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?

I can think of loads of reasons why people would choose not to live together yet still be committed to each other. In fact there might be far fewer relationship problems if people didn't live together - some people are good people but very hard to live with.
personally if i ever had another relationship I wouldn't live with the person - been there, done that. I like my own space, I like owning my own house and I would never put myself in a position where if we split up assets such as shared housing had to be split and I had to move.
That doesn't mean I can't love and care for someone just as much as someone who chooses to live with their partner.
Several of my friends in my age bracket (55+)have chosen to have their own separate living accomodation after divorce etc and starting a new relationship.
Being married and living together is generally more healthy for men - married men live longer - for women it is more stressful.

Not living together means you aren’t sharing the daily stresses and strains of life together.

I don’t agree that this necessarily means the relationship isn’t serious - as PPs have said there can be many different reasons for it which don’t include “casual bf/gf”.
But I can see why many people look at the obvious and assume it’s not that serious. I’d like to think that people would know their own friends and family well enough as individuals to know what the score was, but apparently that’s not always the case and understandably causes some upset.

My DP and I spend lots of time together but don't share a home. His is in France and mine in the UK. We've been together for 12 years in a committed relationship.

@KurriKurri I think you are right - it is a feminist issue. Self determination should not have to be sacrificed in order to be committed and that tends to be a sacrifice women make more than men.

Yep. I agree with everything you say BraveGoldie. Its silly to think that just because you are not under the same roof 365 days a year you dont really know each other! And ditto to "all the modes" DP knows me better that ex husband ever did and we share our lives.
Also this:
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.
I don't particularly want to live together, but I actually won't before marriage. And maybe not even then, unless there's a very big shed!

DH and I didn't fully live together for a while even after we got married - mind blowing for some. It was sometimes tough but there were good logistical reasons at the time and our relationship is no less strong because of it. One of the worst aspects was the judgement from other people

I know this is rare but I do know a married couple who don’t live together. They’re very happy and in love but for practical reasons don’t live together, it works for them.

I didn’t live with DH for a few years and during that time we went through some real hardships together. We spent half of the week together so I wouldn’t say we weren’t serious at all. All that has changed since we moved in together and got married is me nagging at him more .

One of the worst aspects was the judgement from other people

Why would you care what other people think?

So if your child moves in with someone after a week you think it’s serious then?

But you'd have to concede that most people don't do that after a week. They date for a while, get serious, decide to live together and then make plans to do so.

My DD was seeing her DH for a couple of years before they moved in together. Until they did that, I considered him as her boyfriend. When they moved in together he became her partner and was automatically her +1 for any invitations.

My DS is a full time single father. He has had a girlfriend for a couple of years - no plans to move in as they both have kids and have to stay where they are due to school locations. They don't call each other " partners" and I wouldn't automatically put her on an invitation.

You might not like it, but I think that it's pretty normal to see couples who live apart as being uncommitted.

@AllHeart1

Agree. It's very odd. DH's cousin was with her partner for 20 years (from when she was 45 and he was 55,) and they never lived together.(They met in the mid 1990s...)

She lived in Wrexham and he lived in Chester..... So like 12-13 miles apart. And for the duration of their relationship, they lived apart. He was widowed, and she had never been married before. They both had no children, and both had their home already paid for a few years before they met, and both homes were small and cheap to run.

So they each kept their own home. Some weeks they spent 2-3 days a week at each others home, other weeks they just met once or twice for dinner or for lunch. They also went on day trips and weeks abroad together, and to the cinema and theatre, and they went on rambling trips and picnics, and to the zoo, the pub, the safari park and all sorts, like any other couple... , but still had their own space/own home.

Sounds fecking perfect actually! When my DH hogs the TV remote all day, and puts random shit on the TV, from the 1970s that he (and I) have seen 100 times, hogs the bathroom for an hour at a time, and leaves shit lying around, forgets where it is, and keeps blaming for moving it, I think the 'live apart' brigade have got it made!!!

I never thought DH's cousin and her partner were not a real couple, and the rest of my family didn't either, although we did all think it was quirky and unusual to live apart in a long-term relationship. (Not in a bad way though.)

I would never think badly of any couple who lived apart long-term, OR that they were not serious. And to not invite one person in a couple to a wedding and suchlike, 'because they are 'not living together' is bizarre. And rude.

Many people DO take peoples relationships more seriously though, if they are married/living together, and the law definitely do. You have much less rights than a couple who are married/living together. (Married couples will virtually all be living together ...)

My DH's cousin's partner died when she was 65 and he was 75, and he left everything to her in his will. (Including his house.) As he never had children, and had no living relatives, it was not contested, but if he had had an ex wife, or kids, DH's cousin may have had a battle on her hands.

I'm almost 50 and my partner is in his 50's. We are in a committed relationship.

We both never want to live with someone else again and certainly never want to get married again.

There are no blended families to consider and moving in with each other for financial reasons isn't necessary.

I'd possibly agree with the sentiment for the younger generation but I don't think it matters so much to the older generation.

Hmm. I sort of get what you mean. My 3 year relationship is somewhat at arms length due to both of us having been burnt by exs leaving for other people, children who don't need the extra issues of blending families and wanting to maintain our independence (or non dependence) on someone else. We are serious about each other and in about a decade we plan to live together but it may well be by then that we prefer the set up as it is. I'm not sure what's so bad about not sharing all the crappy bits of togetherness. Usually, it doesn't matter what other people think but it can affect things like wedding invites etc which can create problems.

I don't live with my partner, and I probably won't. We are in a serious, committed relationship.

The thing is, I'm also in a serious committed relationship with myself, and I operate better when I have my own space.

It is probably different for me because I am financially independent; we don't have children together; and we've both done the cohabiting thing in previous relationships - and it is not an indicator of depth or success, imo.

Why would you care what other people think?

Mainly it just got really, really tedious constantly being asked to explain/justify our situation. Especially to those who were implying not so subtly that, as a wife, I should instantly compromise my career to solve the situation.

I agree. I'm divorced, not dating at the moment but due to my faith I won't live with a man until I'm married. That won't mean I'm not in a committed relationship until that day.

A relationship is committed if it's exclusive and the couple intend to stay together long term. Whether they live together or marry or not is immaterial to that.

I totally agree with you OP.

Some people live in bubbles and have a very narrow outlook on life

I agree about part of it and don't agree about part of it.

I think of the terminology as being partner=living together, boyfriend=not living together.

However, I don't think a partner outranks a boyfriend, and I would invite both to a wedding (well, not if one person had a partner and a boyfriend !) After all, all relationships start somewhere and, as other people have said, there are people who are firmly committed to each other but have to live in different cities or even countries for their jobs. If it was very new relationship I would probably put "...and guest" rather than the other person's name, just in case it didn't work out, but I would respect that person's right to have their boyfriend/girlfriend with them if everybody else was allowed to bring a loved one.

I don’t think living together is the sign of a committed relationship. It’s between the couple. No one else has a right to stick their beak in.

I lived together with a boyfriend as a teenager. It was a fucking disaster. I don’t think we were any more committed than a couple who have decided not to live together for any of many reasons

An example being @HugeAckmansWife above who is being very sensible in not just flinging her children into a blended family

Don't live together = boyfriend
Live together = partner/fiance/husband

Or OlaEliza it could be - don’t live together - fiancé as it was with me.

When people didn't live together before marriage, they generally got married a lot faster. They didn't just "date" for 6 years and then get married

Long engagements were very common in the olden days among classes that might not be able to afford their own household straightaway.

Which is also the reason dh and I were only able to live together 10 years after we first became a couple, 6 years after we formally got engaged. In the meantime, I did a PhD and paid off my student loan, he saved up for the house deposit.

@PurpleFlower1983
“ I think, in most cases, you don’t really know someone until you live together.”

That’s your opinion and experience. I completely felt like I knew my fiancé/ husband before we lived together. Like I said before, in many cultures and religions it is very normal to live apart until marriage and they would not agree that they did not really ‘know’ each other (unless it’s an arranged marriage of course, which mine was not).

Why do you think that @OlaEliza?

I know of two married couples who’ve been together 30+ years who don’t live together

I met my partner 14 years ago and we have been in a serious relationship for 8. It upsets me that because we don't live together people would think of us as not being in a serious relationship. We are engaged, committed to each other and certainly not interested in being with anyone else. We spend every other weekend together, have lots of holidays and speak/Skype/text most days. It works for us.

There are lots of reasons why we can't live together at the moment but we do plan to get married and live together eventually. Certainly my family and friends see us as being in a serious relationship and he is always invited to weddings/parties etc.

I have numerous friend who have moved in with multiple partners in the time we've been together and the relationship hasn't lasted. Why should they be considered as more serious than us?