there’s no way I’d have moved in. I’m still surprised when I meet people who’ve lived with multiple partners.

Of course that’s nor to say if you don’t live with someone your relationship isn’t serious.

I wonder if those who see this as a judgement think there is something wrong in being in a less committed relationship? I don't. I know three women, two widows, who don't want a serious live-in committed relationship.They want companionship and sex. And that is fine.

It can be serious if you’re not living together. You can have serious boyfriends, you can have a fiancé if you’re engaged.
You’re just not partners - the term implies a shared life which you obviously don’t have if you’re not living together.

As a general rule, moving in together is a sign that the relationship is becoming serious. There’s shared finances, sharing your space constantly and no longer making decisions based solely on your own interests. Some of those things will occur before moving in together but they happen with increased frequency when you move in together. Some indicators of seriousness (support during bereavement, for example) could happen when first dating or 30 years later.

Not all couples want to move in with each other or are able to, although it probably is the norm to at least see it in your future together. Cohabiting is a very easy external indicator of the seriousness of a relationship, as it’s a given that large decisions (where to live, how much to pay in rent/mortgage, home improvements) will now be made together.

I met my DH at uni and we moved in together after uni, after about 18 months of dating. I’m sure to most people us moving in at 21 wasn’t serious. We’d already come to the decision that this was serious about 9 months before that though when we had our dissertations to write - we both asked if this was serious enough to be a distraction for our final studies. Nobody else witnessed this decision though, it was nobody’s business. At some time during us living together, everyone decided we were serious. Suddenly then we were dragging our feet too much and 3 years of living together before getting engaged was too slow. The only people who can judge the seriousness of a relationship is the couple themselves. However, that won’t stop others giving you their opinion because people like to share their opinion.

Living together doesn't signify anything in some cases. Many people in abusive relationships are living together, married. They're desperately looking for ways out. It can be healthy to live apart and it doesn't signify anything negative about the relationship.

And you can most certainly be partners even if you're not living together. It's how you choose to define yourself and your relationship. It's just society that says living together is the way to be a 'proper' couple.

Imagine if people started saying that if you’re not married then it’s clearly not a serious relationship even if you have children, and given the fact that not being married is fairly commonplace these days.

People do say this. All the time.

Couples with children who are married are more likely to stay together than those who aren’t. And you can feel your unmarried relationship is as serious as being in a marriage but a lot of people realise it’s not the same at all when the relationship ends. Especially the women. Especially if they’re not financially independent. Having a child commits you to that child. It doesn’t necessarily commit you to the other parent or there wouldn’t be so many single parent families where the other adult fucked off during/after the split and doesn’t even see their child or pay anything towards then.

Mumsnet very often only sees a situation, or values, through the western secular lense.

I did not move in with my DH until after we married. Prior to marriage we were engaged, and often referred to each other as ‘partners’ although technically we were fiancé/fiancee but we were very much committed and serious. We would have been surprised if anyone had judged our relationship as otherwise. We would often spend the entire day together, shop together, cook together, do al sorts of things together and often stay overnights, but we lived separately.

It was the norm for us to wait until marriage to live together, as it is in much of our circles. Mumsnet always thinks, ‘well I do this, my friends also do this so that must mean the rest of the world lives like this too’ but there are many reasons and values why a couple may not live together, yet still be in a committed and serious relationship.

"Constant togetherness is central to a committed relationship"

• really? Why? There are tons of couples who technically live together and are absolutely not constantly together.... and why would being constantly together be a good or healthy thing anyway?

I think we are a little narrow minded at seeing living together as the inevitable goal and progression in a relationship. It's a bit like assuming that the point of marriage is to have children, and if you don't then you haven't gotten there yet' or you can't for some reason.

Different set ups are right for different people - long term.

My partner and I don't live together and are very very committed. We live life as partners, not a dating couple, living in one another's homes, day to day, depending on convenience. My daughter, a couple of days ago, referred to my DP as her "daddy number 2". We probably spend about 70% of our non working hours together.

If we moved in together, we would either have inadequate space for the blended family, or would have to go through the huge disruption and financial cost of selling both and moving. Perhaps we will at some point, but I can't think of many advantages, other than the social recognition of a seriousness we already know we have.

*actually, a lot got married quickly because the woman was pregnant, and it was seen as wrong for her not to be. The term “had to get married” was very real back then.

And then they generally lived in an unhappy marriage for the next 50 years or so, by which time people celebrated how happy they must be together given they’d been together all that time.*

So, with that in mind, its a good thing that people move in together. Its 'testing' each other out before making the bigger commitment of marriage.

Moving together is means having to sort finances out together (generally). Theres just a lot more added strain to relationship. So yeah, it is a bit more serious.

I think, in most cases, you don’t really know someone until you live together.

I just think it's weird when people who consider one another 'partners' don't live together, barring an engagement/not living together before marriage (which I think is very sweet and I secretly hope my children do this).

I don't get it. I would be miserable living away from my husband. I understand different strokes and all that, but it's just weird.

Im engaged and we don't live together. Imagine the cognative acrobatics you lot will need to get your heads round that!

Also i dont think its weird not to live together...i love space.

How can you know someone well enough to marry them if you haven't lived together? I think people who haven't lived with their partner have no idea how different it is living with someone to spending a lot of time with them. Very naive.

But you effectively live together in each property part time.

He has seen me get stressed on Sunday evenings. He knows it helps me to get my dd's bags packed and uniform washed and ironed and he does that for me. He sees me through the Monday morning rush. He sees and accompanies me through 'veg in front of tv' mode, period and not feeling sexy mode, parents visiting mode, too busy working from home to spend time with him mode.... all the modes.
He takes the bins out and repairs stuff in my house. He knows when my car's MOT is due and gets it done. What exactly are we not experiencing from a committed relationship?

The only difference is that maybe 1-2 days a week we base ourselves in separate spaces for practical or emotional reasons. We
All know some personal space and self determination is good in a relationship... so having two spaces to enable that is great... that doesn't make us less committed. Just makes us less imprisoned and with more space available! 🙂