Aside from the financial aspect I've been thinking about the topic of living together with your long term partner recently.
I am re-evaluating the whole concept that couples eventually living together needs to be some kind of long term relationship default or goal. I love my personal space and having an apartment to call my own to come home to. I also love having my boyfriend visit, sometimes for days at a time. I'm not completely against eventually moving in together, but am kind of unsure when or why we usually consider it to be some sort of inevitable goal of a successful relationship that is progressing. Can't we just live separately, enjoy our own space, and see each other whenever we want? Maybe gradually the time we want to spend together will increase, and then nothing is stopping us from doing that. And maybe we'll go through a phase where we want more personal time, and then we'll still have the option to do that, too! This way we could see each other simply because we want to, not because we happen to live in the same apartment and don't really have another option anyway.
Of course this becomes more complicated if the couple chooses to have children, but as someone who intends to stay childfree I guess I just don't see much of an incentive to move in together 'permanently'.
Speaking as someone who intends to have children with my partner, you're basically right about why we want to move in together. That, and it simplifies a lot of the logistics of being in a long-term relationship for us. Right now I have to haul overnight bags to her house and plan how I'm going to get fresh clothes and stuff during the week, because I'm usually spending the night at her place. But when we move in together all my things will be colocated at her place. And I'll be able to cook dinner and help take care of us, which is more difficult when living separately.
We still both recognize the need for personal space within our shared home so we are discussing how we can accomplish that as we also decide how we're going to move in together.
I think the discussion of what your goals are is a critical part of any relationship, and personally as someone who doesn't share your goals I still think it's great that you know what they are and that you've discussed them with your partner. Because the communication is actually what defines a good relationship, and not this stepwise cultural treadmill toward cohabitating and having kids.
Thanks for sharing. Best of luck with your plans and your future move. You're right that discussing this properly is key - I'm not totally against moving in together one day. I'd just really like for it to be a conscious choice on our part, one that is untainted by default cultural expectations and with living apart still being a perfectly valid choice in itself.
I’m not living with my long term partner, out of choice. It has all the benefits you mention, but overall we spend more on some necessities / luxuries. For example, both homes have the same coffee making facilities, toothbrushes etc. The trade off is worth it for us. There are times when we both really appreciate having some space, it’s sometimes nice to be on my own after a long day at work.
This is really interesting; if you don't mind me asking, how long have you been together?
One point of tension that I can imagine if I keep going with this kind of dynamic long term is as follows:
We will likely want to spend some longer stretches of time together at some point. Not permanently, but I could imagine maybe living together for a week or so at a time. At that point I can imagine my partner not feeling truly comfortable at my place because it isn't "home". Have you run into this kind of thing? Do either of you care? Do both of your places feel comfortable enough to be "homey", or there any of that slightly uncomfortable sense of being a guest in someone else's house?
This is a convenience afforded to you because A - you have plenty of housing available to you that is affordable and you can live apart and enjoy your space.
B- you don't have children
C - You don't have a need to combine income so you can have the resources needed to survive
These three options A, B and C do not apply to the majority of the population, even in the United States. Many people in Silicon Valley cannot live like this. They need the help of a partner to pay rent, care for children or simply someone to pool resources with. If there is no way to live together, it becomes a huge blocker to progressing in life. A lot of young people in America are surviving on the pooled resources lifestyle. If its not with a partner, they pool resources with parents.
The first words in my comment were "aside from the financial aspect" and I pointed out that this becomes more complicated if the couple intends to have children.
> I'm not completely against eventually moving in together, but am kind of unsure when or why we usually consider it to be some sort of inevitable goal of a successful relationship that is progressing.
The reason for this is that a successful relationship produces children, and you (and they!) want both parents around.
Some do, but children aren't a requirement for a successful relationship. Regardless, my comment already mentions that "this becomes more complicated if the couple chooses to have children"
> children aren't a requirement for a successful relationship.
This is a very fringe viewpoint, particularly from a historical perspective. The normal view was and is that a relationship with no children is ipso facto a failed relationship. Consider that infertility was one of just a couple of valid reasons to have a Catholic marriage annulled.
As I said, the view that a successful relationship necessarily involves children is still quite current. It's not universal as it was in the past, but it is the overwhelming consensus.
I would love to see some sources for your claim that "the view that a successful relationship necessarily involves children is still quite current" and that "it is the overwhelming consensus."
Anecdotally, in my environment you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks children are required for a relationship to be successful. Many people _want_ children, but are not deluded enough to believe the entire concept of "a relationship" is a failure without them (nor that it is a success with them).
Thanks in advance for any sources you can point me to.
I am re-evaluating the whole concept that couples eventually living together needs to be some kind of long term relationship default or goal. I love my personal space and having an apartment to call my own to come home to. I also love having my boyfriend visit, sometimes for days at a time. I'm not completely against eventually moving in together, but am kind of unsure when or why we usually consider it to be some sort of inevitable goal of a successful relationship that is progressing. Can't we just live separately, enjoy our own space, and see each other whenever we want? Maybe gradually the time we want to spend together will increase, and then nothing is stopping us from doing that. And maybe we'll go through a phase where we want more personal time, and then we'll still have the option to do that, too! This way we could see each other simply because we want to, not because we happen to live in the same apartment and don't really have another option anyway.
Of course this becomes more complicated if the couple chooses to have children, but as someone who intends to stay childfree I guess I just don't see much of an incentive to move in together 'permanently'.