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?

That's the thing isn't it. Why would anyone not very close to you (your mum perhaps) really care exactly how "serious" your relationship is? Very few people will, so as Nom says if deciding where to draw the line on invitations to family events a lot of people will use shorthand based on social norms and invite all the married and living together couples but not other plus ones if numbers are tight.

It's not a comment on any individual relationships, it's because other people are not analysing each relationship in detail and evaluating relative seriousnes.

Unless someone wants to ask you out or wants reassurance that somebody else, not them, is your main support and has your back, or you're having a good gossip together about each of your relationships over a bottle of wine, then no, they probably aren't interested in how serious you consider your relationship.

For me I see it as BF/GF if you don't live together. That doesn't mean it's not a serious relationship, just because you don't live together.

It also doesn't mean people who do live together after a couple of months are in a serious relationship either. I don't think it's sensible to move in so quickly.

@CardsforKittens I am obviously talking about people who need help. My DP has a disability and works full-time, but during an exacerbation does need some help.

Marriage orientated women who cohabitate 6.5/10 are simply roommates with benefits while assuming that it will lead to marriage or constitutes 'commitment'. Hence why the marriage rate is on the decline not just men's 'fear of divorce'. As our grandma's would say 'why buy the cow when the milk is free?' Expect in this case the cow pays to live in the barn as it gets older as the milk slowly dries up meanwhile men don't dry up they can reproduce well into their 50s, 60s and 70s etc.

As a woman moving in before marriage while paying 50/50 isn't empowering, you're simply paying to pretend to be your boyfriends wife to make sure he won't abuse or cheat after marriage. Meanwhile these women don't realise they are at higher risk of being cheated on and abondaned without legal commitment and accountability for the man and are just as vulnerable to domestic abuse as their married counterparts. And as they get older and the more they invest (buy a house with him, pay 50% of the bills, give him kids) they're stripping away their leverage to ask for marriage. And before I get any:

-'Me and my DP/ boyfriend lived together for 5,10,15 years and then he married me it eventually falls into place'

-'stop painting all cohabitation and partnerships as bad, we're happier than all our married friends'

-'my partners never cheated on me, all my married friends have been cheated on or their husbands walked out'

-'we don't need marriage to prove we love each other' gripe

At least your married friends emotional and tangible investments are legally protected and their husbands have legal accountability for cheating and walking out-unmarried women DONT. If marriage isn't necessary why not just live separately like the legal spinster you are and leave your bf to enjoy being a bachelor and grown man who can pay his own bills until the marriage license is signed then you can move in.

Then after marriage he can then enjoy not having the financial pressure of paying his own bills and getting a mortgage with just his savings. Instead of paying a cleaner, laundrette or doing his own laundry and cooking his own meals everyday. He can then enjoy coming home to your cooking, fresh laundry, unlimited sex without 'tension or pressure for commitment' if a pregnancy happen.

I've had about 4 men ask me to move in with them before they even ask me to be their girlfriends and unfortunately because we live in a time where other women's standards are so low too many women think it's the same as an engagement ring and would jump at the chance to pay HIS Mortgage or help him pay his rent all while they anticipate a potential ring.

I've told my boyfriend I don't do partnerships or long term relationships and I won't be pretending to be his wife if we're not married. I've even suggested he get himself a roommate to help him save up for his dream house as I won't be moving in and mixing our savings until we're married and he's respects that. I'm at peace with him moving on if he would rather find another woman who wants to be a live in gf and will have my own finances intact and don't have to pay to move out and move on with my life. Women need to stop giving wife benefits to men who aren't they're husband while PAYING to be taken advantage of. It's heartbreaking to see so many amazing potential wives choose to be baby mothers and 'long term girlfriends' for men who clearly have one foot out the door!

People do say that OP, on here, all the time 😆

What a bizarre way to look at things. If a woman can afford to pay 50/50 (as in your scenario) surely it’s actually beneficial for her not to be married as she retains financial independence and doesn’t have to split her own contributions 50/50 in the event of a divorce. Or maybe some people both want to retain separate finances but make things cheaper by moving in together, and they also love each other and want to live together.

its not the case that women are always victimised by not getting married. I own my flat and earn over twice as much as my boyfriend, and he’s moving in with me (doesn’t own property of his own). We will split living costs down the middle and save together for another flat to buy jointly in future. If we break up while he lives with me he’ll move out and find his own place and take his own savings - why should I marry him and have to give him half my flat that I bought before we met if that happened? Am I “making him play husband”? I also don’t want to marry because of its history in ownership and subordination of women and frankly think a better way forward for everyone would be the abolition of marriage, free universally accessible childcare, shared parental leave as standard and the baseline assumption that everyone should look after their own financial independence.

I didn't love with my husband before marriage. I would never move in with a man who hadn't committed to me in that way first.

It's so weird to look back on this thread in hindsight, knowing now that it was only a matter of weeks after this thread's inception when who you lived with was about to become incredibly significant.

I noticed the date too. How many people during/after Covid looked at their relationship/marriage very differently?

I also agree with @dodgeballchamp ’s response to @80sPrincess in terms of the assumption that it’s the woman who is worse off or is in a vulnerable position who needs to be protected by marriage. What about the women who would be worse off by divorce because of the assets they already have?

Wild horses couldn’t make me live with someone again no matter how serious a relationship was, and I’d certainly not risk my property equity/pension fund.

First of all @dodgeballchamp you clearly didn't read my post, I said women who are MARRIAGE ORIENTATED so you obviously don't fall in that category. Although one challenge I always pose for 'anti marriage' women is-tell your boyfriend you now want to get married and 'want a simple registry wedding for just £200 with just two witnesses in 3 months time and i'll be keeping my last name' , let's see if he says yes or no. That'll help to detemine who really holds the decision on whether or not you guys want to get married ;) there's nothing for you to lose just to see his reaction. But as long as you guys are 'child free' I absolutely wholeheartedly don't see the point in you guys getting married. If the man changes his mind and decides he wants a family he should be free to leave and marry a woman who wants to be the mother of his children without any legal hassle from a previous relationship.

1. I hope for your sakes you don't have children as an unmarried woman unless you have multiple streams of income and can afford to be a single mother should your boyfriend leave. Although the fact that your boyfriend has to obviously help you pay your bills it doesn't sound like it. Otherwise he would just be paying for groceries and utilities if he was smart and you'd pay the rest to help him save up for his own place much faster since your both 'financially independent' and I'm sure your relationship will be exactly the same once he can live in his own house and not have to share yours ;).

1. You're obviously happy with a relationship where there's no tangible commitment and once the guy no longer needs your financial assistance he can leave whenever he wants and marry the next woman who wants to be a wife when he's now better off financially and a home owner by his own right. But upside for you, you managed to get some of your mortgage paid for you and your boyfriend didn't have to 'oppress' you with marriage if that hopefully doesn't happen.

1. Most cohabitating relationships that try to mimick marriage never end well and have lead to many women getting pumped and dumped when they're much older. But in your case it sounds like you'd be perfectly fine being single if/when this most likely happens and you can find a new guy who'll help you pay for your mortgage without him asking to be added to the deed of the house.

1. Plus relationships where the woman is unmarried and has children DOES leave the woman vulnerable to higher chances of poverty. Just look at the amount of forums of working women who had children unmarried, their finances take a serious hit after children come along only for them to THEN realise why they should have required marriage from their 'partners' beforehand when he has one foot out the door.

And no you do not have the power to determine if he's 'playing husband'. He's the one who determines if you guys even get married as the man in the relationship, he's the gate keeper of marriage, you're decision maker when it comes to sex and children since you have a higher price to pay for sex through pregnancy (you're the only nurturer and child bearer in your relationship no matter what post-modernism and the sexual revolution theories have made you believe) -basic sociology and biology.

@GrannyWeatherwaxsHatpin You clearly didnt read the post properly, I said MARRIAGE ORIENTATED WOMEN. If you're not marriage orientated and don't want to get married or have children then the post doesn't apply to you. And again - unmarried women who have children are the most vulnerable to poverty. Do your own research on mumsnet alone and see how many distraught women are panicking for marriage from their baby father's because after they have just one child they realise how legally and economically vulnerable they are without the legal protection of a marriage license.

Also too many marriage orientated women who want marriage and biological children copy women who don't really want marriage or traditional families and end up becoming single mothers to a boyfriend they assumed would marry them or they end up left high and dry as their boyfriends moved on and married someone else when he no longer needs her financially. This also includes women who acquire resources and assets and end up attracting snakes who simply want financial convenience or want to claim alimony (I know three women made the mistake of 'marrying down' after they made their money instead of finding husbands who were their economical equal while they were was still young).

Plus it's never wise for a man OR woman to acquire assets and resources before they married to someone whose committed to them first. It's better to get married while neither has assets and can trust that the person is with them for them not because they're a leech.

And just like I said to @dodgeballchamp if you have no intentions of having children by all means it would be very stupid for a man to marry a woman who won't give him kids if he ever changes his mind and decides to move on and marry someone who will. If you have any intentions of not having children anytime soon then by all means do whatever you want.

Lol, wrong again. I’ve lived alone for the past 4 years and paid my mortgage and bills easily by myself. I absolutely don’t need him to move in and help - I want him to move in, because, you know, we love each other? It’s actually me who’s been the “gatekeeper” of this happening, as I was unsure about whether I wanted to cohabit at all, given I don’t NEED to, but ultimately I came to a point where I decided it would enhance my life to have him live here.

We’ve already discussed marriage - I have an EU passport so if we were to move abroad we’d have to marry, much to my displeasure (believe me, I’ve researched a lot how we could do it without marrying) and he is absolutely happy to marry me if and when the time comes. Neither of us would want a wedding with all the trimmings (although we’ve also discussed the outfits we’d wear if we did have a bigger event) so sorry to shatter your illusion there. I certainly wouldn’t marry him before we jointly owned property together, as I said, I don’t want to have to give him half of the flat I owned before he even existed. So in this instance if he said to me tomorrow “let’s go down the registry office next week for £200” it would be me saying no.

I don’t want kids, but again, if we went down that road he’d be a SAHD and me the breadwinner because as I already mentioned I earn over twice what he does and this would be my preference anyway. Also if you think I’m naturally “nurturing” - well, you haven’t met me. As for domestic tasks, he already does more than me and he doesn’t even live here yet.

Maybe he will leave in future. Maybe I’ll tire of the relationship and ask him to leave. Who knows. I don’t believe you can guarantee anything is forever and I certainly don’t want to make it very expensive for myself to break up (divorce). Marriage doesn’t guarantee that love or the desire to be together will last forever, it just makes it even harder to disentangle from each other if you don’t want to be together any more.

It seems a lot of your assumptions are based in misogynist ideas of women being passive victims waiting for men to bestow marriage and children on them.

I know that this thread is more about relationships prior to marriage, but I am part of a married couple who do not live together.

We began living apart, due to my husband's MH difficulties and our sons' MH difficulties, about 8 years ago. We lived close to each other, but in separate accommodation, and we saw each other everyday and remained in a close and loving relationship.

However, people began to refer to use as 'separated' and often I would be my husband's 'ex' and vice versa in conversations. Official forms could be problematic, especially if they involved applications for accommodation.

We always intended to reunite, once our sons had recovered sufficiently or were living independently. However, my husband's health has deteriorated and he now needs extra care accommodation, so it looks like we will remain living apart.

There are, however, a great many people who are in long term, very committed relationships, including marriages, who do not live together, for all sorts of reasons. Equally, there are probably a great many people who live together, but do not have any sort of committed relationship.

(I have just seen that one or two posters have made very similar statements.)