View Single Post
  #294  
Old 11-26-2012, 09:10 AM
rory's Avatar
rory rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 497
Default

Mya laughed at my description of by-monthly thing. A number of reasons. Apparently it's bimonthly. And, apparently there is a controversy whether it means twice a month or every two months. I meant the latter. Also, seemingly two visits is not yet a big enough sample to draw that conclusion. Anyway, I don't think the fact I wrote so obligates us to anything.

It was nice to have her visit. I made good food with feta and pineapple and mushrooms, and we played a board game.

Btw, if I were to live with more people, board games would be an excellent reason to do so. Mya and I talked about three-person-cohabitation last week. Not really in "planning this for us" kind of way, more in "theoretically, what could it look like and what do we think about it in general".

I think I am processing. Less because it needs to be decided now, more because I am contemplating what living together with a partner or several partners means to me. At one point, I rejected the assumption that it has to mean something specific, namely the culturally normative implications. However, now I am also thinking that just because I reject those meanings on the basis of "that's just how it is", doesn't mean some of them couldn't coincide with how I also feel myself. Also, there could be other meanings I give to living together.

Anyway, one thing I do notice is that I feel moving in together as some kind of commitment in itself. This is to one direction only. That is, for me a person can be just as committed to a non-domestic partnership (and I feel I am). Cohabiting is not committing to relationship, it is committing to a specific living arrangement. Now, commitment for me does not necessary mean for life. I mean if something works and lasts a lifetime, cool. But I consider commitment to be for the time being. I do feel, though, that living together, ideally, is not something I would enter lightly or exit lightly, either.

I also really value the potentially increased financial safety which comes from an extent of pooling resources. Of course that is not always given (e.g. at the moment it is crucial both I and Alec are working continuously to cover our basic expences). Still, in many situations living together can be an additional safety net.

However, that comes with the possibility that sometimes that safety net may actually be needed. Having to support somebody can create strain even in a loving partnership. So what about metamourships? I would imagine less incentive and more strain. Maybe that could work if there was the knowledge that the support would/will go also to the other direction. But what about different ways of spending money? If somebody has savings, so when suddenly unemployed can support themself, but somebody else relies on the safet net provided by the others? Or, could it be that everybody saves a certain amount each month, so that a communal safety net is provided?

Anyway, interesting stuff to think about.
Reply With Quote