AIBU to get annoyed about the amount of posters who say “you’re not even living together”

[toobusytothink]

Read 3 or 4 posts over the past 24 hours where people have commented on the fact that the OP isn’t even living with their partner and implying therefore they can’t be that serious... If we move a man in we are selfish, moving too soon and not thinking about the kids ... but if we don’t it seems we aren’t committed. Do people not understand that it is possible to be completely committed but not live together because of kids or other factors? Because we are “just” a girlfriend and can’t possibly be someone’s partner unless we have a ring on our finger or have moved in 🙄

You can be in a partnership without living together, but I don't think you really know someone as well living apart as you do living together. There is so much more to living together, many more compromises to be made, efforts to respect differences.

You can be very committed to someone without living together but I don't believe it is to the same level as when you do.

YANBU

Over the years I've met plenty of couples over 65 who don't live together.

Most of them have adult children, and a few have one of their adult children living with them due to that child's illness. This actually gives the person with the child an escape when and if they want it.

If one of them gets ill if the other partner is able-bodied they do move in to take care of them.

@Dylaninthemovies1 I know plenty of adults who are glad their step-parent came into their life. They supported them when their father wouldn't or
their mother couldn't.

@Cola you’re right. There are lots of fantastic step parents. But lots of shitty ones too. I would have hated a man living with us who wasn’t my dad

I think living separately from your romantic interest is sometimes the most responsible decision. I know one couple who lived this way for 30 years, Calling someone a partner implies a financial and logistical partnership. There really isn’t a good word for friend you are very close with but maintain geographic and financial boundaries.

Partners share their lives together, boyfriends you date

This isn’t the right and wrong of whether it’s better or worse to live with someone but like many have pointed out, it IS less of a commitment and you can literally walk away in minutes.
whereas you cannot do that when you are in a committed partnership where you have ties finances and housing. Which is what many people define a partner as. I absolutely agree there is no need to live with a partner or boyfriend and many people choose not to and it works out great.

Why is it necessary though to share every facet of your life with someone, make compromises and entangle your existence to the point that splitting up would, as others pointed out, be complex, expensive and possibly leave one party without anywhere to live?

I’ve lived with a partner in the past and I wouldn’t again. I love living on my own and having my own space to potter around doing what I want. I don’t enjoy bed sharing, I sleep really uncomfortably unless I have all the space. I could happily date someone exclusively and seriously for years, decades, whatever, and not live together. It would be my preference. Doesn’t mean I’d be any less committed or in love with them, just that I also value my own wellbeing and don’t see the need to sacrifice my space and quiet to prove how committed we are. I’d also like it to be easy, inexpensive and painless in the event of a break up and keep my home. I don’t see why being unwilling to sign up for potential the potential difficulties and annoyances of living together means the relationship is less worthy

weird weird people. This is like saying 'if you aren't married, you aren't partners'. Sheesh. People do what they want. Live together, don't live together. Who am I to define a relationship or dictate what constitutes a partnership?

@dodgeballchamp, all what you are describing is indeed what many people consider being less committed. It's not NOT committed, but less.

It has nothing to do with love, just that you don't want to entwin your life to the same extent that those who live together.

There is nothing wrong at all with this position, but commitment is about making the sacrifices -if any- that you are not willing to make. Commitment being defined as 'an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action'.

Mumsnet is the home of black and white thinking. There are no nuances here and no room for anything that doesn't fit the prescriptive and narrow view.

Relationships are this. Partners are that. If you dare to follow a different path there's condemnation and outrage.

You do you. Whatever works for you family, children, partner or you. Everyone else can knob off.

@Menora I know married couples who don’t live together, are they ‘not really partners’?

@SimonJT

They are husband and wife! They are a married couple. They are a legal partnership and have legal ties to one another
I think it’s just how people perceive how it fits for them - I wouldn’t call someone my partner if I had no legal or financial ties or assets with or to them. I think there are many variations though to everyone’s situation, I imagine Op is talking about the majority of people posting online about their ‘DP’ when they are essentially a boyfriend/girlfriend but they like to enjoy the concept that the RS is much more progressed than it actually is

If you don't live together, have no kids together and have no financial commitments together, you aren't partners.

So you have to have ticked all three requirements to be ‘partners’?

Usual Mumsnet competitiveness. You can’t be a partner unless you’ve done x y and z. And only then!

If you don't live together, have no kids together and have no financial commitments together, you aren't partners.

Doesn’t it also partly come down to age? When you’re older, i think you can make the commitment earlier knowing that it’s in the post so I think people who don’t live together but are committed to a future could say “partner”, whereas you wouldn’t be so likely to get 21 year olds absolutely committed to one another

The term boyfriend / girlfriend sounds a little juvenile beyond a certain age whereas partner does sound very grown up!

@constantlyseekinghappiness how else would u differentiate between 'boyfriend' and 'partner' then? I'm a friendly mumsnetter so no competitiveness etc from me, I'm just genuinely curious.

I’m in my 40’s, the man I’ve been dating for the last 15 months, holidayed with, I spend 3 or 4 nights a week with and every other weekend is 50 this year, I call him my partner, I’m far too old to have a boyfriend. He is more than just a guy I’m casually dating. We don’t date other people. What can I call him if not my partner?

After 30 years of trying to live with other people (partners, one husband, platonic friends) I have eventually concluded I am not cut out for living with anyone other than my children. I'm very happy about that. There is no man that would ever come into my home on a full time basis ever again no matter how much I loved him, how into him I was or how much cheaper it might be. I wish this had dawned on me at least two decades ago!

The weirdest set-up I know of is a woman (in her forties) who lives with her parents even though she and her partner have a baby. Still, works for them.

There's no actual commitment there

Says who?

For very sensible reasons my DH and I didn't live together until we had been married for three years.

Where would that put us on the bizarre MN scale of commitment?

Just let people live their own lives and stop projecting your own values onto others.

how else would u differentiate between 'boyfriend' and 'partner' then?

Well me and my PARTNER live together, have bought a house, and share all financial commitments. We don’t have children.

Is a relationship only serious and committed when you have kids? Does someone who has children with their partner automatically become more committed than partners who can’t or choose not to have children?

I differentiate between boyfriend and partner in many ways. None of it is child related.

I’m in my 40’s, the man I’ve been dating for the last 15 months, holidayed with, I spend 3 or 4 nights a week with and every other weekend is 50 this year, I call him my partner, I’m far too old to have a boyfriend. He is more than just a guy I’m casually dating. We don’t date other people. What can I call him if not my partner?

Bexbug I'm in similar situation, except I'm in my 50s & have been with DP for 6 years. We holiday together, & work together at times (self-employed), see each other 4 times a week-ish. We both have grown up children living with us, our DCs know each other. Exclusive relationship. Yeah can't call him 'boyfriend', & 'manfriend' sounds plain stupid. So who knows.. I don't even see why it matters tbh

Who am I to define a relationship or dictate what constitutes a partnership

Exactly this. The only people who can determine this are the people in the relationship and partnership. Those are the people who define how they describe each other - girlfriend/boyfriend, partners, whatever. Only the people who are in a relationship can tell you how committed they are to that relationship- or how trapped by social convention.

I thought I knew what a committed relationship was and it was living together, sharing getting married and I was right - in that relationship at that time in my life.

In this relationship and this time of my life and with this man commitment and love and marriage looks different and that's ok.