How do guys feel about the importance about moving in together?

[Appleness]

As in would you get offended if your girlfriend said no?

 

I've been dating a really nice guy for the past 6 months. We have great chemistry.

 

I have a feeling that he feels the relationship should be progressing a bit more rapidly than it currently is. As of right now, we live very close to each other and so dates are easy to plan but he may soon by moving farther away to be closer to his new job (and I openly support him on this). However, he says that he doesn't want to commit to moving away because "one day soon we may move in together and I want you to be okay with being there too."

 

Half of me is really happy and thrilled because he's thinking long-term, The other half of me is dismayed because I really don't want to move in with a boyfriend without us deciding on something a bit more concrete (i.e. an engagement or something along the same lines). I know I'm not supposed to judge new relationships on what happened in the past but I had a previous experience where the guy just thought that moving in together became "good enough" and I don't want to have to go through all that moving out business again.

 

So, dear LS readers, what do you think?

[oldshirt]

First step you need to do is determine if you reluctance to move in with him is because your value system is geared towards a concrete commitment (ie marriage) or because you don't want to because you do not believe him to be "the one."

 

If it is the latter then bid him well when he moves and date him at your leisure when you are able to do so.

 

If it is because you do not believe in cohabitation and your end-goal is marriage then clearly state so and stick to your guns despite his logical arguments as to why you should not believe in what you do and why you should not have the values that you do.

 

Cohabitation is often counterproductive to marriage. It's one thing if a couple is engaged, have a date set and have paid all the deposits, made all the reservations and have sent out all the invitations and are booking the tickets for the honeymoon. In that instance if both people's leases are ending and it makes sense to move into the marital home a few weeks before the marriage, so be it.

 

However when people use cohabitation as simply another step in the dating process, it is often counterproductive to the marital process or at least significantly delays it.

 

Women often see cohabitation as an "audition" for marriage but once men move in together they often see cohabitation as simply a substitute or a replacement for an actual, legal and socially binding commitment.

 

In other words they don't buy the cow while they're getting the milk for free. Yes that is an old grandmothers saying but grandmothers were a lot smarter and understood human interaction back in the day better than girls in the dating market are now.

 

So simple formula here -

 

- the only valid reason to live with someone is if you want to share living expenses and have basically a "Roommate With Benefits" arrangment with no solid commitment and no realistic future plans together as a couple.

 

- If you don't want to live with him because you don't want to live under the same roof with him under any circumstances, then just keep it as a dating relationship until it reaches it's natural conclusion.

 

- If you do want to be with him and want marriage as your end goal, then declare marriage as your objective in the relationship and legal marriage as the stipulation of sharing a home together.

[oldshirt]

 

 

Half of me is really happy and thrilled because he's thinking long-term,

 

This is where you are mistaken. Women think "long term" when a couple is discussing moving in together.

 

Men are thinking, "I can save on rent and I won't have drive home in the middle of the night after getting a piece."

 

Cohabitation is men's way of NOT having to think long term and NOT having to get married or have a serious commitment to have the convenience of an in-house, fulltime sex partner.

 

Cohabitation by it's very nature is a form of institutionalized NONcommitment. The only commitment that a cohabitating couple has is to the landlord with who they signed the lease. They are not in any way shape or form committed to each other. Either party can pack up and leave at any time. The only commitment they have is to the landlord for the rent and the terms of the lease. Not to each other.

 

(in case where a cohabitating couple purchases their home together and both names are on the deed, then the court determines how the mortgage is settled. Again, the commitment is to the mortgage holder and not each other)

 

 

Cohabitation only benefits you if you are the one that needs help with living expenses and you are the one who wants the flexibility of packing up your stuff and leaving on a moments notice and only having to worry about how to take care of financial obligations of the lease/mortgage. cohabitation only benefits those who are committed to not being committed.

[oldshirt]

I know I'm not supposed to judge new relationships on what happened in the past but I had a previous experience where the guy just thought that moving in together became "good enough" and I don't want to have to go through all that moving out business again.

 

 

Again, you are not connecting the dots. That is not a judgement. That is learning how the world works through first hand experience, except that you are not "getting it."

 

Your previous boyfriend thinking that moving in was "good enough" is how the world works and is how it is. He was the rule, not the exception.

 

Learn from your prior experiences, not view what your learned as a judgement.

[soccerrprp]

I have to admit that I agree with some of the stuff here. Some men may be looking at it as an opportunity for other reasons than LTR. You are absolutely right to let him know that you want more before moving in together. After 6-months? So close to one another, no reason to move in, right? Ask him why he wants to move in together. I would be uncomfortable with finances, saving on money stuff come up in the conversation. I would also make your feelings well known and clear. If he really likes you and that's the reason he wants to move in together, he'll understand and accept your point of view.

 

GOod luck.

[Iguanna]

You have to be honest and explain to him that, while you want to move in with him and it would make you happy, you would feel more comfortable if this happened if and when your relationship would go somewhere further than just moving in. There is a big chance he'll get scared though. Are you ready for this? Whatever you do, do not compromise with something you don't want just to avoid scaring him away. You have every right to be extra careful after the bad experience you had and he has the right to know this and act accordingly.

[Brunettie]

My boyfriend won't get married without living together first.

I told him That's fine, But I won't unless we are engaged. He's fine with that.

 

His reason is because he was previously engaged awhile back, and he got to know the real her after she moved in. She didn't have a job and stayed at home on the computer all day and he'd have to come home after 10 hours of working to cook, do the dishes and clean up.

 

He wouldn't have known that if they didn't live together first.

 

Talk to him about it. If you don't want to live together before an engagement/marriage tell him that.

[CarrieT]

Know each other for an entire year - through all four seasons - before even considering living together.

[aussietigerwolf]

marriage is not a concrete commitment...

how many stories are there on here about either gender cheating before/on/after the wedding...

how many about the spouse/fiance suddenly deciding they're leaving...

[ThomasD]

You should probably review the comments in the thread "Living Together Before Marriage" at http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/442981-living-together-before-marriage

[ThomasD]

. . . So simple formula here -

 

- the only valid reason to live with someone is if you want to share living expenses and have basically a "Roommate With Benefits" arrangment with no solid commitment and no realistic future plans together as a couple.

 

- If you don't want to live with him because you don't want to live under the same roof with him under any circumstances, then just keep it as a dating relationship until it reaches it's natural conclusion.

 

- If you do want to be with him and want marriage as your end goal, then declare marriage as your objective in the relationship and legal marriage as the stipulation of sharing a home together.

Looks like a succinct, practical, summary.

 

Even though the conclusion is accurate, I don't totally agree with the gender-stereotyping in the comments leading up to this summary. In today's world I think women are just as likely to use and exploit men through cohabitation arrangements. While saving money on rent, she can be living in more luxurious or more convenient accommodations than she could on her own, have casual companionship (and the ability to reach the top shelf in the cupboards), and run in higher-status social circles while she looks for a better "catch".

[man_in_the_box]

Cohabitation is good for relationships that are on one line whether they want to progress towards marriage or not. It's not cohabitation an sich that erodes relationship quality because one person thought it was a step closer to marriage while the other thinks it is a good substitution. It's the people in the relationship that fail to communicate their needs from a relationship or lie/omit them on purpose.

 

So if you and your partner are mature enough to co-exist in a stable relationship then it doesn't matter whether you cohabitate before marriage, engage before cohabiting or just marry and then cohabitate.

 

Cohabitation is just an act. It's what people who are cohabitating are doing to or failing to do for eachother that causes all these negative stereotypes about cohabitation. Just ensure you don't become one of them.

[oldshirt]

Looks like a succinct, practical, summary.

 

Even though the conclusion is accurate, I don't totally agree with the gender-stereotyping in the comments leading up to this summary. In today's world I think women are just as likely to use and exploit men through cohabitation arrangements. While saving money on rent, she can be living in more luxurious or more convenient accommodations than she could on her own, have casual companionship (and the ability to reach the top shelf in the cupboards), and run in higher-status social circles while she looks for a better "catch".

 

I agree with what you have said here.

 

I was gender-stereotyping to an extent because it is more often that not, that female that believes living together is another step towards marriage and happily ever after while that man typically just wants the convenient access to sex without commitment.

 

But as I stated before, cohabitation benefits those that wish a 'Roommates With Benefits' arrangement and the perks of shared living expenses while still keeping one's options open without commitment.

 

That does apply to both men and women.

[oldshirt]

Cohabitation is good for relationships that are on one line whether they want to progress towards marriage or not.

 

 

 

Those people should not be getting married in the first place then.

 

What you are saying here then is that cohabitation will be the tipping point that will push people into a decision one way or another.

 

I agree with that to a point, but with a huge caveat. I agree that at times it 'can' be a tipping point. However it is often the tipping points towards NOT getting married. Cohabitation is often used as an elimination process as opposed to an inclusion process. A way of screening out applicants if you will.

 

I don't have an issue with not marrying those that aren't compatible obviously.

 

But what is an issue is that it is burning up time. We all know couples that lived together for multiple years if not a decade or more before one of them packs it up.

 

That stagnant period is harder on women that it is on men. While women are playing house and auditioning for marriage, they are burning up their youth and pretty so that when the couple finally does split, they are often pretty used up, embittered and have markedly decreased market value once back out on the dating market.

 

Again, cohabitation is an institution of NONcommitment. If you are cohabitating, you are simply marking time and on the shelf for someone else's convenience with no commitment.

 

So to use your example (which is correct to an extent, just not the way you were thinking) A couple that is dating and "on the edge" that rules out cohabitation, will continue to date for awhile and possibly work on the things that are holding them back and at some point they will either decide to make the commitment and get married or they will throw in the towel and call it quits and move on and get back on the dating market to find someone that they are more compatible with.

 

For those that circumvent that decision making process and cohabitate. More often than not people simply 'mark time' and live as Roommates With Benefits which can go on for years and years until one of them either cracks and calls it quits or until they just grow old and dried up and are stuck with each and still have no binding commitment.

[man_in_the_box]

What you are saying here then is that cohabitation will be the tipping point that will push people into a decision one way or another.

 

No that was exactly what I was not trying to say.

[ThomasD]

. . . . But what is an issue is that it is burning up time. We all know couples that lived together for multiple years if not a decade or more before one of them packs it up.

 

That stagnant period is harder on women that it is on men. While women are playing house and auditioning for marriage, they are burning up their youth and pretty so that when the couple finally does split, they are often pretty used up, embittered and have markedly decreased market value once back out on the dating market.

As an observer-from-a-distance (no direct personal experience with cohabitation, but second-hand knowledge by way of friends and acquaintances) I detect the mental and emotional toll (bitterness, mistrust, fear of commitment, etc) as much or more than the physical results ("burning up their youth"). And I think it applies roughly equally to both sexes.

[Appleness]

First step you need to do is determine if you reluctance to move in with him is because your value system is geared towards a concrete commitment (ie marriage) or because you don't want to because you do not believe him to be "the one."

 

If it is the latter then bid him well when he moves and date him at your leisure when you are able to do so.

 

If it is because you do not believe in cohabitation and your end-goal is marriage then clearly state so and stick to your guns despite his logical arguments as to why you should not believe in what you do and why you should not have the values that you do.

 

Cohabitation is often counterproductive to marriage. It's one thing if a couple is engaged, have a date set and have paid all the deposits, made all the reservations and have sent out all the invitations and are booking the tickets for the honeymoon. In that instance if both people's leases are ending and it makes sense to move into the marital home a few weeks before the marriage, so be it.

 

However when people use cohabitation as simply another step in the dating process, it is often counterproductive to the marital process or at least significantly delays it.

 

Women often see cohabitation as an "audition" for marriage but once men move in together they often see cohabitation as simply a substitute or a replacement for an actual, legal and socially binding commitment.

 

In other words they don't buy the cow while they're getting the milk for free. Yes that is an old grandmothers saying but grandmothers were a lot smarter and understood human interaction back in the day better than girls in the dating market are now.

 

So simple formula here -

 

- the only valid reason to live with someone is if you want to share living expenses and have basically a "Roommate With Benefits" arrangment with no solid commitment and no realistic future plans together as a couple.

 

- If you don't want to live with him because you don't want to live under the same roof with him under any circumstances, then just keep it as a dating relationship until it reaches it's natural conclusion.

 

- If you do want to be with him and want marriage as your end goal, then declare marriage as your objective in the relationship and legal marriage as the stipulation of sharing a home together.

 

It seems I should clarify a few points which I previously didn't mention. He didn't mention us moving in together now (six months in) but rather a year down the road when he would feel ready to buy a property, hence why I referred to it as "him thinking long term". He mentioned moving in together because he wanted to get an idea of what area I might want to be in. He didn't full-on ask me directly but mentioned it as more of an eventually as in "you know, when we move in together one day, where you'd prefer..." type thing.

 

Which brings me to the main reason for my reticence: I'm actually want a place of my own. In fact, if we were to move in together, I think I'd much rather have my own place either as a rental or have him move in instead.

 

As far as the semantics of "judgements, I think when people think "oh my ex did A so my current boyfriend will also do A" qualifies as a judgement. I've have many friends who will look (no, more like wait on standby) for "certain hallmark behaviors to pop up". That's not the case here. I understand they are 2 different people and yes, I have learned from my experiences. In no way am I trying to undermine them as valuable lessons in how I should assert certain boundaries.

 

The question I posed (which very few people answered so far) was whether, if you assumed that the person you were in a relationship with would want to move in with you (regardless of whether the reason was emotional, financial, or social), would you be offended if she declined?