Living Apart - New Norm

[1MillionDollars]

I've come to the realisation that I never want to live with a woman again, will never be financially entangled, will never be in a situation where I can't just leave.

I want to start a movement (Not Really)

The way we do things over the last 100 years has changed. You couldn't live together unless you were married or have kids, very taboo. Same sex couples adopting, raising kids...A big no no.

When we have kids we move in together as it's practical, just that really practical and it's the norm.

I think even with kids people should maintain their own spaces/places, the kids still see two loving parents there for them, but it becomes normal for one person to go back to their own place. I know it sounds like it might not work but if it was normal from a child's birth, it would just be that. Normal.

They say 50% of people getting married in 2021 will be divorced and probably a massive percentage of those unhappy and stuck.

Let's save the hurt and trauma of separation by just not doing it. I think living apart/that being normal is less harmful than splitting apart.

One thing I realise is that I just didn't have my own space, constantly feeling Im not doing this or that.

I realise a lot of things would need ironing out... but desperate living....Who's with me 😊

@1MillionDollars

This thread seems to be rapidly deteriorating into an argument lol, so I’ll sign off. I’m more than happy to continue sensible discussions on the subject via private messages if you’d like, as it seems we have a similar mindset.

Good luck on this thread!

[quote BoredAndUnfulfilled]@1MillionDollars

This thread seems to be rapidly deteriorating into an argument lol, so I’ll sign off. I’m more than happy to continue sensible discussions on the subject via private messages if you’d like, as it seems we have a similar mindset.

Good luck on this thread![/quote]
.
.
.
Thanks. People want to disagree with me, but I'm not allowed to disagree with them.

I am fully aware that the thing I propose is possibly unworkable, I just like the idea of it because it's doing something different for a change instead of rinsing and repeating. Because rinsing and repeating doesn't seem to work for lots of people.

Thanks for your support and understanding.

And here we go. You hear something that you don’t like, that challenges your vision of yourself as a martyr - and you turn aggressive.

I am not usually a man hater. I actually often defend men here on MN as it feels that there are double standards and men often get judged unfairly harshly on here.

But you seem so bitter and so full of yourself, and so lacking in self awareness. As well as an ability to have a civilised conversation.

What do you get out of being here among women who you clearly despise?

As to your supposed discovery of new and improved way forward for humanity - raising kids take a village. And it’s hard enough already with two parents, now that we don’t have villages. So - suggesting separate single parents from the get go - is in some way better for the kids doesn’t even deserve a discussion.
And adult relationships post/without kids can be set up in many different ways.

Many people do crave human connection and closeness. And for most that can be best achieved by cohabiting.

Some - like you are unable to get along with people. For a variety of reasons. So - you can live alone.
And maybe you’ll find a partner who also wants the same. There are some, not many of those.

Is this what you wanted to achieve with your post? We can all agree that living alone makes sense for you. Done?
(Or did you want us to prop you up and gush over your brilliance)

@MMmomDD

I bid you good day madam.

I do live seperately with my partner as we want to officially move in together when married. More for cultural reasons. Nevertheless every day after work we meet , we cook together, we sleep together at night we spend weekends together ..I just have my own place where my staff are and at his place I have some clothes only. I can tell you it has all the difficulties and benefits of living together except the benefits of saving time and money which will be added when we live together officially . What I mean is that even if I was sleeping to my flat wouldn't make any difference as we spend the majority of our time together and when you sleep you do just that sleeping you don't feel anything. If from the other hand we were living together and each one had his own bedroom and we had many hobbies and activities seperately after work and we were spending time with each other only the weekends would be like living seperately in terms of every day interaction. What I mean with all these is doesn't matter where you sleep at night or where you store your staff. What it matters is how much time you want or need to spend with your partner and what kind of closeness you have build. None of these ways of living is bad and they can all occur in the same relationship or marriage in different periods. What I am saying is that paying 2 household expenses or one doesnt change the relationship of the people.

I just don’t think you’re doing anything especially innovative. Many men have always picked and chosen how involved they are, knowing that if they choose less involvement, to walk away, usually there is a woman to fill the gaps. You don’t seem much different, even if you want to make out what you have chosen is something special.

There are loads of posts on here over the years (from women!) saying that they wouldn’t live with a partner again, and I think it’s a great choice for many people.

I've been married 4 years, with my husband for 7 - we've never lived together, in fact we still live 60 miles apart as we did when we met - it's great. I get to have time to myself to just do what I want when I want, I get to see him when I want and when he wants, the sex is brilliant. We get to visit each others respective town/city and have a change of scene.

I thoroughly recommend it.

I don't agree however, with liggers doing this to defraud the system, of which they're are thousands and they cost us all so much money every year. So if you know someone doing this - tell.

I'm sure it can and does work for many people, and I can see the attraction. Especially once you're past the nesting /starting a family stage of your life. I don't think everyone who chooses that living apart arrangement is doing so because they're bitter/jaded due to a previous relationship (although many are). But the OP is clearly miles away from getting over his very recent breakup, so the prospect of never cohabiting again is bound to be quite attractive right now. A bit like when someone wakes up with a hangover and says they're never drinking again!

But the suggestion that people only cohabit for 'practical reasons' and that it should be the new norm to live apart and raise children that way, that it would be better for all families is ludicrous. That's an incredibly narrow minded, even bigoted view point being pushed, not a discussion.

I'm 5 years down the road from the OP, and in a happy and fulfilling relationship. We live apart at present because we have no choice. Yes, it's nice to have our own space, but when we're apart we miss each other massively. And I'm not sure I'd want to approach retirement and old age and still be in this living arrangement.

And while it's ok for people to say, yes if you can afford it, keep separate houses. But it's the burden on wider society of doing that that matters too. You might be able to afford to do it, but it's to the detriment of the rest of society since we have a shortage of family sized homes, and no medium term prospect of building the required housing stock to cope with what the OP is suggesting.

The OP says he will never get into the situation where he is financially entangled and can't just up and leave. What that is saying is that he won't trust or be intimate with a partner ever again. So the only people he'll be compatible with are those who are also unable to trust or be intimate with him. So it's basically for people with avoidant attachment styles.

Beyond that, how anyone could think it's better for children in any way is beyond me. So many reasons. To have two adults who love each other but can't bear to live under the same same roof as a role model for your children. Kids brains get wired about most social/relationship stuff from a very young age, and living like this is just setting them up for childhood trauma and attachment disorders in later life.

But also for a child to be passed back and forth like a commodity or a ping pong ball between two households, just for the parent's need for their own space is selfish and unhealthy for the children. The only way I could see it working is where the kids stay put in the main family home, and the adults switch places to leave and stay somewhere else. Could work for separated couples, but why would a couple still together, who love each other, want to be like ships passing in the night? And again, what message does that send to the kids about healthy relationships?

If not wanting to be financially entangled when you're unmarried means you have an avoidant attachment style then if I was unmarried I'd choose to be in that box all day long

I'd say it was super sensible in some cases, but we're all different.

I've said so many times that I had these thoughts way before my breakup. Can I not just think about things without it being because of my current situation, which of course has influenced me now?

Many years ago the thought of same sex couples raising or adopting a child was very taboo. A child needs a mum and a dad, it is heinous. My point being things change. Just because we can't imagine it or imagine how the hell it work does not make it ludicrous.

I don't get why it is bigoted? You are basically saying that anyone who thinks or likes the idea is bigoted because if a difference of opinion.

Now, I have trust issues, commitment issue e.t.c. Can it not be I am just striving to find what works for me and not repeating the same mistakes...Sheeesh

I think people do move in together (sometimes) because it makes more sense in some degree, convenience, cost and yes because they want too.

I never said that the child would be passed back and forth either. Each person will spend time at the others with the child.

Look. I'm not saying it will work, it's a thought but I'm being made out to be a bitter bigot.

How do you know if it will work or not?

How do you know if it will lower divorce / separation rate?

You don't, it's never been done, proven or disproven. Computer just says no.

You are just basing everything on no evidence and personal bias / experience.

I'm not saying it will work either because I just don't know.

People live together and have separate rooms. What message does that send as the child gets older.

People live together and hate each other. What message does that send.

There's messages flying all over the place, why does living apart but together in some workable way send a bad message. You/I just don't know.

@Gilda152

If not wanting to be financially entangled when you're unmarried means you have an avoidant attachment style then if I was unmarried I'd choose to be in that box all day long

I'd say it was super sensible in some cases, but we're all different.

. . . 👍🏽

Massive leaps in assumptions.

@SausageSizzle I was trying to be cutting, but I actually think you've pinpointed my female socialisation subconsciously making me put a charitable spin on the OP....

Sorry @Grimskee. I’ve got my literal hat on today .

Realistically, you’d need 3 houses, not 2, for your scheme to work, OP. One ‘escape pad’ for each partner and then a family home for the children where each partner could have assigned shifts. Otherwise, only one partner is getting the benefit of being able to escape to their own place and be on their own. 3 houses for one family seems excessive.

Yes I do realise, it is mainly women who are the primary cares in most cases, but not in mine and for the last 3 years I did 80% of it. Even my mum says 'now you know how women feel' I just don't think that's helpful.

If you did 80% of it, who is doing your share now? The issue msot women have is that they can't run out on their kids. The buck stops with them.

So. I am offended when people think I am being breezy and think I don't know what I'm talking about and think I just want women to do the grind. I treated having kids as a job and tried to organise things and make things fair so we both didn't suffer or be completely stressed out and worn out.

Just of out of interest, is that why you feel so resentful about your relationship? There’s been research about how men consistently over-estimate the share of household chores and childcare which they do. There’s a saying ‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality is inequality’.

OP, the only situation in which your plan doesn't work is if you have children (which admittedly is one of the main scenarios you want it to apply in). What you suggest is entirely possible for a couple without children (and also makes sense for partners with children from previous relationships). But if you have children, they need a main home and then you and your partner would be left doing shifts in that home (so 12 hours on, 12 hours off). Since the early days with kids are tough, I imagine what would happen is that each partner would fuck off pretty quickly after their shift had finished back to their own pad. There would be no 'family' as such, just two parents taking it in turns to care for their children. Also, can you imagine the constant arguments about when 'family' time should happen? Each partner would want it to be on their shift, so then they could have their off-time to themselves.

I don’t think people normally set out to have children (or at least they shouldn’t have) if they have serious trust issues or commitment issues (although these may develop later from unfortunate relationships). Children are a huge commitment in themselves (there is no such thing as ‘time off’ from your children) and yes, you do sort of commit in most cases to having their other parent in your life in some form for 18 years at least. So if you want to avoid commitment to other human beings, the best thing is to avoid children altogether.

With tiny children often the situation is that you simply can’t “escape” to your own space when you “need” to. It’s one of the reasons that parenting with babies and toddlers is known to be hard going. Unless you are prepared to take advantage of the other parent. And often men do just escape and leave the hard work to someone else.

It's called cycling/golf/gaming/insert hobby name. Many men manage to escape without needing a separate property.

Why 3. You each spend time at each other's but at some point with agreed times and arrangements one gets to go back to theirs. During early years the situation is different.

FOR THE LAST TIME. I DID NOT RUN AWAY. I HAD NO CHOICE. I would MORE THAN happily had her move out and the kids stay with me. But that wasn't an option and I had no other option. I would have happily done what many women do and just take the kids. She secretly took her last 2 from ex. Who ever has the right to do that, to assume the kids are more theirs than the other.

You are accusing me with the general narrative that all men have the luxury if running away. It was no luxury for me thank you very much. If I could have I would have rented a place next door immediately and had them 50% straight away. So please get off that train of thinking that all men are bad and run away. Again, if I owned the house, I would tell her to leave and the kids can stay with me until she gets a place. Is that actually clear yet.

Resentful. Look I'm not the first to be resentful, I'm not the only one. I and you are allowed to be, it passes and we move on. I am allowed to be for whatever reasons so stop making it out to be a bad thing, it happens and I'm sure she is also resentful too. Big deal.

@SausageSizzle

With tiny children often the situation is that you simply can’t “escape” to your own space when you “need” to. It’s one of the reasons that parenting with babies and toddlers is known to be hard going. Unless you are prepared to take advantage of the other parent. And often men do just escape and leave the hard work to someone else.

It's called cycling/golf/gaming/insert hobby name. Many men manage to escape without needing a separate property.

. . .

True and that is probably my downfall. Didn't do these things enough have my own space and time away from the house.

Still not living with a woman again though. There is no real need to do so anymore 😂

Why 3. You each spend time at each other's but at some point with agreed times and arrangements one gets to go back to theirs. During early years the situation is different.

Because the children will need to have a main home. Otherwise, what you're really talking about is 50/50 shared care and the children passed from piller to post. Some parents make it work, but it's not ideal.

I don't get why it is bigoted? You are basically saying that anyone who thinks or likes the idea is bigoted because if a difference of opinion.

I'm saying each to their own, I'm open minded. You're suggesting it should be the social norm - everyone should expect to live that way. You started a 'discussion' by suggesting everyone should be the way that you are, and then arguing with anyone who dares to have a differing opinion. You're trying to pigeonhole everyone into your narrow viewpoint. You think you must be right and that no one could possibly be any different to you (that we must be lying to ourselves or can't see how it really is), that's what's bigoted.

It's a perfectly acceptably way for adults to live who aren't having children together. But I just can't see how it's better for the children (or even healthy) for a couple in a relationship together to raise their children separately to one another, for no other reason than having their own space? You're suggesting we deconstruct the family unit social construct that's been around since we were cave dwellers, because it's only been that way for 'practical reasons'.

I suspect also that most people like having a space of their own too much to spend 50% of their lives round at someone else’s. Where would all your stuff go? Wouldn’t it get a bit annoying to have to deal with someone else getting all the say on the furniture and the food and what goes where for half your life?

@altmember

If you think I am telling people what to do you have misinterpreted or I've not explained correctly. I am not even saying I am right.

A lot here advocate separate living, granted with no kids. I am just saying maybe things would be better for some even if they had kids, if they could make it work SOMEHOW.

I am allowed to disagree or come back at what someone says. It's a debate an argument a discussion an opinion. It seems you and people are upset because I am not agreeing with them. I may say things, doesn't make it fact or true or make me think I'm right though even if it comes across like that. I am open to changing my opinion and lots of things have made me think.

It POSSIBLY not a great idea if you have kids but at the same time nobody knows because it's not been tried because we all fall into the same pattern. Whether socially engineered to convenience. Maybe only wealthy people can adapt this method, coz you'd double up on a lot of things.

@SausageSizzle

I'm not talking about shared custody.
We all spend time at my house/your house at different intervals and then at times one person just gets to go back to theirs. Practically a nightmare but I like the idea in theory. You look after your own place and you have your own space.

Basically each person gets to maintain their own place and space.

15 years here. Still separate houses. He is a messy bugger and I'm a neat freak. Both had houses before met. No kids. he is on my sofa at present eating my ice cream 🍦🍦🍦but will get me tea in the morning then I'll send him home before park run, dog walk, ou assignment and 4 hr work. Then he'll appear and we will walk dog he'll cook dinner. Rinse and repeat. 😁

First of all - there is already a massive housing shortage an increase in homeless and a higher demand for housing.

Why on earth would it then be a sensible idea for every capable adult to live "independently."

Second of all living together doesnt have to be all room and gloom if navigated correctly. For example the space you crave can be found in seperate rooms in the house or hobbies outside of the house. But being together means majority of the time chores are shared. There is someone to cuddle at night. Someone to talk to when you've had a bad day. If done right a relationship should enhance your life and living situation. Life should feel easier with someone around. No ones indepence has to be lost to sharing. You can still have good seperate incomes, and separate lives.

• doom and gloom