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 get that there's a step change between boyfriend/girlfriend and life partner. I just don't understand why this has to include cohabitation.

Yes you do have to be able to rely on someone absolutely, to share life with them and for them to be the person you trust above all else. Quite often that means living together. But the idea that the reluctance to pool finances and have a shared bedroom denotes a lack of commitment seems to me to be based on an outdated notion of what commitment really is. That's financial commitment, not emotional commitment.

Sure there are lots of logical reasons why its easier to support someone in a practical sense if you live together and share bills. But its not a necessity. I think if you're really honest with yourselves, you people saying you can't be a partner without living together are basically just subconsciously trying to replicate the marriage template. You've all seen your mums and dads do it, you realise the world has moved on a bit but you can't square the idea that commitment doesn't involve a shared mortgage and bickering about who is going to take out the bins.

It depends a lot on what you think commitment is about. If you think of it as basically leaning on someone to help you out with finances and household tasks that's one kind of commitment. But its not the only kind. Personally I find the idea of commitment with so many strings attached less attractive precisely because its so hard to walk away. If you know you're going to have a bastard of a job untangling all your bills it makes it harder to leave. If you can end the relationship with a text message you know you're genuinely choosing that commitment rather than just doing it out of habit. So you know the person you're with is with you because they genuinely want to be rather than because they're middle aged and a bit past it and can't face having to do their own laundry again.

What do you mean by an emotional commitment?

If a couple bought a house together I would assume they were serious. If not, not so sure. A lot of people move in together for practical reasons, e.g to be able to afford to rent a better place, or because they want privacy/don’t want to live with parents any more. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are thinking of a long term future together.

30 years ago really does not seem long ago to me

It's more than a generation.

See I would say marriage was. Living together doesn't necessarily mean commitment (although obviously it can), but I wouldn't think 'oh they're living together they're serious' automatically whereas If they were married I would assume they were serious.

YANBU. DP and I are serious but we don't live together yet because I'm giving DCs more time. If I didn't have them to consider we would be living together about now but it has to wait. I also refer to him as partner, not boyfriend. Totally against the MN Rules. I'm also miffed that he isn't invited to a family wedding, which according to MN Rules I'm not allowed to be, but I still am!

It's no one elses business really.

I think a lot of people have children far too quickly. It's unnecessary in this day and age and completely avoidable.
Then they jump from one relationship to the next, dragging the poor children with them.

People don't have to get married now as was the norm not that long ago. Of course some people do not want to live together for various reasons.

So reading some of these posts, ‘commitment’ is all about how difficult it is to break up - shared house/finances/children etc. I’ve never been married or had kids. I don’t want kids. I have made an active choice not to enmesh my home or finances with any potential future partners - I want to self sufficient and financially secure on my own terms and I like my own space. So according to some this means I can never have a committed relationship because I don’t want to have kids, join finances or live together? My arse. There is no one right way to do commitment. Some people wouldn’t be happy with the set up I want and that’s fine - but I know what I want and want to meet like minded people. I fail to see how that would lack commitment if all parties are happy.

I’ve never encountered this ‘you don’t live together therefore you can’t be serious so we won’t include you a +1 on invites’ attitude outside of mumsnet. It’s very bizarre and prescriptive.

thepeopleversuswork agree with everything you’ve said 🙌

Why does a commited relationship have to be marked or crowned or validated by the use of the word "partner" though?

If you aren't actually partners in any sense (not going through life sharing responsibility on all sorts of levels for one another equally, being one another's go to support person, yes sharing some finances and being an alliance on practical as well as emotional fronts) then why is the word "partner" the one you want to use?

A relationship can be committed without being a partnership.

Most humans are commited to other humans through blood ties (their own children and parents for some people siblings and even wider family) and to lifelong friendships. There are all sorts of commited relationship.

To me a partnership means lives are entwined and the two people are one another's main support. Other romantic relationships can be committed relationships, but why explicitly define them as all things partnerships are not (no mutual reliance) but be so insistent on the word partner?

It's just an odd choice of word in that context and words do carry meaning.

In the end obviously everyone can call use whatever words they want about themselves and their relationship, but expecting other people to automatically know that you use the word "partner" for something which from the outside doesn't look like a partnership is a leap.

If you arent sharing your day in day out life, finances, household its not really a partnership. But that doesnt mean it's not committed. Its the whole people dont like the word boyfriend, that's the issue.

FWIW, the only time I see 'he is you boyfriend not a partner' on mn when people have been together a couple of months (sometimes living together or not) and when the man is clearly not working in a partnership with the OP.

Or when op is committed and he lives elsewhere and isnt that fussed. Its clear he isnt committed. if both people arent serious, it's not a serious relationship

dodgeballchamp

That attitude of the partner having to live with you before being invited as a +1 is so prurient and judgemental isn’t it?

Sometimes I think the world has moved quite a long way in the past few years. And then I realise a lot of people are still replaying the 1950s.

Oh dear, so my 26 year marriage isn't a proper committed relationship because we were engaged (and living in different countries) for 6 years before that.

Obviously is now, back then no, I wouldn't have considered it serious.

My husband was a full time single dad when we got together.

For that reason we didnt want to uproot my DSS too soon ect. But we were engaged and planning wedding ect.

We married on the Saturday and got the keys to our new place on the Monday and moved in officially the following Sunday.

I have lived with 2 previous partners. Much less serious than my husband prior to moving in together/married. But no kids involved in those relationships.

For me it doesn't mean it's not serious....however this comes from someone who was brought up by my mum who wouldn't allow my 'stepdad' move in even though they had 3 kids.....so maybe my view is a bit biased! 1

Not moving in together because your first responsibility is to your children from a previous relationship is absolutely a mature and responsible decision, far more so than rushing to blend families. Nobody has said otherwise. It's just the determination to use the word partner when there is no shared mutual responsibility that puzzles people. Nobody's saying that it's better to move in together - it's often completely the opposite.

It is just as Scarsthelot says, people don't like the word boyfriend (or girlfriend). There used to be other words like companion used fifty plus years ago, or people would be content just to say friend knowing full well what they meant but that's fallen out of use and people use partner because they don't like boyfriend/ girlfriend. It does sound young. People used to say gentleman friend but of course that's utterly twee to modern ears. There needs to be a new word coined, perhaps, instead of just loosing words and stretching the ones that are left beyond meaning.

thelongdarkteatimeofthesoul isn’t this just fashion though? People get terribly hung up on how they characterise their relationship for public consumption.

This is part of the problem in my view: people are desperate to achieve these relationship “milestones” (moving in/getting engaged etc). Mainly because they want society to judge them as having successfully attracted and held onto a mate (because for many people this is still seen as a life goal in itself). So people are desperately concerned about what “stage” others people can define them as being at in their relationship.

In fact aside from where children are involved and need some stability in how they perceive the relationship, none of this actually amounts to a hill of beans.

If we could free ourself from this attitude of worrying about whether x or y think our partner is committed to us we would be able to see the relationship much more clearly. What matters is whether the relationship fulfils your or your children’s needs. Not whether your mates think your other half needs to step up and pop the question.

I don’t see living together as a sign it’s a serious relationship. That comes with marriage for me. Until then either party can simply walk away as it’s only dating, no commitment has been made.

Interesting. I'm getting married a week tomorrow and we are not living together / have no immediate plans to do so. Getting married is a pledge from us both to our relationship. We love each other very much.

I have 2 teenagers at home and we have a lovely life the 3 of us, dp has his own lovely house (3 adult dc inc a grandchild). We see each other around 3-4 nights per week but neither of us wants to be together full time at the moment. I'm 43 him 53.

Honestly? We are both 100% happy with our arrangement no rowing over mundane day to say stuff, we get the best of each other. Does it make our relationship less real? Doesn't feel it to me, I love the bones of him and couldn't care less what others think of that.

boredboredboredboredbored

We are both 100% happy with our arrangement no rowing over mundane day to say stuff, we get the best of each other. Does it make our relationship less real? Doesn't feel it to me, I love the bones of him and couldn't care less what others think of that.

Exactly this. I think not having to mither one another about paying the gas bill is a massive liberation -- it frees you up to actually enjoy your relationship as opposed to becoming endemically dependent on one another and terrified to leave.

Suggesting that people are only serious if they live together means that people feel under pressure to live together if they want to be accepted as a couple by family and friends. How is that ok?

This yes! My DM has been with partner for 15 years. They do not live together. But not deemed by her/my family as a serious relationship but it’s worked longer than done marriages in our family!

Who on earth moves in with someone solely in order to be seen as part of a couple by their extended family? Only people who are insecure to the point of self sabotage surely!

Do people like that also have children despite not wanting them in order to win the approval of extended family?

For younger couples I think that living together means a whole lot more TBH ,For people who are divorced with DC from a previous relationship , I can understand its probably more complicated .There is a big difference between dating, and seeing each other for a few hours/W/E and being together under one roof ,sharing bills everyday life and so on .

Just me then ... I'm desperate to move in, geography and being a responsible parent and money is keeping me over a hundred miles away. We are obviously just soppy romantics

I think the only time it matters is when things like weddings come up and your 'other half' doesn't get an invite because of this kind of idea that it can't be serious if you're not doing living together and therefore you don't come as a package. Other than that, it really isn't important.

Serious is not the same as making a commitment. Moving in together, especially if you are older and there is more to sort out, is making a commitment. In the same way getting marries is.