| | 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?Page 1 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | I just read an article entilted "'Stayover relationships' redefine young adult commitment: New study looks at college couples who spend 3-7 nights a week together — but keep separate homes" at today.msnbc.com.
The article is about a U of MO study of college age students who are “'shacking up',” but had not formally moved in together. Instead, they spent three or more nights together a week and still kept their own places." The study is published in the current issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
I wondered how this would play out for us over 45s....
One grad student said: “Sometimes, you want your own space, and the next room may not be far enough,” says the 30-year-old engineering student at Oakland Community College. “I can love you and be with you almost every night, but there are times when I want to be alone.”
The full article is at: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43935635
For myself, this would be ideal at this later stage life. When I was younger, even in my 30's, my goals were very different. I wanted marriage and a family. I was also far more insecure and less financially independent than I am now.
I find it very interesting that this trend is showing up at a time of economic hardship for many. My days of cohabiting and then marriage days were fostered by the ever popular refrain "two can live as cheaply as one." Many a couple moved in together as a matter of practicality, just as today some divorced couples remain under the same roof. Yet, if you could afford it, would you not prefer having your own "cave"? I personally would at the very least want separate bedrooms, and would give up the home I own (that's paid for) extremely reluctantly, if at all. It's my fall back security blanket, which might scare off some less secure men and undermine a relationship.
What do you think? Would this type of relationship appeal to others in this over 45 stage of life when we are admittedly "stuck in our ways"? Have you tried it? What are the advantages and disadvantages? | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 10:19:56 AM | I could totally agree with that.
It gets difficult as you get older to tolerate some of the antics that a roomie does.
It's far easier to spend the time together and the head off to your own place in the world ... just to be you. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 11:19:13 AM | Anything two people want at any age works.
I think it's a good way to eventually raise the level of a relationship and see how living closely goes with one another but I personally don't want that lt so why go there as far as for myself? | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 11:21:26 AM | Gawd, yes!
Much more interested in spending quality time with someone versus quantity. As an introvert, I need alone time to recharge the social batteries; most women I've dated have taken this as disinterest or an attempt to cat around, which is so far from the truth that it's not even funny. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 11:40:08 AM | Well, certainly. Why not?
It's not for me, but I could see how that would be a great solution for some couples.
I'm fine on my own, and I really need space in a relationship. But for the long haul, I want everything that comes with a daily intimate relationship with someone. I want the give and take, the rough edges that we have to work to soften on each other, the broken parts we can hone into something sharp and useful. I want the challenge. I can't think of any healthier way to age than in a close, intense relationship with someone as interested in growing and changing and becoming better as I am.
Otherwise, why bother? | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 3:01:20 PM | | That is my ideal even from a young age. I need some alone time from time to time but unfortunately its difficult to get your partner to understand such in marriage. A british couple did this and i was quite envious. The unecessary duplication cannot be justified when you are married but compromises in the new home is really essential for me or i start to feel claustrophobic. | |
|
| |
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 4:29:04 PM | I think this can be the best of both worlds. (I also wonder if this is another way we avoid commitment).
Last man I dated, we spent a lot of time at each others homes. It was nice to have our own homes to retreat to sometimes. It was nice to miss him.
Financially, it makes no sense. I wouldn't want to do this forever if in a committed relationship.
Like the op, I would also have an extremely hard time giving up my home. My security. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 4:46:59 PM | I think the article describes a bunch of over-thought nonsense, but the concept is fine. When I was in college, the same stuff happened, they just didn't bother to write a sociology paper about it, and give is a fancy name.
One thing I see all the time, is that people do LOTS of stuff, and don't think about it at all, UNTIL SOMEONE ASKS THEM POINTEDLY ABOUT IT. Then Suddenly, they have to conjure up a whole explanation and back-story for it, as if they are going to have to testify in court or explain it to their parents. They make up all kinds of stuff to fulfill the interviewers urge to take notes.
So color me skeptical about this being a "movement," but as a way of living a life, it sounds pretty normal, and simply dependent on everyone having enough scratch to afford the indulgence of separate quarters. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 9:16:56 PM | .... I don't think at this point in my life I would want to co-habitate with someone. I've been single and alone too long for that. And I appreciate my alone time too much to give it up. Not to mention I have become selfish....I like the "whole" bed.
But sleepovers...hey, I'm all for it 
...mae | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/30/2011 11:47:49 PM | I had this kind of relationship in college. I lived in a mixed house with other students. My girlfriend had a tiny apartment nearby.
Our arrangement was typical of under-grads. Few were cohabiting with partners. None were marrying. I doubt the “trend” referred to in the article is anything new.
I had other relationships like this in my thirties and forties and it would still be my ideal. I like sharing meals made together, reading, talking in a quiet place, sitting on a porch doing nothing – and I like sleep-overs, waking up together, having coffee and breakfast together.
And I like having my own place, somewhere I can entertain family and friends, work on my own projects, and have solitude.
I wouldn’t be closed to the idea of taking a cabin together for a month or two in the summer, or fully cohabiting for longer periods if it felt right, but I wouldn’t die unfulfilled if it never happened. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 12:47:22 AM | Simple answer: of course they would, as they always have.
Even though the OT addresses this via the cited articles regarding younger partners, she does pose the question to the over 45 crowd for their/our opinion. As a few above ^^ have noted, this is not a new trend. Although marriage is not always ruled out, for many it is not a goal, but a committed relationship is.
I've had the luxury of this style of "stayover relationship" that lasted for 5+ yrs and it suited our needs very well, because neither of us wanted marriage nor a 24/7 living arrangement. It might have to do with both being survivors of long term marriages that ended in divorce, where neither felt the need to find "replacement" spouses, but found themselves open to the idea of companionship and blessingly finding it. Even now, I don't feel the need to rush out and find a replacement for that relationship, but I am open to finding companionship again.
It's all about personal choice, preference, and acknowledgement. No big whoop. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 8:06:37 AM | There are good and not so good points in both living together and living alone. I've done both and even though for the most part I have fond memories of my time spent as a couple/family living under one roof, the longer I am alone the more difficult it is for me to imagine ever wanting to share my space again. It's possible that all that will change once my youngest leaves the nest but I doubt it somehow. I enjoy being by myself and have always been an introvert and a loner who needs lots and lots of down time, which normally means time alone although with the right person(s), I can have that down time or time alone with them right by my side or while in the same room/house. But finding someone who is like-minded or at least one who understands this about you is like finding a needle in a haystack if for nothing other than the fact that the perfect person for me is most likely sitting at home alone or out somewhere by himself doing his own thing perfectly happy or at least content with the status quo, like I am.  | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 9:44:50 AM | Years ago men who desired these stayover relationships were called players who couldn't commit! Now women want to be non commited too. I think so many people have failed in their relationships that they are now afraid of relationships. It is just too much work for ME me me! Of course it was always the others fault for these failed relationships!
Facebook and tweets are as close as many can handle now unless it is with their kids whom they have power over. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 10:38:09 AM |
There are good and not so good points in both living together and living alone.
I think this can be the best of both worlds. (I also wonder if this is another way we avoid commitment).
Last man I dated, we spent a lot of time at each others homes. It was nice to have our own homes to retreat to sometimes. It was nice to miss him.
Financially, it makes no sense. I wouldn't want to do this forever if in a committed relationship.
So, is it avoiding commitment or the best of both worlds?
I see it as the best of both worlds for two people secure enough to accept it as such. I see a lot of people who fear and judge their partner's motives because of their own lack of self-confidence. The same is true of prenups. They are perfectly sensible but can sow the seeds of doubt for the less confident and secure who can choose to see these things as maintaining safety net.
Keeping a fire extinguisher handy in the kitchen does not mean one INTENDS to burn the house down. or that they're paranoid or hyper. It simply means they exercising good precautions. (BTW, I don't have a fire extinguisher, but if I did...) :-) | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 12:02:01 PM | Taoistic1, I agree 100 percent ..it sounds like half-commitment.
If you find the right person..it isn't work. You get to be you...when it is work it is cause YOU are pretending to be something you think they are interested in vs who you are...which is why things don't work out...normally when the REAL you shows up and then it is cause they don't like you and it is all their fault you were a flake the whole time pretending to be someone they would like.
To me it sounds like settling...you are agreeing that the other person can have only a part of your life and no more. It's about having someone when you want them and not having to be bothered with them when you don't...it is about limiting the amount of *hurt you will go thru if things don't work out. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 12:43:27 PM | Au contraire, ^^^ two can be in a mutually committed relationship in a situation like this. Agreeing verbally to a commitment is paramount in ANY relationship. Too many are afraid to "say the words out loud" afraid to invite rejection, but if you're rejected then you at least know where you stand and can CHOOSE the outcome.
Settling. How I detest that term, like we have the option ahead of time to even know we have "settled".
NO ONE is subjected to allowing a situation that is not to one's liking.
VOICE your expectations.
ACT on the outcome.
We all have the CHOICE to continue or curtail the situation we find ourselves in.
Never assume...anything. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 12:51:38 PM | So if you found the person you want to be with...then explain why not being with them is a good idea?
What is the point of this?
Why do people find it a good idea?
Reread the posts and the answers of why it is appealing and not one make logical sense to me. If I am in love with someone and want to be with them then how is this a good idea...this is a good idea if you want a casual relationship where you have a sexual and activity partner to do things with...not a MATE...not someone to build a life with... | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 12:58:27 PM |
So, is it avoiding commitment or the best of both worlds?
I can't speak for anybody else but for me it is neither. I think that in my case, it stems more from a desire to finally be alone after all these years. I have raised two families, my two daughters and my granddaughter, and I have been married and/or with children since I was sixteen years old.
As I said before, I have mostly good memories of my time spent in a long term relationship so there is no bitterness, no fears, no scars. I've also come to terms with the demise of my 20 year relationship and I have both forgiven us and most importantly, myself for the huge part I had in it's ending.
So again, the fear of commitment or wanting the best of both world is secondary to my simply wanting (more than anything else in this world) to be and live on my own for the first time in my life.
That's not to say that if the right person for me entered my life somehow that I wouldn't change my mind and want him all to myself all the time (because that's how it's always been for me in the past) but for now, all I dream of is the moment when I can finally lock my door, close the phone, throw the TV out the window, put my feet up and go awwww sweet peace and tranquility, finally. And if that makes me selfish, oh well, I can live with that.  | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 1:00:30 PM | | A "stayover relationship" would not be the best of both worlds for me. I like the description in Post #5 - the kind of relationship I envision as an ideal would have many of the characteristics mentioned there. Like some of the other posters commenting here, I have an introverted personality and need periods of "alone time" to recharge my emotional batteries - but I could, and did, find those needs met within the framework of marriage. The happiest time of my adult life was living in a family arrangement as a husband (before the relationship went south) and father. The childraising stage of life is most likely over for me, but I still wish to experience living within the marriage bond again if that is in my future. I agree with Post #16 that a "stayover relationship" seems like settling for only a part of each other's lives and selves - but that's just my perspective. However, I will continue to turn away women approaching me with this type of relationship goal in mind. I'm holding out for the whole enchilada. | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 1:02:37 PM | ^^^@giggles
not all want the same as you in a relationship.
Stick to your ideals. They are stellar.
Allow others to stick to theirs, as well.
"Ideals" rarely define the same for all.
Does it is really matter? | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 2:19:11 PM | This is precisely what I am looking for and it has nothing to do with the fear of anything or because of a failed anything.
And yes, we are talking committment to exclusivity in terms of romantic/sexual activity, not a stable of FwBs.
I DO understand that a "stayover" relationship would require a strong element of trust, confidence and the 2 people being secure in themselves and not needing a hipjoined partner to define and validate their personal existences.
I think when people get to be 45+ there are valid concerns about ownership or significant equity in a home, inheritance questions, concerns about longterm care or catastrophic medical issues taking out 2 peoples assets instead of just one, questions about Social Security benefits, taxes, combining households and blending families that could all be minimized if not totally avoided by a "stayover" relationship. It allows both parties to maintain an individual identity that they may have worked hard to develop.
There are considerations to be made about medical decisions and the partners' rights to be with one another in grave or terminal illness, but I believe that much of that can be dealt with by advance directives, medical powers of attorney and making matters clear to one's own physician and one's family.
Cindy O | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 2:53:31 PM | I do not see how such an arrangement can lead to anything other than planned obsolescence or failure of the relationship. Couples that commit by agreeing to share not just their lives but their space have better chances to grow, to work through the good and the bad, to find new ways of being together, and finding new aspects of their own self to bring to the relationship.
When the relationship is based on having "your own place and space," what you have are individuals that come together for a time and separate for a time, maintaining the status quo. When you have a distinct, physically removed space/place to retreat to in the face of conflict or mood, you deny yourself and the other entry in to that space/place until a time of your own choosing. In effect you are telling the other they are not worthy, not needed, ...
Can this also happen in a "committed," live together, married relationship? Oh yeah; been there, done that, got the stinkin' tee. But all things considered and being equal, give me the intermingling of lives, the forced "in your face" of a married man and woman under the same roof.
TK
[However, a 2nd home in the appalachians around Boone, NC sounds good.] | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 5:01:14 PM |
Couples that commit by agreeing to share not just their lives but their space have better chances to grow, to work through the good and the bad, to find new ways of being together, and finding new aspects of their own self to bring to the relationship.
I should have clarified that I'm NOT particularly supportive of this type of relationships for young people who have at least gotten their education and securing a paid occupation dealt with. For young people who are still studying/ securing and occupation, this may be OK and was in fact the subject of the article that inspired the topic.
But for older people who've developed a life, forged an identity, maybe gotten a bit set in their ways, it might make sense. It is not my intent to downgrade marriage or psuedo-marriage,simply suggesting that for older, established individuals the "stayover" relationship might be an option worth considering in some circumstances.
As far as that goes-while the exact percentage is the subject of some controversy-it would certainly seem that 30%-5o%( or even higher in 2nd&3rd marriages) of marriages fail, and since nobody tracks how many cohabiting relationships fail, who knows? what that percentage might be. However you care to slice it, a fair number of marriages and relationships do become obsolete or fail, and with people over 45, that is a risk that many do not care to take.
Cindy O | |
|
| 'Stayover relationships' -- Would they work for over 45s?
Posted: 7/31/2011 10:59:49 PM | I don't think this kind of relationship would work for the younger crowd. When you're seeking marriage and raising a family, you're working towards the same goal.
When you're in your 50's, it's a lot harder to tangle up your finances with another person. I don't think it's only a matter of commitment. I am totally committed to someone and he is to me, but that doesn't mean either one of us wants to sell our houses. We both enjoy staying at each other's houses and we really aren't apart all that much.
It definitely can work as long if both people want to make it work. | |
|
Home
login 
