When does someone change from a boyfriend to a partner?

[Samlewis96]

Thought of this when reading another thread. Ones of the replies was that " you don't live together so he's not your partner" So when does someone become a partner. Is it only relying on living together?

But I would have said that in the general Mn view, both of these scenarios would automatically be viewed as ‘partnerships’, because they’re committed and longterm.

Not that it matters, anyway, obviously, as it’s your call, but I doubt anyone on here would quibble with either being described as a ‘partner’.

The times people say ‘he’s not your partner’ on here tend to be very new relationships that are barely past the ‘initial dating’ stage, but where the OP is inexplicably using the term to designate a situation where those involved haven’t met more than ten times.

It's a very MN thing to pick someone up on. In real life I don't think most people think this deeply about it.

Boyfriend does sound a bit ridiculous as you get older. I really can't imagine ever referring to the 91 year old my mum's currently dating as her 'boyfriend'. Not when he starts some of his anecdotes with 'during the war...' 😂.

I'd say when you live together.

Maybe when they're not just someone to have fun with, but someone you would be able to turn to for bad things too.

And knowing that they would support you

I think it is when you live together. A few exceptions to this are if you live separately but have been together for years and have long term plans together. A boyfriend is someone you have been with a few years and don't live together. Just my opinion. I think it's silly when someone says my partner but they have only been together 3 months.

Committed and exclusive.

@FlamingoYellow

Boyfriend does sound a bit ridiculous as you get older. I really can't imagine ever referring to the 91 year old my mum's currently dating as her 'boyfriend'. Not when he starts some of his anecdotes with 'during the war...' 😂

LOL, but you've hit on something quite important and I'm on a roll with this now.

Until the 60s most people rushed to get married like lemmings as soon as they were old enough to procreate because it gave them cover to have sex. Then they were locked in as they had children, women didn't usually work and divorce was frowned upon. Most people only ever had a small handful of sexual partners and one serious relationship so the idea of having much choice was a luxury.

Post contraception and with rates of marriage declining and women able to support themselves no one really needs to bother with any of this, it's a choice, and if you do get married you are likely to have had at least one serious LTR before you eventually tie the knot.

The "partner" definition is usually applied as a kind of "marriage lite": someone with whom you behave as if you are married even though you are not.

I honestly think the fixation on it is absolutely ridiculous. Why do people care so much about tying a definition to relationships which is based on how closely they follow the definition of a marriage?

Oh, and my partner's mother is my mother in law and has been for 30 years, whatever Mumsnetters say! And if he had children from a previous relationship they would be my step children-whatever Mumsnetters say!

I would say partner is when you have shared life goals that you are both working towards.

Either live together or have been exclusively together in a “lives interwoven” manner for around 5 years.

I see Partner as the same as Spouse but without the legal trappings. A forever kind of deal (at least in intention).

I'm 50, my partner is 56, we've been together 3.5 years and we don't live together, we are still partners.

It depends on the mood of the person replying to the post and whether it helps their argument or not.

When you're in your 50's like me and my partner, saying boyfriend/girlfriend sounds a bit silly.

This is true about the living together bit. I actually got married once and obviously lived with my husband. However we married within a year of meeting and split up within 18 months of marriage. In my eyes that marriage was a far less serious relationship than my 2 long term ones without living with them

@Samlewis96

Exactly. People assume that "behaving as if you are married" is the benchmark for a serious and committed relationship. But a lot of us have rejected marriage for good reasons, so why would we want to model a new relationship on looking like a marriage?

Firstly it's very out of date, also it just feels like people are very over-invested in scrutinising and judging the quality of other people's relationships using their own standards (which may not apply).

A lot of women sensibly want to avoid becoming enmeshed financially with men these days but are emotionally committed.

But I would say it's being financial enmeshed that makes you 'partners' and affects the advice you'd get on the relationships board on MN. That's why it gets raised as an issue here. People ask for advice on their relationship with their 'partner' then it turns out they have been together 6 months and both live with their parents. At which point the advice usually becomes 'red flag, dump him'. Whereas if they shared a mortgage and two kids the advice would be very different.

Really what we need is a more grown up word for 'boyfriend' for someone you are in a romantic but not financial relationship with. Long term lover? (Gentle)man friend? FWB?

Or maybe we should change the word for someone you live with but aren't married to. Live in lover? Bidie-in?

Partner, probably deliberately, glosses over the exact nature of a relationship which doesn't matter most of the time but does in the context of asking for relationship advice on MN.

I think ‘partner’ is a crap term, I’ve never used it. My 40 odd year old husband was still my boyfriend this time last year until the wedding.

When you become partners in life. When your lives are knitted together and your future plans and present plans involve eachother. When you're financially and practically bonded. When your life would change when you split beyond just not being with that person.

If you could break up tomorrow and never speak again then you're not partners. No matter how long you've been together. My dad's been with his girlfriend on and off probably nearly 15 years. They could split tomorrow and nothing would have to change in their lives. That's not your partner.

Hmm I've not seen or spoken to my ex husband since we split

I don’t know what to call my OH! We are in our 40s so ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ seems twee. We won’t be co-habiting any time soon because we both have DC and I don’t want to rush that (my DD already has blended family with her Dad and it’s taking a lot for her to process). We’ve been together almost 18 months, he supports me with a lot of stuff…but if we aren’t co-habiting partner seems wrong! So I usually call him my other half or fella.
My friend was helping me complete some forms and she wanted to refer to him as ‘live out partner’ but she said ‘live out lover’ and I quite like that 🤣 XH referred to him as my ‘fancy man’ and I still say that to my OH 😉

I think other half is fine people know what you are on about. I mean you could just go with .this is my lover Steve and be done with it 😀

So you spilt with your DH and nothing changed. Like you didn't need to complete any paperwork? Change your finances in any way? Nobody's living situation changed?

Filled in divorce papers myself Took all of 10 mins . No didn't change my finances. He shacked up with a woman 15 doors up the road. I stayed in my rented flat which he had never been on the tenancy

When you are both committed for the long term and don't see your lives as separate. It is different for everyone, quick for some not others. Usually you are either living together or planning on it eg saving hard for deposits living rent free at home (speaking from experience here, got two youngsters doing this currently!)

Partner, probably deliberately, glosses over the exact nature of a relationship which doesn't matter most of the time but does in the context of asking for relationship advice on MN.

Yeah I think what bothers me is the assumption that you have to be financially entangled to be partners.

It assumes that most women are seeking some sort of financial codependency with the men in their lives and that if the financial codependency isn’t there the commitment isn’t there. Because of the baggage of history it’s always assumed that if a man is really committed to you he will support you or part support you.

And if you have shared children then clearly that’s a big consideration. The last thing you want if you have kids is someone who won’t pay their way.

That model doesn’t really work when you have your own money though and you might be seeking to actively avoid becoming financially entangled with a man.

I will never get married again. I have a shared mortgage and split bills but I never want to have to rely on a man to pay for my lifestyle (and don’t want one to have access to my assets other than the shared house). So financial interdependence isn’t something I seek. But I still want emotional commitment and respect. I want my partner to be faithful to me, to consider my needs etc.

Bit of a ramble but this is why it irritates me when people bring up the cohabitation and “shared life” thing. It doesn’t apply to everyone equally.