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?

And what about marriages/relationships where one partner works away for long periods. Are they not committed either, given they technically don’t live together for the majority of the time?

It’s a lazy assumption.

I've been with my (2nd) husband for over 20 years, married for 13, and we've only lived together for the last 5 of those years.

Logistics dictated the situation, but we were + are 100% committed from day one.

Lived with first husband in the usual way before + after wedding but living together actually contributed to a swift exit from that short marriage, on my part.

Horses for courses. What works for one might be anathema for others. Sharing the same space proves nothing, and sometimes is even a trap.

*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*

Yes this. My partner is my partner. He shares my life. Just not my home.

I definitely don't think that every couple living together are in a serious committed relationship. And I think it's possible to be in a serious committed relationship where there are temporary, practical reasons not to have married or moved in together and begun to make those kinds of decisions together - finances, family, future. But mostly, I think there is a pretty good correlation between living together and being in a serious relationship.

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

In my case it's precisely because I know him that I know we shouldn't live together!

Im engaged and we don't live together

Me too

Op what's your sensitivity here? This has clearly touched a nerve.

Yes of course it takes a lot more commitment for people to live together and all that entails, from the property to the finances, to even the relationship itself, shopping, cooking, cleaning etc and everything it entails.

Does it mean two people who move in together who have just met are in a committed relationship, well no. Because that's not a sensible thing to do really is it, they hardly know each other. Does it mean people who haven't made that step to share a home together aren't committed, no, of course not, but there is no way round the fact that for most couples the act of setting up home together is a step further in the commitment stakes. It's not just words, it's actions.

*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

Well of course there are people in relationships where it has went wrong. And of course not living together might be healthier for some, but it can also be a negative.

There are always exceptions, but as a pp said, as a general yard stick couples who have made the extra leap and set up home together, are generally in much more committed relationships because of whay setting up home and then living together entails.

AllHeart1 is he your partner though, if he's not your main support? That's exactly what a partner is, isn't it? Your life partner, your 1:1 partner through life's ups and downs, the person with whom you share your life with. If your parents and siblings are more of a support than the man in your life, is he genuinely the adult who partners you through your life?

There are complicating issues. He doesn’t drive and for medical reasons is unable to learn, added to which from a financial point of view I have equity in my house here which will buy me a house outright in my home town without having to take out a mortgage, something which is a necessity for me as I am unable to work currently. Whereas where he lives is totally unaffordable on his salary.

These situations simply aren’t black and white. Hopefully he will be able to move but equally if he can’t does that mean that the relationship is invalid?

As for the PP who asked what my own sensitivity is, actually it had nothing to do with me, but having seen a post on a thread where a OP was told that she was unreasonable for wanting her family to include her partner because they didn’t live together even though they have children together it just strikes me as such a narrow minded view.

And as I said upthread, what of couples who live in the same house on a technical level but where one is e.g. deployed in the army for six/nine months at a time? They’re married/engaged/living together/sometimes have children but surely their not being together makes them boyfriend and girlfriend? Except it doesn’t.

Given the varied amount of relationship dynamics it just isn’t realistic to take such a black and white view.

You are boyfriend and girlfriend if you don't live with each other and have no plans to marry. It isn't an insult. I have had quite a few boyfriends. I even lived with one for a number of years but I never referred to him as anything other than a boyfriend. A partner to me is someone you are committed to living your life with, like a spouse but without the legal commitment.

Thr partner question is a good one, if you're not managing a home together, raising your children together, but instead go back to seperate homes, and deal with the big things in life separately, bills, kids, housing, cleaning" cooking, shopping,maintenance, general day to day life, then how much of a partner are you?

Of course nothing is black and white, of course there are reasons people may choose not to live together, of course there are people living together who bloody shouldn't be, but really can you call someone your partner if you do all the big things alone?

Is it still a committed relationship, yes, is it as committed as a couple who leave their respective homes to set up one together and deal with everything together, from thr money to the kids, to the day to day, arguably not.

That doesn't invalidate a relationship though. That's extreme.. it's simply there is levels of commitment.

I find this attitude incredibly depressing.

I actually think for mature people, particularly when there are children involved, having a committed relationship but living separately is a far better solution than living together.

People who have cohabited and then lived under their own steam appreciate how much joy there is living on their own without having to kowtow to someone else's needs and having to reset their expectations. Financial freedom -- and responsibility - is a glorious thing.

I think we've been conditioned to think cohabiting is the goal, partly because of the legacy of marriage and thinking its an arbitrary "milestone" they have to hit but also because its cheaper for most people. But if you strip back what society thinks, in a lot of cases people do far better living on their own. Cohabitation brings a lot of compromises and hell can be living with other people.

I am in a settled relationship with someone but no way on earth would I want to give up my space, my freedom to live with him. Why is that so hard for people to understand.

Thing is, it wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t live together until they were married

It was that long ago. It was absolutely the norm in the 80s and 90s. I wouldn't call over 30 years "not that long ago"

actually, a lot got married quickly because the woman was pregnant

You have numbers to back that up?

Sure, it happened. What also happened was a lot of people fell in love, got married and enjoyed their long marriage.

People not referring to your man/ your bloke/ your boyfriend using the word partner doesn't mean that your relationship is invalid.

It's obviously fully valid.

The word partner used in a domestic context means the person who shares your life though. It means that they are your main support as you are theirs, you feel responsible towards one another and have responsibilities in common and share the domestic load.

Otherwise what does partner mean?

Harking back to the days when people didn't generally live together before marriage at the start of the thread, nobody was using the word partner then. If not engaged it would be beau or gentleman friend or just friend or perhaps in a long term relationship between older people companion.

Those words are old fashioned now obviously, but they don't mean partner, they perhaps mean something we've lost the word for. I sometimes think language is getting poorer and not evolving, as words drop out of use and other words are just stretched to mean so much they mean nothing of substance...

Partner did only start being used when living together without marriage became socially acceptable.

It's only in relatively recent years that people have started to use partner for someone they're in a romantic relationship with but don't live with. I don't think it's always the wrong word if you don't live together, but there has to actually be a partnership of being one another's main support with intertwined lives as I said for it to mean anything at all - that's what the world means.

Obviously the individuals involved can use whatever word they like, but if you live fairly separate lives and aren't one another's main support with shared responsibility of one kind or another it seems odd to expect other people to automatically use the word partner or see your boyfriend as your partner.

*I actually think for mature people, particularly when there are children involved, having a committed relationship but living separately is a far better solution than living together.

People who have cohabited and then lived under their own steam appreciate how much joy there is living on their own without having to kowtow to someone else's needs and having to reset their expectations. Financial freedom -- and responsibility - is a glorious thing*

Very well put, it ever DH & I were to split, I’d never want to live with someone again

I’m married and don’t live with my husband. I could but I don’t want to work where he lives so I don’t. We will live together one day, not sure when though. We have talked about how we would have kids in this setup. In my mind moving in together is seen as a massive step when really it is a very easy breakable step.

It's been like that for years, certainly I remember it about 30-4O years ago when only couples living together were both invited to weddings and family dos.

thepeopleversuswork I agree with you about the fact living separately is often the responsible, sensible, grown up and sometimes also personally pleasanter choice especially when you have children from a previous relationship, absolutely - but why the need to use the word partner?

Choosing to stay boyfriend and girlfriend is a very valid and sensible, mature choice, but if you keep your lives separate for excellent reasons why insist people see you as partners - in what way are you partners? Being in a committed monotonous long term relationship with completely separate lives in every way is its own thing - fantastic, but also not a partnership. Why does it need to be?

So you have different degrees of commitment.

You have no commitment (not a relationship)

Emotional commitment (boyfriend/girlfriend)

Domestic commitment (moving in together)

Financial commitment (buying a house/having children)

Legal commitment (marriage or civil partnership)

Different people will have a different point at which they’ll consider a relationship serious.

It’s rare for people just to be able to move in together without any obstacles in the way of that.

I'm really not sure it's that rare, or that those people who can are in the minority.

It doesn't really matter what other people 'think'.
If you and your partner are and know you are in a committed relationship but not living together, then just assume anyone who says different hasn't got a bloody clue. Maybe they are co-dependent rather than committed?

We dated for a year (became serious about 6 months into that year) and we were very much bf and gf. We knew we were the loves of each other's lives.

Then we rented together for another 2 years. Even though we lived together and shared our money we still considered each other bf and gf. I dont understand the whole 'must be a partner the second you start living together' thing, but I did obviously see him as a long-term/serious bf.

It was only when we bought our first home together that we started using the word 'partner'. It wasn't that much of a big deal to either of us but we probably just started using the word because by that stage we had wills, life insurance etc together and calling each other bf and gf just didn't quite feel right to us any more (obviously its different for everyone, that's just how we felt).

Then we decided to start a family and while I was pregnant he proposed and we got engaged. Now we obviously use the word 'fiancé' instead of 'partner'.

That's our story - so while we were in the bf and gf stage we were obviously also in the serious and committed relationship stage in our eyes. I don't understand why the 2 things have to be viewed as mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to have a serious gf or bf. To be honest it's only words / labels and doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

I personally find the concept of getting married and then moving in together bizarre and a huge risk as I do think that when you live with someone you get to know them in a really unique and intimate way. I get that it was the norm 'back then' and some people still go down the traditional route today but I don't get it and never will. Doesn't bother me though, each to their own.

Every couple has their own different way of progressing.

I am in a settled relationship with someone but no way on earth would I want to give up my space, my freedom to live with him. Why is that so hard for people to understand

It shouldn't be. It really shouldn't be. But it is and I don't get it. Some people are just unable to see beyond their own experiences and expectations I guess. Very very narrow minded though. I know lots of couples who are very committed and choose not to live together, just as I know very unhappy people who live together. Life is too short to do something just because society tells you it is the dome thing, or that you can't call your partner your partner if you don't live together - ahh, fuck it. Do what makes you happy, not Sheila and Jim down the road where Sheila hates Jim's snoring and Jim wants to murder Sheila for the way she talks through Salvage Hunters