To ask why some people object so much when someone refers to the person they don’t live with as a partner?

[AlternativePerspective]

I’ve seen this numerous times on threads, in fact I even saw an OP about it once, saying that “if you don’t live with him, he’s not your partner he’s your boyfriend.”

And all i can wonder is, why? Why does it bother people so much?

People have numerous reasons for not living together, sometimes it’s for logistical reasons or work reasons or because of children from a previous relationship, or distance. That doesn’t make the relationship any less valid.

Added to which, by that definition, if a woman moved a bloke in after six weeks he would apparently earn the title “partner”.

I can only think that maybe people who are so bothered by it are insecure in their own relationships, and want to think that their relationship is superior because they live together, when actually it might be even more shit than the relationship of a couple who don’t.

But I do wonder if anyone can explain just why it annoys them so much....

Insecurity in their own relationship probably. The “my relationship means more than yours because we live together” sneer.

I know more than one very happily married couple who don't live together out of choice (and haven't done for years). They are just as married as anyone else. (Probably more so than a lot of people stuck in unhappy marriages!)

It doesn't bother me either. My relationship is my business.
But I guess it's like saying a rp is a more present parent than a nrp.

The use doesnt bother me.

But i do think sometimes its relevant, especially when people are asking advice.

'Me and my partner has an argument last night about xyz'

The advice is going to be very different if its a boyfriend of 6 weeks or and actual partner (living together or not).

To be fair, I only see 'he isnt your partner' when its quite clear that the 'partner' isn't offering any support at all and so isn't acting like a partner.

I don't get the annoyance. Some people prefer partner because they feel they are a bit old for girl/boyfriend. Equally younger people often stick with gf/bf even when living together. It also doesn't highlight if the partner is male/female.

I dislike the judgement bound up in it, you ONLY have a boyfriend. There are often good reasons to wait to live together that are nothing to do with the security of marriage.

I’m 50, I would feel ridiculous calling someone I’m dating a “boyfriend”. When it’s casual then it’s someone I’m seeing, if/when it gets serious they are then my partner. I don’t know either why people get so hung up on it.

*security of the relationship, they probably aren't married!

YANBU. Such a sneery, dismissive and supercilious comment.

I dislike like the term 'partner' but it really is none of my business what terminology other people use to describe their partners / boyfriends / husbands and the type of comment you highlight brings nothing to the conversation, it only serves to derail.

Some people just like to compare and compete.

I agree with PP, there’s a ‘sneering’ attached to it.

I’ve read many threads which descend into this ridiculous competition. Including one where someone declared that a relationship isn’t serious unless you’re married AND have children

Doesn't really apply to me because I've lived with my partner for 20 years, but if we didn't, I certainly wouldn't be calling him my boyfriend at 40 years old 😬

I’ve read many threads which descend into this ridiculous competition. Including one where someone declared that a relationship isn’t serious unless you’re married AND have children do they have to be the children of the man you’re married to I wonder?

I’ve seen some of this with the recent lockdown where people haven’t been able to see partners throughout, and others have told them that as they weren’t living together it wasn’t a worthwhile relationship anyway as they’re just girlfriend and boyfriend....

The usage doesn't bother me at all, but I think the ire it excites on here is less about cohabitation than length of relationship. A poster will be given good advice based on the behaviour of a man she describes as her 'partner', and it then emerges on page two that they've been seeing one another for three months and only for weekly dates, which would make the advice given in good faith earlier completely pointless in many cases eg if the OP is complaining she hasn't met his children, it's a different situation if it's been three months or three years.

I think 'partner' implies commitment and moving in also implies commitment. I agree that it's possible to have that without moving in together.

I think your example is silly though, if you married some bloke after six weeks he would immediately earn the title of DH, if you got engaged he'd be DFiance.

It's not about the length of time together, and sadly some people in LAPT relationships are not as committed or monogamous as their partners believe (IME)

To me, a partner signifies something more serious than a boy/girlfriend relationship. In the same way as a work colleague doesn't become a business partner (because they don't have shared ownership of the business), a boyfriend/girlfriend isn't to me a partner if there isn't a shared significant responsibility such as a home or a child.

But people can define their own relationships however they like, and I wouldn't consider it my place to comment on it.

To me, a partner signifies something more serious than a boy/girlfriend relationship. In the same way as a work colleague doesn't become a business partner (because they don't have shared ownership of the business), a boyfriend/girlfriend isn't to me a partner if there isn't a shared significant responsibility such as a home or a child. but that thinking is too black and white. After all, you could not share a home or have children together but could be engaged at which case they would be your fiancé even though the shared responsibility still doesn’t exist.

And there are very good reasons why partners can’t or don’t choose to share a home and/or children...

I’ve been with my partner for seven years, we don’t live together, in fact we live 120 miles apart because I have DC here so moving away from his dad would be unfair, and partner works in a very niche job which is almost impossible to transfer, in fact there is nowhere in London which runs that kind of service (we’re talking disability and accessibility related).

That doesn’t make him any less my partner. The house is mine, and i would rather walk over hot coals than have any more children.

In time things will hopefully change, but it shouldn’t have to be a waiting game to change the terminology.

A partner is someone you share your life with, if you dont share the monotony of every day life and just have the fun parts that not a real representation of life. I wouldnt have referred to my husband as my partner before we lived together.

A partner is someone you share your life with, if you dont share the monotony of every day life and just have the fun parts that not a real representation of life. Well there’s certainly not been much fun about the past 3.5 years of my life where my partner was the one sitting next to me in ICU while I was on a ventilator and they weren’t sure I would make it through the night.

Or him being at home with my DS while I was being resuscitated after a cardiac arrest, again, not knowing if I would make it through the night.

Or while I had been defibrilated and rushed down to ICU not knowing whether I would make it through the night (can you see a pattern here? *

There’s a lot more to life than just sharing a house and the bills. You can share none of those things and still have to live actual life while not living together.

I wouldnt have referred to my husband as my partner before we lived together.

Times have changed and language evolves .
"Partner" is increasingly being used as a gender neutral way of describing the person you're having an exclusive relationship with.

Your partner is absolutely your partner, OP. I would think that anyone who didn't recognise this was being deeply unreasonable. But I would have said that more people were waking up to the increasingly usual reality of people with children in subsequent relationships choosing not to blend their households, as you have. To me that's a deeply sane decision, which indicates nothing about the seriousness of the commitment.

It's a shame that there isn't a word that we could use to encompass an attached relationship where the couple don't live together, rather than 'boyfriend', which does sound rather juvenile.

But then, people would still use it to apply to someone they met three weeks ago, so...

Sometimes it makes the post confusing if words are used that aren't what the poster actually means.

Unfortunately some people on Mumsnet are fucking arseholes that would argue over the price of cheese

I agree that boyfriend or girlfriend sounds weird when you’re talking about someone in their 30s or older. I think partner sounds better and seems more suitable.

I don’t think not living together makes a relationship ‘less valid.’ I do think that living together is a deeper level of commitment. Having a joint home and all the legal and financial implications of that, sharing living space etc.