Would this put you off a man-never moved out

[Urghhhcba]

A friend of mine is interested in a 31 year old, but she's found out he's never lived away from home apart from going to uni halls.
Like never been in a serious relationship/lived with a woman or even just moved into a place on his own. Like he's saving but she's just really put off him now.

I find it a bit childish when adults refer to themselves or other adults living with parents as "living at home" or "still living at home" as if their own "home" isn't or couldn't be a proper home. As if they are just playing at being adults in their pretend home.

I realise for some it's just something people say without thinking, but I am surprised how many people well into adulthood (and presumably most of them parents themselves given that this is "Mumsnet") have a persistent subconscious belief that only a parents' home is "home".

When I bought my first flat I didn't "leave home", I left my parents' home for my own new home.

Wouldn't bother me as he has lived out of home for uni.

Someone who had literally never lived outside would be different.

It’s bizarre to me that anyone other than the most timid types would even contemplate returning home from an independent life at university, and restrict themselves to considering jobs that would allow them to live with their parents at a time in their lives when they won’t generally have children, commitments or things tying them to a specific place, but are very free.

The world is your oyster, but, no, you’re going to go and live in your childhood bedroom so you can ‘save for a deposit’.

Which is obviously your choice, but wouldn’t work for me. If I were single and in my 30s, it would be a clear signal we had very different attitudes to life.

I was with someone who had never moved out by 33 and it was a massive turn off. He had no interest in moving out either and was planning to buy a house with someone when he got serious enough to get married. I mean, he had been engaged previously and had still not moved out.

It suggested to me that he would not be able to run a house himself and may not even be able to do basic things like budget for bills and groceries and plan out meals for the week. I interpreted it as wishing to remain dependent on others and I had no desire to obtain a manchild.

It was a very brief relationship - ended after 3 months of dating.

I lived with my mother in law who has a house in London. It's what enables us to stay in London when others have been priced out. I am from another country though and have lived out since I was 19. Honestly though I probably wouldn't have agreed to marry my dh straight after university if I didn't know he had a parental home in London which enabled us to build our careers.

If he didn't have a parental home, we would be really poor on a combined income of £120k! We are OK now cos of the headstart he had. My dh being a 4th generation Londoner is equivalent to someone with a gift of £40k from parents i think. If I wanted to marry someone who is financially better off than me, I would have had to marry someone who either earned £100k at 25 or had generous parents who gave out £40-70k. I would have felt far more beholden to his parents in the latter. Guys with parental homes in London are far more common I think, also how cna I expect someone to earn 100k when I don't even earn £100k.

But cos I married my dh I can live really well in London on a meagre household income of £120k and be happy.

My DH's sister moved abroad probably cos she thought her world is her oyster. She is now moving to America to live with her mother in law at 31 with a baby. She needs the mother in law to sponsor her visa as they don't have enough assets between her and her husband otherwise. It would be the same if she moved back to London or perhaps even if she moved to Manchester. Cos reality catches up eventually. Our generation has far less options when 51% of first time buyers need help. It's hard perhaps for people who bought even a few years ago to understand.

When we bought in 2019, we bought with combined income of £75k. Today you need nearly £100k combined household income to buy in London and that is assuming you have 10% deposit. We had 15% deposit. It's gone up for all other regions, average home needs around £60-70k combined. If you are 35 and there are babies in the picture your affordability goes way down. So actually the time to save is in your 20s before you get priced out.. And bearing in mind, prices are falling but rents are rising faster than wages and also interest rates.

Living at home gives them more disposable incoming allowing them to go travelling and all sorts. not just 'save for a deposit'. Also, if you live in a place like London in no way are you restricted!

Rents are so high, things are so expensive, so many young people do very little apart from working to pay for the shabby little room they're renting. Then spend the rest of their time after work in said shabby little room.

I don't know how old you are but... my colleagues in their 50's spent their twenties bumming around, had great adventures, came back , got a 'good job' and almost immediately bought property. In the days of 100% mortgages. Those don't exist anymore and unless you get handed a deposit you need to save up thousands.

@breadandroses1992 exactly. People just don't get it.

The important thing here is timeline to moving out. If someone's got 50K in the bank and is still living at home then obviously independence isn't important to them.

No, not at all or I wouldn't have my lovely husband. Luckily I could see past his home circumstances (hadn't been able to move out as he'd helped his parents buy a new house after their business went bust) and judge him as a person.

Its not just men that still live at home women do to.
Some have just cant afford to move out some have to go back home for other reasons.
My friend is 32 and she still lives at home ftw does her bit in the home her parents are lovely.
I dont get why women look down on a man living at home but noting said about a woman doing it.
If it makes him a mummys boy or parents pet does it make a woman a daddys girl or is she the parents pet.

Wouldn't be my preference as I value independence very highly. More highly in fact than affluence.

However, sorry if this has been said but I've only skimmed replies- there could be a cultural factor. What culture is he from? Some backgrounds traditionally stay at home until marriage unless moving for uni/ work. It can affect dating openly and being welcome in his home so I'd ask about that if it's the case and you're not from the same background. Several of my friends are in this position in their 30s. Great people, perfectly self sufficient and hardworking, not particularly timid, but it comes with its challenges when dating outside the same/similar cultures.

I’m 51, @PingvsPong, from an extremely poor background, have been supporting my own parents and helping my younger siblings from pretty much the moment I left home, and I can assure you there was no culture of ‘bumming around’ among the people I knew, or my university cohort, with the knowledge of an eventual ‘good job” waiting. My country was in a deep recession, with high unemployment, so few jobs of any kind, ‘good’ or otherwise, waiting. No 100% mortgages, no parental deposits. But I refused to barter the freest time in my life for ‘savings’.

In fact, I think comparative poverty was freeing. There was no parental safety blanket to retreat to. We knew we were on our own at 18.

Erm....no! The ' younger generation ' have such a fucked view of how easy people in their 50s had it!

Depends on the circumstances and the individual.

Slight difference but I moved back with my parents a few time. Had lived away from home and country for a few years then came back. Stayed with them when I was at uni and then moved out again. I moved back in temporarily but ended up being (3 years) when a relationship broke down. Then moved out again to live with DH.

My parents have a bigger house so I did sort of have my own space. Separate sitting room and bedroom/ bathroom but shared the kitchen. I was fully independent and paid some rent. It allowed me to save for a place of my own.

DH was also living at home when we met (29) again he had been away for work etc but not properly moved out. It was awkward but it did allow us to save a decent deposit each and then to merge for a decent first home.

I guess it depends on lots of factors and the individual.

I wouldn't write him off just for that. It seems quite sensible and he's close to his family, which is a green flag. I mean, if you get on well with your parents and can live with them - ie have family meals together etc instead of moving out and being lonely, eating along, massive cost implications - why would you move out? Just to please society or judgey people?

My brother has weeks to live and he's meant to be going home this week (he's been in hospital since Christmas). Dh said no he's not going home he's going to his parents' home! Well he can't go back to his own home as he needs a lot if care and he considers it going home! In fact he might have to go straight into a hospice which is really sad as I know he really wants to go home. He went in as a day case!

It depends why he never moved out, if it was because they were not capable that would put me off. If it was because there was no need I would be fine with it.

I set fire to my jumper (I was wearing it) because I was so cold I was practically sitting in the gas fire - which some relative of the ll has put in (probably not a qualified gas fitter).

I am aware it wasn't totally easy for the older people, my mother in law bought a flat and moved in with all her things in garbage bags. We bought flats in the same area of London though at the same age (i was 27 and dh was 29). She was a secretary and her husband was a legal executive, flat was 3 times income. We borrowed 4.7 times income and dh was an analyst at an investment bank (and I was in same industry) and we stayed at home for 3 years to save up. Our mortgage is now 2.3 times our household income but we are in early 30s and have moved job several times to scale up income..

Sorry for my generation, you need to inherit or do something Big I. E. Live really frugally which is easier with no rent, get a really good job or career earning at least 6 figures, marry well or work in public sector which allows you to live in the dwindling number of cheaper areas (which probably wouldn't be cheap in 5 years time relative to stagnant wages in public sector as everyone would get the same idea). You need favourable circumstances either by design or by your own decisions. That is the difference.

Most people don't have all options on the table so they need to make the best of what they can do. Or they will face the consequences in their 40s.

Think it depends on circumstances.

My brother lives at home rent free so has been able to by a house which is now mortgage free.

However he has chosen not to live in this house he has purchased as it would mean having to pay bills, wash his own clothes and feed himself whilst also having to deal with any plumbing/DIY/boiler issues that may arise so for him, it is a no brainer to stay at home rather than having to do jobs when arriving home from work.

He is single.

How terribly sad for your family. Wherever your brother goes for his end of life care, I hope he is able to spend time and receive comfort from the people he loves. ❤️

No I don't think so, even though I moved out young myself. I'd think it was positive he had good enough family relationships to do this. (I didn't) If the mum was on her own I'd think it was helpful to her to have company so he was kind. He may have saved more towards a house rather than spending it on rent.

If anyone has seen the lovely Victoria Wood film "That Day we Sang." The character Jimmy lived with his mother til his 50s but you wouldn't turn him down would you? He was lovely.

Bearing in mind that freedom means no restrictions. You supporting your family doesn't sound particularly free to me. I don't know what you did with the 'freest time of your life' but you presumably had to either earn well or restrict your spending to do the above. You may not have had children, but you certainly seem to have had erm responsibilities.

What I find odd is that you equate 'not staying at home' to freedom. If you explicitly want a world traveller, frequent mover, that's fine. But to say that someone staying at home 'restricts themselves' makes no sense. Someone could live away from home but stay in the same town and work the same job all their lives.

What PP was saying is that if you have the choice between renting and staying at home. In the same place. The latter makes more financial sense. They are not saying that you should restrict yourself to living at home and never moving anywhere else. As @breadandroses1992 put it her DH was already from London, with a wealth of opportunity. If he was going to stay there anyway. Why should he pay rent? What benefit would it have brought him?

Also, those living at home can be free (if their parents are chill). Spending on whatever they like, travelling whenever they want. They could move out, if they want to so there's no restriction here really. DH parents had a big enough house for people to stay over, GF's, roll in at 2 a.m. no issue. He left to work elsewhere but if he'd stayed home he'd have lost nothing, but gained £££.

I'm sure there are some who want to live at home and base their life choices around it, a lot of them probably have SEN but IME those who live at home - they'd have rented in the same place anyway. People are not giving up, say London life for a rural backwater just to save.

Yep. @Bigearringsbigsmile have a look at wage to house price ratio stats.
Also I'm only saying what my colleagues, other people in their 50's said. if you think they're wrong then maybe you should take it up with your peers.