I'm a geek and have shared my home with housemates for 50 years. When I was poor and when I was prosperous. When I was married and when I was not. It's almost always been good for me, including for growth in my social intelligence. It was especially valuable when my wife died. Some of my housemates have been challenging. More became close friends. Living together people take their masks off. Quality social connections have been invaluable to me.
Hmmm, but if you’re the landlord and you only care about money as you imply, why wouldn’t you move out and just rent, mrather than dealing with roommates?
Landlords have much more power. Usually more money too, but always more power.
Source: I am a landlord and I could temporarily destroy either of my roommates' livelihoods at the drop of a dime whenever I please. As a result, they are basically my permanent friends until they save up enough to move out. The difference between me and others in my position is I understand these are material relationships more than social relationships, and the only way to change that is not being the landlord.
When Marxists want to get rid of landlords, this is what they mean. They simply want more social relationships rather than material relationships. That's why it's called socialism.
I do agree that this is not being roommates but rather having (paying) guests.
I just would like to nuance the power a landlord holds. It really depends where you live. I live in Germany since a while now and renters have very very strong rights, they can just as well make the life of the landlord impossible. They can stop paying and it’ll be months, maybe even years, before he can kick them out.
I have lived in “intentional communities” and attest that mature and self capable men and women of all ages can and do live excellently in compact (from [augmented] single home suburban dwellings of a dozen *or more) to ranch style configurations.
It is truly a new level of human excellence. The Epicurean garden of our age.
This has never worked without the WORK involved. People clean, people have a forum for regular discussion, people have responsibilities, and people come and go.
If you want a better life sometimes you have to game up with a better self.
* Once 20 in a single Venice Beach home (close enough to the beach.) there were old VW buses parked in the back yard and rooms with bunks, people paid $400-600/mo. It was wild yet it was civilized. Obviously city shut it down after years working well. It all comes down to good house rule and willful participation.
> It is truly a new level of human excellence. The Epicurean garden of our age.
> This has never worked without the WORK involved. People clean, people have a forum for regular discussion, people have responsibilities, and people come and go.
> If you want a better life sometimes you have to game up with a better self.
I think it’s funny to hear the concept of teaming up with other people, putting in the work, sharing responsibilities, and having discussions among the community unit is described as “a new level of human excellence”
Because this is just describing what it’s like to have a family and a household. Many people do this. A lot of this thread feels like single people reinventing the concept of family to fill a void. That’s fine, of course. The funny part is being it described as a new and novel form of human excellence
> Because this is just describing what it’s like to have a family and a household.
Actually, not at all. A co-living arrangement of adults (or WG for Wohngemeinschaft, as we call it in Germany) is not well advised to work like a family household. A family has someone being the father, someone else being the mother and then there are children. While some WGs might stabilize into such a pattern for a while, it is certainly doomed to fail and end in drama. It's more like a team at work - which infamously isn't a family either.
actually, i disagree. being a family should be more teamwork than it often is. in other words families would work better if they work like a team. that includes the children. it's a bit of both. in teams you too have people who are weaker in some aspects. in a good team, you help those people and support them. in a family you should give everyone a chance to contribute and participate in decisions. mother and father are not predefined roles. the parents should work as a team like senior developers, they act with authority because they have more experience, and they include their children like you would include junior developers.
> this is just describing what it’s like to have a family and a household
It's describing what it's like to do so well.
IME, most people do not approach family with sufficient intentionality to achieve what sunscream89 describes. At best, they settle into a comfortable set of unconscious agreements and patterns that work OK for each other. At worst, those patterns cause constant friction that eventually tear them apart—or cause them to go to therapy and start adding intentionality to the relationship(s).
I have a large family, this is nothing like even a functional family. Nothing.
I have lived in over three intentional communities (some others were too casual). From elaborate roommate situations to full on company town.
Working and living together in the “Epicurean dream” is intentional community, one lost to main stream awareness. And that is a form of excellent living!
I guess there are those who find living and working for others the natural way, and those who would live and work for themselves (as a community).
Uh, that’s a weirdly cynical take on it. They’re not “reinventing” the concept of a family, they’re choosing their family. I’m not sure why that’s so strange to you versus, I guess, raising kids in some sort of isolated nuclear family type environment?
The closest that I've gotten to this sort of arrangement was in a large cabin in the woods without electricity or running water where, signified by two shot glasses with rounded bottoms and a jug of moonshine passed around, there was always someone awake and tending to the property.
My task was to carry water so that it could later be heated for drinking/bathing (sponge-bathing really).
The location and (lack of) amenities served as a filter, so it's not something I think could be easily reproducible.
>With six roommates, I would cook a couple dishes a week. Every meal would be multi course, with different people making salad, protein, sides, and maybe mixing up some drinks for the cooks.
I've never split meals with any of my roommates when I had them, and I cringe at the idea of asking them to accommodate my own idiosyncratic tastes. I, naturally, have lived on my own since I could possibly afford it. But I can see why this would be a huge benefit if you are so inclined to shared meal prep.
This article also makes a strong case for repealing laws outlawing SRO buildings, which can be designed to better accommodate shared cooking and socializing spaces than a building of 1 bedroom apartments.
I lived in communal houses for a very long time. The best was something like this - we had communal meals four nights a week, and everyone had one cooking night. The other nights, you know you just show up and there's food. It's way easier to scale a single meal up to more people than it is to cook a smaller meal every night. And as folks cook together and rotate around, they learn and cook better. And you end up with more variety, as you experience the full gamut of idiosyncratic tastes. :)
My thoughts exactly. Great, there's food at home, ready to eat, 6 days a week. Can I eat it though?
I'm sure in an ideal world you could get past that problem by talking and having everybody else compile a mental list of what meals aren't going to be on the menu, but the more realistic outcome for someone like me is the food only being edible for me 1 or maybe 2 days a week, not to mention that I'll probably come of as an knobhead for not liking their food and making my own, and them probably not liking my food when it's my turn to prepare. It's a manageable situation for a couple of days or say a week, especially since everybody else is probably more willing to accommodate if they only have to do it for a short while, but I would never want to deal with that even semi-permanently.
Yeah, if you’ve got really hard opinions about what you like, it might be tough. It might also be a way to expand your palette though? I’m living with a Swiss girl and an Argentinian guy right now and am enjoying the new foods I’m introduced to.
In school, with roommates/housemates, we would very seldom do shared meals (where one person basically prepped the meal) and I do pot-lucks with friends today. But it's not the normal thing. People have different schedules and preferences.
I think it's important to call out the difference between "what I prefer" and "what is good for me". We understand this fully in many aspects of our lives (from "My body prefers to do heroin" to "I prefer not to exercise but I do it because it's good for me").
I see a lot of comments here along the lines of "I prefer to live alone because roommates are a pain in the ass", but I think there might be a lot of value to doing this because it's good for you. Living with other people forces us to corral our worst tendencies, to break out of virtual worlds to engage in the real one, to form bonds that will force us to grow and change.
I think it's strange that our preference in this area, but not many others, could be so dominant over what is good for us.
Basically: a team of researchers asked people if they'd be happier on their morning commute if they interacted with strangers or kept to themselves. Most said they'd be happier keeping to themselves. Then the researchers ran an experiment where a group were told to keep to themselves, a group was told to interact with a stranger for as long as possible, and a control group was supposed to do whatever came up. Those who were forced to interact with a stranger came away most happy, and those that kept to themselves were least happy.
We are social beings - it is how we have been able to survive as a species. And yet, given the choice, we often choose to isolate. I think people would be happier and healthier if we made more of an effort to combat that tendency.
I think so too. It helps to form good habits. If you have a roommate for example, you can't leave your dirty dishes everywhere and need to clean it as soon as you are done. You can learn a lot from your roommates too. One of my ex flatmates was super crafty and I got a different perspective on things thanks to that.
I used to live in a flat with one flatmate who changed every half a year or so because they were usually interns. Never knew them before they moved in but 90% of the time we became friends. I liked that they changed after a while so I was never stuck with a bad roomate.
I don't recommend the other way around. If you have a good friend it's more likely to notice their annoying habits so there is little upside but in a worse case you can damage the friendship.
This is as ridiculous as "Netflix shouldn't give me all episodes at once because that way it forces us not to binge watch them".
People don't need to be forced by the environment. They can strike healthy balances on their own.
You can have a social life without having roommates and you'll likely end up living with your romantic partner after spending some time dating them or multiple people until you find the one you move with.
Living alone will definitely help with the privacy and ease of bringing people you're dating to your place for private time.
In the US, is it concerning when a "grown man" in his 30s or 40s and beyond still lives with roommates, when dating and trying to attract a mate? Is there an expectation that you should be displaying a certain lifestyle that will attract a partner, and if you're living with a bunch of roommates, you're failing to do that?
I believe that's not the case in many other countries in the world, but what about the US?
It depends on what you want to do with your life, and what kind of partner you want. Most people want to date someone with their own place, because most people want their own place. If you want to live in a communal living situation, you're not going to be very happy if you partner up with someone who wants their own place. Will you sacrifice communal living in order to gain a partner? Or will you look for a partner who is interested in communal living, even if that takes longer?
These conversations about how men have to change themselves in order to find a partner are funny to me, because the subtext is that partnering up is the most important thing you can achieve, and you should sacrifice your other interests in order to make yourself marketable to the largest pool of people, so you can find a partner as soon as possible. People mock the phrase "just be yourself" because there are some things (money, physical beauty) that most people are looking for, and if you achieve them it's easier to find a partner. But the flip side is, unless you enjoy putting in all the work to be rich and beautiful, having a partner won't make you happy. The phrase "just be yourself" is really saying that you shouldn't change yourself just to find a partner, because it will be a phyrric victory. Instead, you should be yourself, do the things that make you happy, and let that filter out all the people who would only be interested in your money or your beauty. (and to be clear, this is not an argument against self improvement - you should still seek to better yourself)
There's not such thing as a permanent fixed identity though. "Just be yourself" raises a more interesting question. Who is yourself? Why is that way? Why should it be that way? Have you reflected on why you want what you want or why you behave the way you do? Do you think the way you are is the way you should be? Or is there a cognitive disconnect between the is and ought?
This is 100% true, which is why it's so important to resist the societal pressure to conform. It might be tempting to avoid these questions by taking the "default" path, but that path is unlikely to lead to happiness. You have to decide on your own path and work to make it happen.
Yes but also it's important to critically engage with reality as well. Many people think they are constructing some original identity without testing it against reality. No plan survives battle.
i make it a point to be myself because i want my partner and my friends to accept me the way i am. i use it as a filter to weed out people who are looking for something else even if that makes finding friends more difficult. that doesn't mean i don't change things. but those are things i don't mind changing or things that help me to be a better person. (eg. i started to shave once i went to china, because in china people generally don't have beards, and having one makes you look old, but some time after i got married i started to grow a small beard again, even though my wife didn't like it because i preferred it that way)
Especially in high cost areas like NY or SF, it’s completely normal for adults, even highly successful ones, to have roommates. I personally know plenty of men who had roommates up until they moved in with the person they would end up marrying.
In the cities I've lived, this is standard yes. For better or for worse, a man that isn't displaying capability to provide for himself is typically less attractive than one who is. Again, this is my experience. I'm not making an argument for or against.
If "displaying a certain lifestyle" means the person gets to visit a much larger home (as there's more incomes), get surrounded with lots of friends (since it's a vibrant community in the house), who all have stock portfolios to retire early on because of it (since they're saving an extra $1k+ a month by sharing the better living situation), then you'll probably be be able to find someone who finds that more appealing than the alternative (a loner who's spare money gets burned up going to a landlord or mortgage bank interest payments). Alternatively, if you look at folks attracted to the "drowning in credit card debt, but leasing a brand new BMW, and downtown apartment" version of "displaying a certain lifestyle" then no, those people probably will be repelled. The dating pool is full of unique people of varying philosophy, intelligence, and wisdom.
Yes, it is financially concerning. You do not need to own a house, but you do need to show you are financially responsible enough to pay for rent, utilities, etc all by yourself.
I would argue that living with roommates may be harder than living alone, from a financial responsibility point of view. You not only need to be responsible for yourself but you need to deal with roommates which may not be.
Of course, you could be the financially irresponsible roommate, but I think your date can figure this out quite rapidly then, based on how much your roommates will hate you ;)
Good point, additionally, how do you expect the relationship to grow if you are not unable to unfortunately secure basic private lodging?
Most women might be fine with this arrangement while casually dating in younger years but I have yet to see anyone being at ease in this situation.
Don't forget that we are talking about 30+ years old, at this age most people are looking for something stable, of course you can always find exceptions but your available pool of candidates shrinks.
Oh, I fully agree that people ok with this arrangement beyond 30 years are rare. But if that’s who a person is, why should they give it up? They should keep searching for the soulmate that is also ok with this arrangement.
This type of shared apartments also have the effect of creating a sort of microcosm of people thinking alike on this specific topic. You tend to get to know other such shared apartments. This changes drastically the odds of finding partner ok with this arrangement.
Source: I lived 5 years in different such shared apartments, the microcosm effect really was insane, I automatically got to know the friends of my roommates, half of whom lived in a shared apartment, then I got to know their roommates, etc. 3 of my relationships started because of this network.
There are such things as intentional communities. I predict multi-adult households will make a comeback. The era of nuclear families is coming to an end. It takes a village to raise children.
Depends on the situation. Generally I would say yes but I also know of successful people who have roomates (and can thus afford larger and cooler accommodations) and those people can of course throw parties and potlucks easier.
If you live in a shithole by yourself obviously that's not going to be attractive
My personal anecdote is that living with roommates while doing a PhD has been the worst living experience. That is, I'm rather jealous how the author ended up with a functioning setup and I wonder what attributes to this. Sometimes I wonder if the main cause for my challenges is that living with other PhD students is a competitive environment of time (constant prisoner dilemma situations where nobody cooperates to maximize their time to work), or if it's the mix of cultural backgrounds (I don't know how to get them to cooperate).
I think a larger house like she's living in makes it a lot easier to mitigate "the bad room mate" problem mentioned in a lot of comments. They likely have some filtering and process to kick someone out if they turn out weird. And recruitment is hopefully easier if you have 4 other people looking for a 5th than posting an ad somewhere.
This does seem like a potential solution for the male loneliness epidemic. I think it would be harder to check out if you're around other people. Their house seems _very_ women-styled with cooking dance parties, twerking in the garden and the ingredients. But that's just one house, each house has their own style.
Before I met my partner I looked into communal living spaces, and if this doesn't work out I might do so again, and give it a shot. I don't think living on my own is good for me long term. I get too isolated.
Author of the post here - fwiw all the houses I've lived in have had a good gender mix, though it's true none of the men wanted to join for the hip hop dance workout. In general though the men have been the better cooks!
I wanted to note that a lot of houses I've lived in have had couples. Two of our housemates in PR were a married couple who rented out the apartment they owned to come live with us. The husband was more extroverted than the wife and loved the company - and the wife loved that we kept him entertained and she got the room to herself more often :)
All this to say I simply think it's great to live with (good) roommates, whether you're male, female, single, coupled, or anything else.
I think personality plays a big role. If it works for you, great!
But living with a group of people sounds like hell to me. When I go home, I want to be alone and relax. I don't want to deal with other people's shit, and I don't want to bother them with mine.
It's so unappealling to me, I would live out of my car before I gave in and tried living with roommates.
I’m an introvert and that’s part of why I prefer to live communally. When I live alone it’s very very easy for me to not interact with another person in real life for days at a time. That’s not good for my mental health in the long term, even if it’s “easier” in the short-term.
Same here. I’m autistic and so is my best friend. When I had to move out of the dorms after graduation I knew it was a bad idea to live alone. I’m very comfortable being alone and if I wouldn’t share a home I would probably end up completely isolated. We’ve been sharing a house for two decades and it’s working for us.
Well you have your room for your alone time, it’s like in a family.
I loved it personally, I made amazing connections, I couldn’t get enough of it. Couldn’t figure out a way to have kids and stay in a shared apartment unfortunately, although I know it’s possible. so that phase of my life is over – and I miss it.
But it’s a matter of personal preference for sure.
I suppose it may be luck, but the ~15 roommates I’ve had over the years became, at worst, neutral acquaintance types or, at best, my best friends of all time. I’ve never had any of the common horror stories.
Come to think of it actually, I’ve never formed very strong bonds without anyone outside of childhood who I didn’t live with.
I remember hearing years ago that the ingredients for a strong friendship are (1) serendipitous, unplanned encounters, (2) vulnerability, (3) sustained time spent together. Housemates seem like the only modern avenue to this for adults.
Critical caveat is having the temple of my own room to retreat to.
> I remember hearing years ago that the ingredients for a strong friendship are (1) serendipitous, unplanned encounters, (2) vulnerability, (3) sustained time spent together. Housemates seem like the only modern avenue to this for adults
The ingredients for a strong friendship are doing things together without forcing it and contact surviving when things change (e.g. geographical move, shared activity ending, family change).
The fact that you needed such a constant school like, unavoidable presence speaks to your own lack of sustained activities and communication in other areas. You haven't made friends through sports, hobbies, shared courses or even work? Only by 24/7 living with them?
You may want to change that. It may seem like it requires more effort at first but it's not that different and lasts beyond the see each other every day phase.
To clarify, the frequent encounters of a housemate situation hasn't been required to sustain friendships for me, but instead to get "escape velocity," if you will. The great friends I made of former housemates still keep in frequent contact with via phone calls, etc.
You said "doing things together without forcing it" is important. That's precisely what I mean with housemates. In the storm of people's busy lives and moods, living with someone just provides so much more effortless surface area for bonding than pre-arranged, formal events to do sports or a hobby.
To each their own, but I wanted nothing MORE than to finally have my own place throughout life (first a bedroom, then a dorm room, then apt). It was a real motivator, and it's not that I didn't have decent relationships with roommates or family.
I generally like having roommates, but when they're bad, they're BAD. I've also never done the communal cooking thing. Either they don't cook, are bad at cooking, or have dubious food hygiene. I haven't met any potential partners through them either. I might take a walk or swim with them but I sure as hell didn't get OP's experience.
> avocado, olive, and coconut oil; ten basic spices; honey, maple syrup, apple cider vinegar, soy sauce, miso, and almond butter.
This is what happens when you use Google for recipes. And a good hint that this article does not represent the average demographic; most people outside of her's do not want room mates good reason.
Could you expand on that a bit? You’re the second comment to say this is about ‘women’ and I don’t get it - what’s different? Whatever you think is ‘painfully obvious’ here is obviously not landing for me, can you spell it out?
>I missed coming home to postgame my bad dates with my roommates over a cup of tea.
For whatever reason, I think men are a lot less likely to engage in this kind of social behavior, even if they are roommates. They're also a lot less likely to engage in spontaneous dance parties or enjoy group hip hop twerking exercises. Basically, a lot of the benefits of having roommates that the author describes are experienced far less often by men with roommates
Pretty much. And I'm not even remotely saying it's a good thing. This is one of a myriad reasons men objectively live shorter, less healthy, and lonelier lives. You can speculate a million more reasons as to why, but it's just the reality of life.
Boomer men complaining about their wives is an actual boomer facebook meme for a reason.
Whether men just sitting down and talking openly about their feelings comes from the “men should be more sensitive and willing to share their feelings with others” take or the “bbq and beers with the boys in the backyard” take, the same point stands regardless.
Like, guys in a group relaxing over beers or bbq and just talking about their feelings (just without using this specific terminology) has been a thing since forever ago in the US. I cannot speak for all countries ever, but in Russia (since before soviet union even existed), sauna+alcohol after+snacks along with the boys just talking about anything weighing on their mind has been a thing too. From what I know about ancient Greece, they had an equivalent of it as well.
Regional/cultural equivalents aside, this seems like a somewhat common experience/ behavior across time, and painting it as some new thing that comes from the same place as “it is so cool and progressive for men to be into group twerking exercises” is disingenuous.
Bad male behavior is generally a bit more threatening and unpleasant to be around. But, I’ve also lived with good male friends, and with male strangers that ended up being great.
I mean, we didn’t twerk together. But it was fun to have a guy to plop down on the couch and watch play videogames, talk about Romans with, or whatever other male-coded quirkiness you want to pull up.
We often say “normalize <whatever>” to the point where it has become a bit of a trite phrase. But, there’s a lot of social pressure for men to be isolated. We should normalize living with your bros. It shouldn’t just be the wall-punchers that live together. (I mean, it isn’t).
I'm a man, and had wonderful experiences with my many (mostly male) roommates, with only occasional hiccups. Saying adult men cannot live together seems pretty excessive.
I had a roommate for the first time again in my early 30s after getting divorced. Looking back now I enjoyed it. I felt that I had to grow up and get my own place again after our lease was up. I think this was true, at the time I did have a two year old daughter and we were living illegally in a warehouse. Not the best way to raise a small child. However, if I could go back, I think I would have found another communal living space. My roommate on the other hand may have more mixed feeling about it given the screaming two year old and my constant cooking of monkfish… which was later barred from the menu.
From my experience going to boarding school, living on campus at University and living with housemates for almost a decade and having an enjoyable time throughout.
So much of this experience comes down to who you end up living with. I've been lucky to live with friends with fairly similar interests and career drives where it matters, and that changes the experience. If you enjoy the people you live with outside of just the fact you're living together, it changes everything.
If you have those things you get to live with people whom you enjoy their company, talk about topics, do activities together, build further relationships with others and benefit financially from shared costs that can help you build a future.
Absolutely you will need to be able to share and cohabit which can be more challenging as you grow up wanting your own space.
I can relate a lot to this. For most of the years between leaving home and meeting my wife I had at least 1 room-mate. I enjoyed it. Living alone is very boring IMHO.
The talk about having roommates into your 30s, 40s, and 50s to be able to split the load, avoid loneliness, socialize more, find motivation to do things with others, and have interesting conversations with people in different life situations is all interesting and good. Certainly something a single person should at least consider.
But it also feels funny to read this as a someone with a family at home, because a healthy family home life checks all of these boxes and more. I’m sure someone will come along to comment that not all families are this good at being friendly and splitting the load of cooking and such, but I think you’d find that most roommate situations aren’t splitting the load of cooking and making meals together like this at a much higher rate.
It might be that a person with roommates is more likely to be introduced to more people and therefore more likely to find someone to marry, than a person without roommates. No idea if there is any data on that.
My own experience is that when I had roommates they would invite people over or invite me to activities where I'd meet new people with very little effort on my part. Vs when I've lived alone it felt less far less likely to meet new people without more effort.
The article is clearly for a class of women who want to stay single forever, not for men. Most people should be focusing more on having stable relationships with a partner, not into roommates.
Why women? It’s written by a woman, certainly, who does offer the disclaimer,
> I understand not everyone is wired like I am.
Why not men? Why would a man not prefer to live with roommates, to split meals and chores and have easy companionship for a cup of tea and a movie at the end of the day?
On the other hand, why should a man not want to be naked around the house, play trashy music at 7am, and bring someone home for the night without worrying about roommates?
What does men and women have to do with any of this, in other words? You’re the second comment to explicitly mention gender and I do not see the connection.
Women can be more social, whereas men can be more independent, taken to their respective extremes. Men don't like having to explain their behavior to someone, or want to tolerate anyone else's behavior. Being social was cool back in college, but not since past the age of 35.
Men are fighting hard to improve their resumes/businesses/finances/health, and as such their lives, and they don't need or value idle time spent with roommates coming in the way. The role of a provider weighs more heavily on men.
So is this behavior defined by societal rules and expectations, or by the genders' own nature?
I'm a man, and as I get older I feel like the idea of men having to be less social and aggressive (e.g. the part about not tolerating stuff - or the opposite idea that women are fine with suffering in silence while someone has poor behavior instead of speaking up) harms us.
> the idea of men having to be less social and aggressive
That's a gross misrepresentation.
Regarding aggression, in one's home, one doesn't want to and shouldn't have to explain things to others. One is supposed to be the king (or queen) of their home.
As for being social, sociologically speaking, men work to connect communities they don't belong to, whereas women connect the community they belong to.
Lastly, no, women do not suffer in silence. They are extremely vocal, often a lot more than men.
i left europe because of this nonsense. other cultures are way more tolerant. in china complaining about someone else is practically an insult. of course the downside is that when you have problems in your family, nobody wants to get involved because they feel it's not appropriate.
I wonder if housing could be designed in such a way as to provide the best of both worlds. Maybe 2 private rooms with external access sharing a communal area for shared meals if desired.
Hard pass, most people are annoying and messy. Living with people also introduces other human issues, like people getting jealous of you, or trying to exploit you. If one has to have roommates, be super discerning and stingy with your trust.
Sounds to me like a way to get out of poverty. If my rent is 1/2 to 1/4th what it would be otherwise then I can save that difference and get out of poverty faster than if I paid full rent.
My three daughters are grown and have moved out and now I live alone in a four bedroom house.
Between work (in office mon-thurs, wfh fridays), my volunteer (fire department and watershed steward), fitness (yoga and lifting), and social club (amateur radio, astronomy, and makerspace) commitments, and my girlfriend (smart and beautiful)-- the 1-3 nights per week I get to come home and sit alone, in the dark, in my underwear, listening to the worst 90s techno ever produced at full volume are the only times I have to relax.
As an added bonus when you live alone you can accomplish many things that would be difficult and/or very costly with roommates. Very few people want to live in chaos for months as you methodically open up each wall in your 70-year-old house to run CAT6/HDMI/speaker wires in every room by working an hour or so during your precious few free nights and weekends.
(in my underwear, while listening to the worst 90s techno ever at full volume)
You could argue everything, but I’m pretty sure 99% of those sharing a flat are doing so because they can’t afford a flat for themselves, not because they enjoy the company.
It can also be a matter of preference. I lived alone after moving away from my family for a few years. For someone working long hours, far from home, with a demanding job, there is a particular kind of loneliness at coming home after dark to a cold, quiet home.
I ended up cohabitating with close friends after that for a solid decade, during which I met my wife who also joined us. It can be a wonderful arrangement if you have the right people and everyone is working to look after themselves and each other.
Buying an old beater car as your first car has been the norm forever. But that’s because young people still have no wealth, ie they are poor, not because they don’t want a shiny Audi.
If it's a great house or location or deal, people will stay notwithstanding conflict.
When housemates go from single to partnered, it's an unsolvable conflict because housemates are not the priority and the partner is mostly unwanted in the house.
If you as a single person join a house with committed partners, you'll forever have to accept what they want.
When people disagree, the stakes of one's living space is typically higher than the problem, which the aggressive are happy to hostage to get what they want.
Housemates learn a lot about you that you don't really want to be public, but they're not committed to keeping your secrets and might even use them against you.
Housemates can start depending on you emotionally.
Having friendly housemates can reduce the pressure to find a partner, precisely when othees are partnering. Your choices only get more narrow from delaying.
Long-term living together requires commitment, mutual respect, and effective governance that can't be abused. All that is quite the opposite from the usual drivers: convenience, shared cost, and lightweight human contact.
Worse, shared housing is always better and cheaper than buying, so after decades of living well you'll still be a renter (unable to control your destiny) rather than an owner.
You might think you'll share for temporary situations, but not make it a lifestyle. But the more you get used to it, the less tolerance you'll have for the sacrifices necessary for a committed partner and home equity.
Just want to point out that having a cheaper living situation doesn’t preclude homeownership later—it makes it more feasible.
I’ve lived in SF (communally) for about 10 years now. The first 5 years I lived here help me build up my savings, and then a housemate, my wife, and I bought a building in the city that now houses 8 adults. I definitely could not have afforded this paying for a one bedroom in the city, and living with roommates meant I had lots of time to find people who would be willing to go in on a house with me!
But even if this weren’t the case, over 5 years we probably saved ~200k in rent. Putting that into the stock market would typically yield much better returns than owning a home (which is typically a wash after mortgage interest is factored in).
I'm a geek and have shared my home with housemates for 50 years. When I was poor and when I was prosperous. When I was married and when I was not. It's almost always been good for me, including for growth in my social intelligence. It was especially valuable when my wife died. Some of my housemates have been challenging. More became close friends. Living together people take their masks off. Quality social connections have been invaluable to me.
[flagged]
Hmmm, but if you’re the landlord and you only care about money as you imply, why wouldn’t you move out and just rent, mrather than dealing with roommates?
Landlords have much more power. Usually more money too, but always more power.
Source: I am a landlord and I could temporarily destroy either of my roommates' livelihoods at the drop of a dime whenever I please. As a result, they are basically my permanent friends until they save up enough to move out. The difference between me and others in my position is I understand these are material relationships more than social relationships, and the only way to change that is not being the landlord.
When Marxists want to get rid of landlords, this is what they mean. They simply want more social relationships rather than material relationships. That's why it's called socialism.
I do agree that this is not being roommates but rather having (paying) guests.
I just would like to nuance the power a landlord holds. It really depends where you live. I live in Germany since a while now and renters have very very strong rights, they can just as well make the life of the landlord impossible. They can stop paying and it’ll be months, maybe even years, before he can kick them out.
Did you reply to the right thread?
Definitely
I have lived in “intentional communities” and attest that mature and self capable men and women of all ages can and do live excellently in compact (from [augmented] single home suburban dwellings of a dozen *or more) to ranch style configurations.
It is truly a new level of human excellence. The Epicurean garden of our age.
This has never worked without the WORK involved. People clean, people have a forum for regular discussion, people have responsibilities, and people come and go.
If you want a better life sometimes you have to game up with a better self.
* Once 20 in a single Venice Beach home (close enough to the beach.) there were old VW buses parked in the back yard and rooms with bunks, people paid $400-600/mo. It was wild yet it was civilized. Obviously city shut it down after years working well. It all comes down to good house rule and willful participation.
> It is truly a new level of human excellence. The Epicurean garden of our age.
> This has never worked without the WORK involved. People clean, people have a forum for regular discussion, people have responsibilities, and people come and go.
> If you want a better life sometimes you have to game up with a better self.
I think it’s funny to hear the concept of teaming up with other people, putting in the work, sharing responsibilities, and having discussions among the community unit is described as “a new level of human excellence”
Because this is just describing what it’s like to have a family and a household. Many people do this. A lot of this thread feels like single people reinventing the concept of family to fill a void. That’s fine, of course. The funny part is being it described as a new and novel form of human excellence
> Because this is just describing what it’s like to have a family and a household.
Actually, not at all. A co-living arrangement of adults (or WG for Wohngemeinschaft, as we call it in Germany) is not well advised to work like a family household. A family has someone being the father, someone else being the mother and then there are children. While some WGs might stabilize into such a pattern for a while, it is certainly doomed to fail and end in drama. It's more like a team at work - which infamously isn't a family either.
actually, i disagree. being a family should be more teamwork than it often is. in other words families would work better if they work like a team. that includes the children. it's a bit of both. in teams you too have people who are weaker in some aspects. in a good team, you help those people and support them. in a family you should give everyone a chance to contribute and participate in decisions. mother and father are not predefined roles. the parents should work as a team like senior developers, they act with authority because they have more experience, and they include their children like you would include junior developers.
I was talking about the virtues described in the parent comment, not a specific German Wohngemeinschaft
> this is just describing what it’s like to have a family and a household
It's describing what it's like to do so well.
IME, most people do not approach family with sufficient intentionality to achieve what sunscream89 describes. At best, they settle into a comfortable set of unconscious agreements and patterns that work OK for each other. At worst, those patterns cause constant friction that eventually tear them apart—or cause them to go to therapy and start adding intentionality to the relationship(s).
> It's describing what it's like to do so well.
And the comment above is describing the absolute best case communal living arrangement
> IME, most people do not approach family with sufficient intentionality to achieve what sunscream89 describes
In my experience, most roommates don’t do anything even close to what sunscream89 describes.
However most families at least make an attempt be a family, not just roommates.
A family is completely different.
I have a large family, this is nothing like even a functional family. Nothing.
I have lived in over three intentional communities (some others were too casual). From elaborate roommate situations to full on company town.
Working and living together in the “Epicurean dream” is intentional community, one lost to main stream awareness. And that is a form of excellent living!
I guess there are those who find living and working for others the natural way, and those who would live and work for themselves (as a community).
Uh, that’s a weirdly cynical take on it. They’re not “reinventing” the concept of a family, they’re choosing their family. I’m not sure why that’s so strange to you versus, I guess, raising kids in some sort of isolated nuclear family type environment?
The closest that I've gotten to this sort of arrangement was in a large cabin in the woods without electricity or running water where, signified by two shot glasses with rounded bottoms and a jug of moonshine passed around, there was always someone awake and tending to the property.
My task was to carry water so that it could later be heated for drinking/bathing (sponge-bathing really).
The location and (lack of) amenities served as a filter, so it's not something I think could be easily reproducible.
Once I lived in a desert commune that was like this. Frown on boozing (or over boozing) otherwise everyone was as wildlander as one can imagine.
Location for this was everything. Live like a well stocked savage in a pristine removed wonder of the world.
Community was around for so long there were prepper’s stocks spanning decades.
Btw, MREs do die. And they’re nothing worth living on.
>With six roommates, I would cook a couple dishes a week. Every meal would be multi course, with different people making salad, protein, sides, and maybe mixing up some drinks for the cooks.
I've never split meals with any of my roommates when I had them, and I cringe at the idea of asking them to accommodate my own idiosyncratic tastes. I, naturally, have lived on my own since I could possibly afford it. But I can see why this would be a huge benefit if you are so inclined to shared meal prep.
This article also makes a strong case for repealing laws outlawing SRO buildings, which can be designed to better accommodate shared cooking and socializing spaces than a building of 1 bedroom apartments.
I lived in communal houses for a very long time. The best was something like this - we had communal meals four nights a week, and everyone had one cooking night. The other nights, you know you just show up and there's food. It's way easier to scale a single meal up to more people than it is to cook a smaller meal every night. And as folks cook together and rotate around, they learn and cook better. And you end up with more variety, as you experience the full gamut of idiosyncratic tastes. :)
> And you end up with more variety, as you experience the full gamut of idiosyncratic tastes.
That's only a benefit if you're interested in variety. For a lot of people, their idiosyncratic tastes are things they _don't_ like.
My thoughts exactly. Great, there's food at home, ready to eat, 6 days a week. Can I eat it though?
I'm sure in an ideal world you could get past that problem by talking and having everybody else compile a mental list of what meals aren't going to be on the menu, but the more realistic outcome for someone like me is the food only being edible for me 1 or maybe 2 days a week, not to mention that I'll probably come of as an knobhead for not liking their food and making my own, and them probably not liking my food when it's my turn to prepare. It's a manageable situation for a couple of days or say a week, especially since everybody else is probably more willing to accommodate if they only have to do it for a short while, but I would never want to deal with that even semi-permanently.
Yeah, if you’ve got really hard opinions about what you like, it might be tough. It might also be a way to expand your palette though? I’m living with a Swiss girl and an Argentinian guy right now and am enjoying the new foods I’m introduced to.
In school, with roommates/housemates, we would very seldom do shared meals (where one person basically prepped the meal) and I do pot-lucks with friends today. But it's not the normal thing. People have different schedules and preferences.
I'd add that there was an activity crowd that I'd eat (Chinese) out with on a very regular basis in school but we never cooked together.
I think it's important to call out the difference between "what I prefer" and "what is good for me". We understand this fully in many aspects of our lives (from "My body prefers to do heroin" to "I prefer not to exercise but I do it because it's good for me").
I see a lot of comments here along the lines of "I prefer to live alone because roommates are a pain in the ass", but I think there might be a lot of value to doing this because it's good for you. Living with other people forces us to corral our worst tendencies, to break out of virtual worlds to engage in the real one, to form bonds that will force us to grow and change.
I think it's strange that our preference in this area, but not many others, could be so dominant over what is good for us.
So much this! Author of the post here - I've been noodling on writing one on the University of Chicago study 'Mistakenly Seeking Solitude' (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-28833-001) which I came across in the also-great Atlantic article on the Anti-Social Century (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/02/america...)
Basically: a team of researchers asked people if they'd be happier on their morning commute if they interacted with strangers or kept to themselves. Most said they'd be happier keeping to themselves. Then the researchers ran an experiment where a group were told to keep to themselves, a group was told to interact with a stranger for as long as possible, and a control group was supposed to do whatever came up. Those who were forced to interact with a stranger came away most happy, and those that kept to themselves were least happy.
We are social beings - it is how we have been able to survive as a species. And yet, given the choice, we often choose to isolate. I think people would be happier and healthier if we made more of an effort to combat that tendency.
I think so too. It helps to form good habits. If you have a roommate for example, you can't leave your dirty dishes everywhere and need to clean it as soon as you are done. You can learn a lot from your roommates too. One of my ex flatmates was super crafty and I got a different perspective on things thanks to that.
I used to live in a flat with one flatmate who changed every half a year or so because they were usually interns. Never knew them before they moved in but 90% of the time we became friends. I liked that they changed after a while so I was never stuck with a bad roomate.
I don't recommend the other way around. If you have a good friend it's more likely to notice their annoying habits so there is little upside but in a worse case you can damage the friendship.
The complaint from people who do live with shitty roommates is precisely that they DONT do that thing you claim people "have to do".
in a worse case you can damage the friendship
if your friendship can't survive that, it wasn't a good friendship to begin with.
This is as ridiculous as "Netflix shouldn't give me all episodes at once because that way it forces us not to binge watch them".
People don't need to be forced by the environment. They can strike healthy balances on their own.
You can have a social life without having roommates and you'll likely end up living with your romantic partner after spending some time dating them or multiple people until you find the one you move with.
Living alone will definitely help with the privacy and ease of bringing people you're dating to your place for private time.
In the US, is it concerning when a "grown man" in his 30s or 40s and beyond still lives with roommates, when dating and trying to attract a mate? Is there an expectation that you should be displaying a certain lifestyle that will attract a partner, and if you're living with a bunch of roommates, you're failing to do that?
I believe that's not the case in many other countries in the world, but what about the US?
It depends on what you want to do with your life, and what kind of partner you want. Most people want to date someone with their own place, because most people want their own place. If you want to live in a communal living situation, you're not going to be very happy if you partner up with someone who wants their own place. Will you sacrifice communal living in order to gain a partner? Or will you look for a partner who is interested in communal living, even if that takes longer?
These conversations about how men have to change themselves in order to find a partner are funny to me, because the subtext is that partnering up is the most important thing you can achieve, and you should sacrifice your other interests in order to make yourself marketable to the largest pool of people, so you can find a partner as soon as possible. People mock the phrase "just be yourself" because there are some things (money, physical beauty) that most people are looking for, and if you achieve them it's easier to find a partner. But the flip side is, unless you enjoy putting in all the work to be rich and beautiful, having a partner won't make you happy. The phrase "just be yourself" is really saying that you shouldn't change yourself just to find a partner, because it will be a phyrric victory. Instead, you should be yourself, do the things that make you happy, and let that filter out all the people who would only be interested in your money or your beauty. (and to be clear, this is not an argument against self improvement - you should still seek to better yourself)
There's not such thing as a permanent fixed identity though. "Just be yourself" raises a more interesting question. Who is yourself? Why is that way? Why should it be that way? Have you reflected on why you want what you want or why you behave the way you do? Do you think the way you are is the way you should be? Or is there a cognitive disconnect between the is and ought?
This is 100% true, which is why it's so important to resist the societal pressure to conform. It might be tempting to avoid these questions by taking the "default" path, but that path is unlikely to lead to happiness. You have to decide on your own path and work to make it happen.
Yes but also it's important to critically engage with reality as well. Many people think they are constructing some original identity without testing it against reality. No plan survives battle.
i make it a point to be myself because i want my partner and my friends to accept me the way i am. i use it as a filter to weed out people who are looking for something else even if that makes finding friends more difficult. that doesn't mean i don't change things. but those are things i don't mind changing or things that help me to be a better person. (eg. i started to shave once i went to china, because in china people generally don't have beards, and having one makes you look old, but some time after i got married i started to grow a small beard again, even though my wife didn't like it because i preferred it that way)
Especially in high cost areas like NY or SF, it’s completely normal for adults, even highly successful ones, to have roommates. I personally know plenty of men who had roommates up until they moved in with the person they would end up marrying.
In the cities I've lived, this is standard yes. For better or for worse, a man that isn't displaying capability to provide for himself is typically less attractive than one who is. Again, this is my experience. I'm not making an argument for or against.
The US is a huge and diverse country. People in it have diverse expectations.
It’s also going to depend on the location. Having roommates in a very high cost city is no big deal at all.
If "displaying a certain lifestyle" means the person gets to visit a much larger home (as there's more incomes), get surrounded with lots of friends (since it's a vibrant community in the house), who all have stock portfolios to retire early on because of it (since they're saving an extra $1k+ a month by sharing the better living situation), then you'll probably be be able to find someone who finds that more appealing than the alternative (a loner who's spare money gets burned up going to a landlord or mortgage bank interest payments). Alternatively, if you look at folks attracted to the "drowning in credit card debt, but leasing a brand new BMW, and downtown apartment" version of "displaying a certain lifestyle" then no, those people probably will be repelled. The dating pool is full of unique people of varying philosophy, intelligence, and wisdom.
Yes, it is financially concerning. You do not need to own a house, but you do need to show you are financially responsible enough to pay for rent, utilities, etc all by yourself.
I would argue that living with roommates may be harder than living alone, from a financial responsibility point of view. You not only need to be responsible for yourself but you need to deal with roommates which may not be.
Of course, you could be the financially irresponsible roommate, but I think your date can figure this out quite rapidly then, based on how much your roommates will hate you ;)
Good point, additionally, how do you expect the relationship to grow if you are not unable to unfortunately secure basic private lodging?
Most women might be fine with this arrangement while casually dating in younger years but I have yet to see anyone being at ease in this situation.
Don't forget that we are talking about 30+ years old, at this age most people are looking for something stable, of course you can always find exceptions but your available pool of candidates shrinks.
Oh, I fully agree that people ok with this arrangement beyond 30 years are rare. But if that’s who a person is, why should they give it up? They should keep searching for the soulmate that is also ok with this arrangement.
This type of shared apartments also have the effect of creating a sort of microcosm of people thinking alike on this specific topic. You tend to get to know other such shared apartments. This changes drastically the odds of finding partner ok with this arrangement.
Source: I lived 5 years in different such shared apartments, the microcosm effect really was insane, I automatically got to know the friends of my roommates, half of whom lived in a shared apartment, then I got to know their roommates, etc. 3 of my relationships started because of this network.
I dunno - having some social proof that a person can actually live with other people successfully is also a helpful kind of indicator.
There are such things as intentional communities. I predict multi-adult households will make a comeback. The era of nuclear families is coming to an end. It takes a village to raise children.
Depends on the situation. Generally I would say yes but I also know of successful people who have roomates (and can thus afford larger and cooler accommodations) and those people can of course throw parties and potlucks easier.
If you live in a shithole by yourself obviously that's not going to be attractive
Maybe ask some actual women instead of random men in tech?
Absolutely. All else being equal, a man over the age of 30 without his own residence is basically undatable (as per unsaid expectations in the US).
Treating this as a universal standard of women for men is probably more harmful to anyone's dating chances than having roommates or not.
My personal anecdote is that living with roommates while doing a PhD has been the worst living experience. That is, I'm rather jealous how the author ended up with a functioning setup and I wonder what attributes to this. Sometimes I wonder if the main cause for my challenges is that living with other PhD students is a competitive environment of time (constant prisoner dilemma situations where nobody cooperates to maximize their time to work), or if it's the mix of cultural backgrounds (I don't know how to get them to cooperate).
Two thoughts
I think a larger house like she's living in makes it a lot easier to mitigate "the bad room mate" problem mentioned in a lot of comments. They likely have some filtering and process to kick someone out if they turn out weird. And recruitment is hopefully easier if you have 4 other people looking for a 5th than posting an ad somewhere.
This does seem like a potential solution for the male loneliness epidemic. I think it would be harder to check out if you're around other people. Their house seems _very_ women-styled with cooking dance parties, twerking in the garden and the ingredients. But that's just one house, each house has their own style.
Before I met my partner I looked into communal living spaces, and if this doesn't work out I might do so again, and give it a shot. I don't think living on my own is good for me long term. I get too isolated.
Author of the post here - fwiw all the houses I've lived in have had a good gender mix, though it's true none of the men wanted to join for the hip hop dance workout. In general though the men have been the better cooks!
I wanted to note that a lot of houses I've lived in have had couples. Two of our housemates in PR were a married couple who rented out the apartment they owned to come live with us. The husband was more extroverted than the wife and loved the company - and the wife loved that we kept him entertained and she got the room to herself more often :)
All this to say I simply think it's great to live with (good) roommates, whether you're male, female, single, coupled, or anything else.
I think personality plays a big role. If it works for you, great!
But living with a group of people sounds like hell to me. When I go home, I want to be alone and relax. I don't want to deal with other people's shit, and I don't want to bother them with mine.
It's so unappealling to me, I would live out of my car before I gave in and tried living with roommates.
I’m an introvert and that’s part of why I prefer to live communally. When I live alone it’s very very easy for me to not interact with another person in real life for days at a time. That’s not good for my mental health in the long term, even if it’s “easier” in the short-term.
Same here. I’m autistic and so is my best friend. When I had to move out of the dorms after graduation I knew it was a bad idea to live alone. I’m very comfortable being alone and if I wouldn’t share a home I would probably end up completely isolated. We’ve been sharing a house for two decades and it’s working for us.
Well you have your room for your alone time, it’s like in a family.
I loved it personally, I made amazing connections, I couldn’t get enough of it. Couldn’t figure out a way to have kids and stay in a shared apartment unfortunately, although I know it’s possible. so that phase of my life is over – and I miss it.
But it’s a matter of personal preference for sure.
No, I prefer living without roommates, if I can afford it. I want my privacy and autonomy.
Absolutely never again with roommates. None of the "benefits" of having them can justify not living alone if one can afford
Agree, did that
I suppose it may be luck, but the ~15 roommates I’ve had over the years became, at worst, neutral acquaintance types or, at best, my best friends of all time. I’ve never had any of the common horror stories.
Come to think of it actually, I’ve never formed very strong bonds without anyone outside of childhood who I didn’t live with.
I remember hearing years ago that the ingredients for a strong friendship are (1) serendipitous, unplanned encounters, (2) vulnerability, (3) sustained time spent together. Housemates seem like the only modern avenue to this for adults.
Critical caveat is having the temple of my own room to retreat to.
With that, I love having housemates.
> I remember hearing years ago that the ingredients for a strong friendship are (1) serendipitous, unplanned encounters, (2) vulnerability, (3) sustained time spent together. Housemates seem like the only modern avenue to this for adults
The ingredients for a strong friendship are doing things together without forcing it and contact surviving when things change (e.g. geographical move, shared activity ending, family change).
The fact that you needed such a constant school like, unavoidable presence speaks to your own lack of sustained activities and communication in other areas. You haven't made friends through sports, hobbies, shared courses or even work? Only by 24/7 living with them?
You may want to change that. It may seem like it requires more effort at first but it's not that different and lasts beyond the see each other every day phase.
To clarify, the frequent encounters of a housemate situation hasn't been required to sustain friendships for me, but instead to get "escape velocity," if you will. The great friends I made of former housemates still keep in frequent contact with via phone calls, etc.
You said "doing things together without forcing it" is important. That's precisely what I mean with housemates. In the storm of people's busy lives and moods, living with someone just provides so much more effortless surface area for bonding than pre-arranged, formal events to do sports or a hobby.
To each their own, but I wanted nothing MORE than to finally have my own place throughout life (first a bedroom, then a dorm room, then apt). It was a real motivator, and it's not that I didn't have decent relationships with roommates or family.
I generally like having roommates, but when they're bad, they're BAD. I've also never done the communal cooking thing. Either they don't cook, are bad at cooking, or have dubious food hygiene. I haven't met any potential partners through them either. I might take a walk or swim with them but I sure as hell didn't get OP's experience.
Makes me think humankind has been enshittified too: crappy parents/educational system creating more crappy humans, instead of "high quality" ones.
But then again, I always realize how far civilization has come when I enter a public toilet: not far at all.
I look around my messy apartment and realize I'd also be a not-great flatmate.
> avocado, olive, and coconut oil; ten basic spices; honey, maple syrup, apple cider vinegar, soy sauce, miso, and almond butter.
This is what happens when you use Google for recipes. And a good hint that this article does not represent the average demographic; most people outside of her's do not want room mates good reason.
Women have such different lives. It's things like this that make it so painfully obvious why single men are isolated and alone in modern society.
The communal house scene in San Francisco isn't predominantly women.
Could you expand on that a bit? You’re the second comment to say this is about ‘women’ and I don’t get it - what’s different? Whatever you think is ‘painfully obvious’ here is obviously not landing for me, can you spell it out?
>I missed coming home to postgame my bad dates with my roommates over a cup of tea.
For whatever reason, I think men are a lot less likely to engage in this kind of social behavior, even if they are roommates. They're also a lot less likely to engage in spontaneous dance parties or enjoy group hip hop twerking exercises. Basically, a lot of the benefits of having roommates that the author describes are experienced far less often by men with roommates
Pretty much. And I'm not even remotely saying it's a good thing. This is one of a myriad reasons men objectively live shorter, less healthy, and lonelier lives. You can speculate a million more reasons as to why, but it's just the reality of life.
We just do it differently... "postgame work over several beers" is the norm in every house I've lived in, even when we didn't know each other well.
Perhaps experience varies, but I've never talked about specific dates in any detail with even my close male friends (let alone roommates)
Boomer men complaining about their wives is an actual boomer facebook meme for a reason.
Whether men just sitting down and talking openly about their feelings comes from the “men should be more sensitive and willing to share their feelings with others” take or the “bbq and beers with the boys in the backyard” take, the same point stands regardless.
Like, guys in a group relaxing over beers or bbq and just talking about their feelings (just without using this specific terminology) has been a thing since forever ago in the US. I cannot speak for all countries ever, but in Russia (since before soviet union even existed), sauna+alcohol after+snacks along with the boys just talking about anything weighing on their mind has been a thing too. From what I know about ancient Greece, they had an equivalent of it as well.
Regional/cultural equivalents aside, this seems like a somewhat common experience/ behavior across time, and painting it as some new thing that comes from the same place as “it is so cool and progressive for men to be into group twerking exercises” is disingenuous.
on the other hand I've yet to meet a woman that punches holes in drywall when they're mad, I've had 2 male roommates that have
Bad male behavior is generally a bit more threatening and unpleasant to be around. But, I’ve also lived with good male friends, and with male strangers that ended up being great.
I mean, we didn’t twerk together. But it was fun to have a guy to plop down on the couch and watch play videogames, talk about Romans with, or whatever other male-coded quirkiness you want to pull up.
We often say “normalize <whatever>” to the point where it has become a bit of a trite phrase. But, there’s a lot of social pressure for men to be isolated. We should normalize living with your bros. It shouldn’t just be the wall-punchers that live together. (I mean, it isn’t).
>on the other hand I've yet to meet a woman that punches holes in drywall when they're mad, I've had 2 male roommates that have
This is basically my point. Adult women can live together, adult men cannot.
I'm a man, and had wonderful experiences with my many (mostly male) roommates, with only occasional hiccups. Saying adult men cannot live together seems pretty excessive.
they can but it's inherently riskier, especially with a woman involved
I had a roommate for the first time again in my early 30s after getting divorced. Looking back now I enjoyed it. I felt that I had to grow up and get my own place again after our lease was up. I think this was true, at the time I did have a two year old daughter and we were living illegally in a warehouse. Not the best way to raise a small child. However, if I could go back, I think I would have found another communal living space. My roommate on the other hand may have more mixed feeling about it given the screaming two year old and my constant cooking of monkfish… which was later barred from the menu.
From my experience going to boarding school, living on campus at University and living with housemates for almost a decade and having an enjoyable time throughout.
So much of this experience comes down to who you end up living with. I've been lucky to live with friends with fairly similar interests and career drives where it matters, and that changes the experience. If you enjoy the people you live with outside of just the fact you're living together, it changes everything.
If you have those things you get to live with people whom you enjoy their company, talk about topics, do activities together, build further relationships with others and benefit financially from shared costs that can help you build a future.
Absolutely you will need to be able to share and cohabit which can be more challenging as you grow up wanting your own space.
I can relate a lot to this. For most of the years between leaving home and meeting my wife I had at least 1 room-mate. I enjoyed it. Living alone is very boring IMHO.
The talk about having roommates into your 30s, 40s, and 50s to be able to split the load, avoid loneliness, socialize more, find motivation to do things with others, and have interesting conversations with people in different life situations is all interesting and good. Certainly something a single person should at least consider.
But it also feels funny to read this as a someone with a family at home, because a healthy family home life checks all of these boxes and more. I’m sure someone will come along to comment that not all families are this good at being friendly and splitting the load of cooking and such, but I think you’d find that most roommate situations aren’t splitting the load of cooking and making meals together like this at a much higher rate.
It might be that a person with roommates is more likely to be introduced to more people and therefore more likely to find someone to marry, than a person without roommates. No idea if there is any data on that.
My own experience is that when I had roommates they would invite people over or invite me to activities where I'd meet new people with very little effort on my part. Vs when I've lived alone it felt less far less likely to meet new people without more effort.
having a family or home is no longer affordable either way.
The problem is finding dependable/clean/nice roommates…
The article is clearly for a class of women who want to stay single forever, not for men. Most people should be focusing more on having stable relationships with a partner, not into roommates.
Why women? It’s written by a woman, certainly, who does offer the disclaimer,
> I understand not everyone is wired like I am.
Why not men? Why would a man not prefer to live with roommates, to split meals and chores and have easy companionship for a cup of tea and a movie at the end of the day?
On the other hand, why should a man not want to be naked around the house, play trashy music at 7am, and bring someone home for the night without worrying about roommates?
What does men and women have to do with any of this, in other words? You’re the second comment to explicitly mention gender and I do not see the connection.
Women are more likely to pair up for safety and community reasons.
[dead]
Women can be more social, whereas men can be more independent, taken to their respective extremes. Men don't like having to explain their behavior to someone, or want to tolerate anyone else's behavior. Being social was cool back in college, but not since past the age of 35.
Men are fighting hard to improve their resumes/businesses/finances/health, and as such their lives, and they don't need or value idle time spent with roommates coming in the way. The role of a provider weighs more heavily on men.
So is this behavior defined by societal rules and expectations, or by the genders' own nature?
I'm a man, and as I get older I feel like the idea of men having to be less social and aggressive (e.g. the part about not tolerating stuff - or the opposite idea that women are fine with suffering in silence while someone has poor behavior instead of speaking up) harms us.
> the idea of men having to be less social and aggressive
That's a gross misrepresentation.
Regarding aggression, in one's home, one doesn't want to and shouldn't have to explain things to others. One is supposed to be the king (or queen) of their home.
As for being social, sociologically speaking, men work to connect communities they don't belong to, whereas women connect the community they belong to.
Lastly, no, women do not suffer in silence. They are extremely vocal, often a lot more than men.
the part about not tolerating stuff
i left europe because of this nonsense. other cultures are way more tolerant. in china complaining about someone else is practically an insult. of course the downside is that when you have problems in your family, nobody wants to get involved because they feel it's not appropriate.
Rubbish. What a dreadful world you seem to inhabit.
You're giving Trump competition for his vocabulary skills.
Please familiarize yourself with the comments policies at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html given that your comment being in violation of several of the listed policies.
I wonder if housing could be designed in such a way as to provide the best of both worlds. Maybe 2 private rooms with external access sharing a communal area for shared meals if desired.
Golden Girls!
Hard pass, most people are annoying and messy. Living with people also introduces other human issues, like people getting jealous of you, or trying to exploit you. If one has to have roommates, be super discerning and stingy with your trust.
The case for normalising poverty.
Sounds to me like a way to get out of poverty. If my rent is 1/2 to 1/4th what it would be otherwise then I can save that difference and get out of poverty faster than if I paid full rent.
One could argue that for many people, isolation is a form of poverty.
Living alone is not living in isolation.
My three daughters are grown and have moved out and now I live alone in a four bedroom house.
Between work (in office mon-thurs, wfh fridays), my volunteer (fire department and watershed steward), fitness (yoga and lifting), and social club (amateur radio, astronomy, and makerspace) commitments, and my girlfriend (smart and beautiful)-- the 1-3 nights per week I get to come home and sit alone, in the dark, in my underwear, listening to the worst 90s techno ever produced at full volume are the only times I have to relax.
As an added bonus when you live alone you can accomplish many things that would be difficult and/or very costly with roommates. Very few people want to live in chaos for months as you methodically open up each wall in your 70-year-old house to run CAT6/HDMI/speaker wires in every room by working an hour or so during your precious few free nights and weekends.
(in my underwear, while listening to the worst 90s techno ever at full volume)
You could argue everything, but I’m pretty sure 99% of those sharing a flat are doing so because they can’t afford a flat for themselves, not because they enjoy the company.
It can also be a matter of preference. I lived alone after moving away from my family for a few years. For someone working long hours, far from home, with a demanding job, there is a particular kind of loneliness at coming home after dark to a cold, quiet home.
I ended up cohabitating with close friends after that for a solid decade, during which I met my wife who also joined us. It can be a wonderful arrangement if you have the right people and everyone is working to look after themselves and each other.
Having roommates (aka sharing a home) when you leave your family home has been the norm forever. Roommates are not poverty
>Having roommates (aka sharing a home) when you leave your family home has been the norm forever. Roommates are not poverty
Poverty has been the norm forever. The idea of economic progress for the common person is barely 3 generations old.
Buying an old beater car as your first car has been the norm forever. But that’s because young people still have no wealth, ie they are poor, not because they don’t want a shiny Audi.
How about "the case for acknowledging the reality that actually exists, rather than trying to pretend it will go away if we ignore it"?
If it's a great house or location or deal, people will stay notwithstanding conflict.
When housemates go from single to partnered, it's an unsolvable conflict because housemates are not the priority and the partner is mostly unwanted in the house.
If you as a single person join a house with committed partners, you'll forever have to accept what they want.
When people disagree, the stakes of one's living space is typically higher than the problem, which the aggressive are happy to hostage to get what they want.
Housemates learn a lot about you that you don't really want to be public, but they're not committed to keeping your secrets and might even use them against you.
Housemates can start depending on you emotionally.
Having friendly housemates can reduce the pressure to find a partner, precisely when othees are partnering. Your choices only get more narrow from delaying.
Long-term living together requires commitment, mutual respect, and effective governance that can't be abused. All that is quite the opposite from the usual drivers: convenience, shared cost, and lightweight human contact.
Worse, shared housing is always better and cheaper than buying, so after decades of living well you'll still be a renter (unable to control your destiny) rather than an owner.
You might think you'll share for temporary situations, but not make it a lifestyle. But the more you get used to it, the less tolerance you'll have for the sacrifices necessary for a committed partner and home equity.
What would your future self want you to do?
Just want to point out that having a cheaper living situation doesn’t preclude homeownership later—it makes it more feasible.
I’ve lived in SF (communally) for about 10 years now. The first 5 years I lived here help me build up my savings, and then a housemate, my wife, and I bought a building in the city that now houses 8 adults. I definitely could not have afforded this paying for a one bedroom in the city, and living with roommates meant I had lots of time to find people who would be willing to go in on a house with me!
But even if this weren’t the case, over 5 years we probably saved ~200k in rent. Putting that into the stock market would typically yield much better returns than owning a home (which is typically a wash after mortgage interest is factored in).
[dead]