See I see someone helping me make a bed thats mine or me helping make theirs as somehow less suffocating than "ours". I love holding hands in the grocery store and doing shopping together. I still have daily life with living apart. Just not EVERY day. I get a couple days off a week. In my own space.
And we don't argue about bills, or chores. Because I'm not doing their laundry or hoovering their carpets. Thats their job. Cleaning.ng out the hallway closet is not quality date time to me. Its not fun.
But cooking together, spending nights on the couch cuddling, grocery shopping together,, doing some of their mending for them while we watch a docu... I get to pick which domestic things to share I stead of having it thrust at me and loaded down with it and not have my own space to retreat to, with my own rules and just my stuff.

I still like doing daily stuff with them. I just don't want it to be every single day. I don't want to have to nag about the garbage or feel resentful I'm cleaning the bathroom again and its thier turn. Or why didn't you pay the phone bill on time?? Those are the things I never ever want to deal with again :)

It's not that I'm not romantic. It's that I get sick and depressed if I don't get my own space and alone time. Some of us don't need it. I do for my mental health. Even from my most favorite people.

Yes, that's cool we just have different preferences. For me, getting groceries for Our house has a different meaning than getting them for my house or hers, but it could still be enjoyable doing it together and it would still be contributing to us as a couple in some way even we didn't live together.

I have spent at least half of my adult life single and do fine on my own and like to have some personal space, but living with a partner in the past has been very special for me. It doesn't feel suffocating to me and I love the routine parts too. Actually I find most people to be draining after a while and can only take them in small doses before I crawl back into my hermit cave, so it definitely needs to be the right person.

I have never been married but definitely want to and my partner feels the same. I wouldn't want to marry someone or have a long term partner where we lived in separate places. It is just not my preference, and thankfully it isn't my partner's preference either. But if you have two people who would prefer to live apart and it works for them then that's great.

I think the name is introvert, which simply means someone who recharges their energy, by being alone.

I have a rather undeveloped theory about the advantages of marriage/civil unions/contractual partnerships...I see them as a financial, medical, retirement plan...from the perspective of an "old" woman.

I also accept that there is lots of anecdotal evidence to contradict me and many anomalies.

Nevertheless, here are some random thoughts, in no particular order:

1. "Love/Romance" plays a very small part in my theory. It's actually a very recent concept and amongst the least reliable predictors of success.

2. I understand that unless there is remarkable coincidence or co-suicide, one partner will eventually be left alone. That is a given that you just can't get around.

3. As you age it's really better to have someone there to notice you've fallen and broken your hip than trying to crawl around the kitchen floor looking for your "$25per month emergency call button.

4. Many people, particularly "single" women just won't have the individual resources to avoid a slide in their living conditions as they age.

5.Not too many people are tough enough to get old "alone"

6. Having friends, family, extended family, is wonderful but none of it comes close to having a shared interconnected relationship where multiplatform mutual security is primary.

7. Risk-taking is great for the young where there is plenty of time to correct mistakes. When you're older, you better have a plan and that plan will likely serve you much better if it's a closely shared plan.

8. Sure there are lots of trade-offs but there are no free lunches and I'd still rather share a grocery bill and sit across from my partner having some lunch.

Warning: No rigorous thought went into these opinions.

I am as introverted as one can be and still need my partner as close as possible, while most other people I do not want close. Maybe "distantly attached" is a way to describe that type of arrangement. Who knows? lol

Thanks bulldog, I hear you.

To the other responses - this where I feel like I live in another universe. I have been in seven different long term relationships from the age of 15 until now, at age 46. I have lived with two out of seven as a shared household and one out of shared "her" house because I needed to find a place after I moved, which took a year.

So four out of seven I never lived with someone. And the assumptions I am hearing seem really odd. I didn't have to pencil anyone in. We still had lunches and breakfasts etc together. They would come over on a thurs eve and leave on Monday morning. Or come on a Friday and leave Sunday night and I'd visit them over night on a wed.

Or something like that. They have a drawer in my dresser, some space in the closet, a shelf in the bathroom, one of the night stands, and some of their favourite stuff in the cupboard and the fridge. We shop for the dinners we share together. We have daily relaxed spontaneous free time together. Hang out for three days or four days in a row.

The difference is: my space is *my* space. Their space is *their* space. They are responsible for theirs. I don't look after it. Or their two dogs. We don't discuss if I want dogs or not. They get to make that decision all on their own. If they house is dirty, they clean it, not me. I do the dishes or make the bed with them. I don't scrub their place down. They do that stuff. I'm responsible for my place.

I don't want a house. I want a tiny wee flat in a big urban city. With a little balcony, no yard. They can live wherever best pleases them. And I can visit and stay for a few days a week.

But I share households with flat mates. I don't mind that. Because I look for a flatmate I can live with, who has the same habits as me. Falling in love with someone does not mean they have the same living habits as me. And I

HATE

Not having that easy living situation and arguing about bills, housework, where we live, pets etc... Because that's needless if we have our own space and you get your own rules and stuff and I get my own rules and stuff.

I just don't see the point when I can spend four days a week if I want, at their place and go home where they can't knock on my door and say " babe... Can you walk the dog?" Or "where is the ketchup?" Or "why is there a stain on the counter?"I also know that it's not just for three hours of precious me time, I get three whole days of doing whatever I want and having friends over without asking.

I can't do that when I live with someone. And I need it. I need more than a few hours here and there. Of course we have our own hobbies and friends. But I need to know that I can make decisions about *my* space that are entirely *mine*. As in you don't get a say what colour I paint my walls. Or how many cats I have.

I need it.

I'm actually an extrovert. And I have lived with introverts and yet they still seem to be far more intense and limpet like (lol) about personal space than me. What I find smothering will not be smothering to others. I don't need daily contact with my parter. I just don't. I carry a little part of them inside myself with intense love. I'm also not a word person. I don't need a lot of reassurance. I like contact with lots of people, daily, relaxed, without obligation.

I live in a building with three of my closest friends in other apartments. My job is touching people all day. I have a highly social job and lots of touch. I can crawl into bed and have morning coffee with my neighbour and close friend since I was 15 and is like a cousin. I can couch cuddle my friends watching a movie. I don't get all of those things off *one* person in my life. I can only be in love with one person, but I'm fed by many people in my day. On a daily basis. And I need my down times in my own space or I get sick. Without interruption. Without arguing about the recycling or what not. I want to live in a little place in a city. Not in the burbs or in the country. And I don't see that as a problem if a I stay at theirs sometimes and they stay at mine with a 2 or three day break in between.

I still get grocery shopping with them, and all the other good stuff. But what I also get is being able to say "my house, my decision." About things that are important to me. And being able to leave their place if I want to. And have my best mate over at 10pm (if my partner isn't staying over that night) after she went to the pub without asking if that's ok.

I love them, I want to be with them, but I don't need us to be roommate compatible.

I think its just personality differences, which is great. Variety is the spice of life.

I am a major introvert, but I enjoy being in the company of those that I like and love. I can just sit quietly and enjoy their company. I'm happy to participate in the give and take that will accompany integrating my partner into my living space for good. Its something I feel I need for a complete relationship. I admire those who do not need that, though.

Yes, variety is good. It would drive me crazy going back and forth between two different places as a long-term proposition. When first getting to know someone while dating, then yes it would be fine. But no I wouldn't want to do that with someone I was married to or had a long term commitment with. I would never know whether I was coming or going. Yes, I could have a toothbrush at two places and things like that, but I like being grounded to one spot.

I don't need to feel like a living space is all mine. I get a lot more satisfaction in sharing it with a partner, and those that I have lived with in the past there hasn't been a lot of arguing- about household things or anything else for that matter. Well 1 out of 3 there was some fighting, but I should have never lived with her to begin with (not anyone from this site). My partner would have to be someone I was compatible living with, which yeah would rule out a lot of women I could potentially be attracted to in other ways, but fortunately that is not something I have to worry about.

I also feel I can still have plenty of independence, enjoy my own interests, have friends, and still live with my partner and spend lots of time with her. That works for me.

I just think that people who haven't been married before sometimes underestimate the legal repercussions that can happen if by chance it doesn't work out. Marriage is something that's easy to get into and can be incredibly difficult to get out of. That's not always true, but if your ex-partner is inclined they can make your life a living hell.

This is one of the exact reasons I won't get married, if it breaks up for some reason you have to get an attorney, go through all the crap, pay a ton of money, etc. So therefore, no marriage for me, I ain't paying for some divorce just because my partner gets pissed off over something petty and decides its over, instead of working it out, which I see ALOT of married couples not do.

I'm happy it's hard to get out of and that there are major repercussions. To me that's one of the excellent points of it all.

My divorce was very clean, cost very little (about 300 euros, as much as the wedding licence) and easy with one solicitor between us. We didn't fight. There was no point. I was due seven years of alimony due to the circumstances and what my ex did. I refused it. I can make my own money.

I know if three people who moved in with their beloved but not married - they didn't believe in it. Only to have their partners clean out the account and do a midnight move. Or steal very valuable items and move fuck off with a close mate.

You don't need to be married to have someone wreck your life. It's very easy to have someone remove everything from your home while you are at work if you have a key.

In BC, if you live with someone two years less one day, they are entitled to everything a spouse would be entitled to in a divorce or death. The civil ceremony doesn't give you more rights or obligations.

You move in with someone for two years? You are as legally responsible as if you were married.

It's a business deal so write up a good contract ( legally binding co-habitation agreement ), read the fine print, make sure the children like you more.

Its different in the states. Divorces are not generally as cheap as yours and can carry on for years.

Lol, you crack me up but this sounds wonderful. Especially the children liking you more.:seeingstars:

I wasn't only thinking in terms of money, but there's that too. Consider that divorce can impact your social security benefits and you can be required to continue paying on bills you never asked for. Sometimes a spouse can lay claim to things that have sentimental value to you even if they have no real monetary value.

I'm not totally down on marriage. It's just that, at this stage, I'm interested in (someday) finding the right relationship. I don't even have that part figured out. I have been married and in a few committed relationships, but not one of those relationships was worthy of the vows. I don't believe you can get married and then force things to work out. Couples shouldn't ignore the little problems that arise now and then, because once you're married they may turn into big problems. You need to have enough compatibility to carry you through a lifetime and that's not easy to see when you're in the middle of a relationship. I agree with the comment above about taking your time. Marriage works for some people. It's just not a goal for me. I just want someone to cuddle up and watch Netflix with. I'd rather spend the money on a vacation than a wedding.

To be fair, it really depends on the people involved. I know of people who did it by just filing papers online for a few hundred dollars. They went their separate ways cleanly the way ICC did.

Others, who even had money, child support, and property involved may have used lawyers, but still did it quick and easy. A meeting or two between their lawyers and that was it. People have the option to make their own agreement, or simply follow the monetary "formula" (alimony, child support, etc), stated by the State that you live in (for my state you can find it on our government web site).

I don't profess to know how different it is state to state and maybe it is a longer process in some states (including yours, JDeere), but I really think it is only if people don't agree. Yes, it CAN carry on for years with lots and lots of heartbreak, but it depends on the people and if they do not want to follow what your state suggests or can't come up with their own agreement of terms.

ICC, that is scary as hell that people just co-habitating can have legally binding issues. No wonder living with someone is not an option for you! Hell!

(Also, ICC, how about you give us initials to use for your name? I don't know what you like and I still want to call you HB!)

I was divorced from my daughter's father after 10 years of marriage, 8 living together and 2 more so he could claim 1/2 my social security should he not remarry. In California, if there are children involved you have to go to a class on the effect your divorce will have on the family...I picked him up and we went together. We both had Lawyers do our paperwork, because we wanted it done right...neither one of us asked for spousal support, and I refused child support with the exception of he kept her on his medical insurance until she was 15 and he could no longer work.

NEVER in the time we have been apart did I ever say one negative word about her father, and to his credit I never heard anything bad from him...heck, I even used to send money with her for food and activities when she spent her visitation time with him. I still have a deep respect and love for the man who fathered my child, but he wasn't female and I couldn't live that lie any longer.

Even with all of this sunshine and roses, I grieved the end of a marriage I swore I would be in until death do us part. Marriage is not a decision to be made lightly, and if it takes years to make sure you are doing the right thing, then take years...no judging here.

I believe we were ready..so we did it.Nothing changes,we both know our boundaries...it's just that we fucking did it!.The thing is "I" "Me" "Mine" is now "We" "Us" "Ours"...yep,nothing changed.*snort*

Imp is fine. Or IC. Or ICC. Or titsalina. Lol I don't care, I know who you are referring to.

And yes, I could have made our divorce last years. That was my point. So thanks. You can be quick and easy or it can be costly, hurtful (more hurtful than it already is. I didn't believe in divorce for myself so it felt like getting a layer of skin peeled off. I'm of the same opinion as Tinkerbelly). And it depends on if the people involved are angry, self-righteous, other blaming, vindictive arses. Yes, my exwife did something cruel and broke her promises. But she also wasn't mentally healthy and I believed her decisions were made in a depressive spiral. Hurting her more wouldn't have "taught" her anything. She is her own chaos, her own storm. And I certainly wasn't innocent. I wasn't peaches and cream to live with.


And I think the legally binding thing with cohabitation is good. So many people don't believe in civil marriage but shack up and have kids and spend money together on places, it's the easiest way to make it fair. A long time ago, back in the 1500s, in many places in Europe, that's how marriage worked anyway. You said "you wanna be my wife?" They said "yup" and they moved in. No ceremony needed. That was for the farmers and land workers and lower guilds. If you had money/title, then the person got chosen for you and there were witnesses and probably a church person there.

Modern marriage didn't happen till mid 16th century. When Henry had his fit, along wth John Calvin and Luther and invented prodestantism and the whole anti Catholic thing started.

Then *everyone* had to have a ceremony, it had to be by the prodistant church or a church official, and you had to pay for it. So prodestant ministers that liked a bit of tipple married poor people in pubs for much less money and still signed the paper for you.

Anyway. Yeah, personally think those that live together, have kids and make investments together should be recognized equal to married and with equal obligations. Seen too many of my friends get screwed with long term cohabitation and no rights, someone just empties the house and fucks off and leaves a kid. Or kicks them out. They aren't married. You paid into their mortgage for six years.

I think it's a good idea.

When my mom had a domestic partnership through cohabitation, they both drew up legal documents stating neither one had rights to the others house or accounts - so basically a cohabitation prenup. Which was very good idea because when he died, his kids wanted half my mom's house as well as his.

So. It's always good to put it on paper. Your partner may not be an arse, but if there is no will , maybe their kin are.

I think titsalina fits you perfectly, so I will go with that one (speaking of tits....well, your tits, specifically... we need them back in the photo gallery. Please and thank you.).

I agree that if people live together for a long period of time, and of course if they combine accounts, there should be a legal piece to the breakup.

However, I have a problem with the two year mark. That's nutso. I say 5 years for your Canadian approach.

I think that people need to protect themselves when it comes to co-habitating, like your mother did. I know that the plan for myself and the lovely TF was to at some point after she moved in to get the house appraised. Then, at the time of break up/purchase of a home together, we would do another apraisal. At that point she would get half the equity that had grown over the time we lived in my house together.

If you don't do something like that the person moving into the other person's home gets screwed if there is a break up. If they weren't with you, they would have been building equity in their own home instead of living with your stupid ass for years. :D

Congratulations on your marriage! May you always have enough of everything to make living and loving together worthwhile.

I think I'd put it at 3 years. Mainly because heterosexual couples tend to have kids much faster than we do. Our five is more like their 2.5 or less. Much less.
And when kids come into it, game change. I think the 2 year decision was based around the average amount of time kids entered the picture from first moving together. I could be wrong but I thought I read that somewhere.

Anyway first marriages/long term cohabitations tend to fail at the 5-6 year mark (that I read) so I'd put the starter mark at three, unless a child is registered to the couple at any point after cohabitation/domestic partnership starts.

I've heard that in some states if you are living with someone for over a year and claim them as your spouse, you are common law married.

I have never understood this, why not just get married but I can see how some folks can feel that an actual marriage on paper can affect things, it's one thing calling them your spouse and another being married by law.

< insert strange look on face here

There are 16 states that create common law marriage in some form or another. Some only recognize those from before certain dates (meaning you may no longer create one) and New Hampshire, which only recognizes them for inheritance purposes.

You must present yourselves as married to the community(I'm John and this is my wife Mary) pay joint taxes and get a legal divorce should you split. It is a myth that it automatically happens just by living together, but in those states you should have something signed and notarized that you are living together as two free and independent people (should you not want a common law marriage) if you don't want any issues down the road.

That's what I thought! All I've ever heard was about presenting to others as spouses deal.