What has my partner got to do with it?

seven-day-weekend

I'm old-fashioned too and totally agree with bestpud.

Many 'relationships' these days to me seem merely like flatmates who sleep together.

System

What about the fact lots of young people (and young couples) share houses out of convenience (its cheaper/you need somewhere to live etc)? I don't feel like the current legislation reflects that as it is more tuned towards the "old fashioned" outlook of you only live together with someone when you're going to get married and have kids and live happily ever after. Jus.t because you don't share finances etc doesn't mean you can't care about someone

In my siuation for example it wouldnt just be parting with cash to help in hard times as i'm too ill to work so this is a long term financial thing. I'm no where near ready for marriage and settling down, bu should that mean i'm not allowed a boyfriend?: Do i really have to be lonely until i'm well enought to work?

dizzybuff

Bet the OP wouldnt say

"OH No its your money" when her Dp came home and says I have a nice bonus this year and have booked us a holiday ..

Hense being a couple

seven-day-weekend

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

What about the fact lots of young people (and young couples) share houses out of convenience (its cheaper/you need somewhere to live etc)? I don't feel like the current legislation reflects that as it is more tuned towards the "old fashioned" outlook of you only live together with someone when you're going to get married and have kids and live happily ever after. Jus.t because you don't share finances etc doesn't mean you can't care about someone

In my siuation for example it wouldnt just be parting with cash to help in hard times as i'm too ill to work so this is a long term financial thing. I'm no where near ready for marriage and settling down, bu should that mean i'm not allowed a boyfriend?: Do i really have to be lonely until i'm well enought to work?

No, but you don't have to live together either.

bestpud

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

What about the fact lots of young people (and young couples) share houses out of convenience (its cheaper/you need somewhere to live etc)? I don't feel like the current legislation reflects that as it is more tuned towards the "old fashioned" outlook of you only live together with someone when you're going to get married and have kids and live happily ever after. Jus.t because you don't share finances etc doesn't mean you can't care about someone

In my siuation for example it wouldnt just be parting with cash to help in hard times as i'm too ill to work so this is a long term financial thing. I'm no where near ready for marriage and settling down, bu should that mean i'm not allowed a boyfriend?: Do i really have to be lonely until i'm well enought to work?

Personally, I'd only move in with someone I was committed to! I may not want to marry them, or have children with them, but I would need to be committed to them.

How on earth can you trust someone and care enough about them to share so many personal experiences, and your personal space with them, but not money?

This may offend, but it seems you want to have your cake and eat it.

What is wrong with a relationship without living together if you are not committed to them?

I wonder how many would have this opinion if we didn't have such a generous welfare state in this country...

AsknAnswer

It doesn't mean you're not allowed to have a boyfriend. It doesn't mean you can't live together. It does mean if you choose to live together then you can be expected to financially support each other. It's your choice to live together, not the government's.

I have a boyfriend. We don't live together and do not financially support each other. We do plan on it someday in the distant future but at the moment we simply can't. When we do begin to live together, regardless of whether we are married or not, I would support him financially if needed and would expect the same from him if needed. If he's not willing to support me in every manner a partnership should require if we are living in the same home and I suddenly found myself unemployed or otherwise unable to work, then he can sod off elsewhere. A partnership is just that - partnered in every which way. Give and take in every area. I most certainly would not expect the state to support me if I had a partner whom I lived with who had enough money coming in to cover the outgoings.

That's just greed, there is no other way to describe it.

Oldernotwiser

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

AHAW should only really be implied if the couple are living like a married couple, i.e they (and only they) live in a house together, have one bedroom between the two and eat,shop,cook etc together.

Well, that rules out the Queen and Prince Phillip then!

AsknAnswer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Well, that rules out the Queen and Prince Phillip then!

To be fair though - they are funded by the state :rotfl:

Angel89_2

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

What about the fact lots of young people (and young couples) share houses out of convenience (its cheaper/you need somewhere to live etc)? I don't feel like the current legislation reflects that as it is more tuned towards the "old fashioned" outlook of you only live together with someone when you're going to get married and have kids and live happily ever after. Jus.t because you don't share finances etc doesn't mean you can't care about someone

In my siuation for example it wouldnt just be parting with cash to help in hard times as i'm too ill to work so this is a long term financial thing. I'm no where near ready for marriage and settling down, bu should that mean i'm not allowed a boyfriend?: Do i really have to be lonely until i'm well enought to work?

This is why i and so many other people have absolutely no respect for the system's setup whatsoever,
and so have no feelings whatsover about 'morals' of profiling my life to just get equal to what the reckless people in the same situation as me get.


Many many many relationships are based on people living together and having sex and fun,
but not actually dating eachother and having no intention to as they dont want to be boyfriend/girlfriend with that person,
and haven't yet found a person who they want as a bf/gf,
but so just enjoy the sexual and fun side of single life untill they find someone who they want for more.

And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Its very very healthy, fun, economic, and sensible.



Yet the current system makes life very very hard for these people and for single people,
and yet showers money onto all the foolish idiots who've had kids when they couldn't afford to..,
who subsequently will use those kids as an excuse for not working for the next 16years and so living of taxpayers money! :rolleyes:


Lets just hope the conservatives slash these ridiculously high benefits for just having kids. :T

dookar

Angel, enjoying sex with another person does not make you a member of their household.