[bitcoinbutter]

It's unfortunate the way that sexual relationships are intertwined with finances. Gone are the days where women have little/no earning opportunities.

People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.

[huffmsa]

It's almost like there were good reasons for strict legal and religious positions on monogamy and marriage for thousands of years all around the globe.

Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.

[winchling]

These traditions developed around families with children.

The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly.

Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships do work, though a period of adjustment may be required.

Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle!

And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.

[groby_b]

"Long-distance relationships don't work"

I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale)

Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?

[kemayo]

Although I disagree with the grandparent post, I'd be fine with saying that long term long distance relationships are harder to make work. Mostly this is because there's a lack of cultural guidelines for how to handle it; if you're living with or near someone there's a cultural script to follow which mostly-works, but in a LDR you can't count on that and you need to put the work in to build your own system.

Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D

[groby_b]

That (harder to make work) matches my anecdata :)

To be clear, I'm not saying "GP is wrong" - I was genuinely curious if maybe they had some data/studies on the subject, since all I have are personal observations, and I'm curious about the issue. I.e. How much harder are LDRs?

[Cthulhu_]

Well yeah that's pretty much the default, UNLESS they choose to get married with the stipulation of shared ownership and finances etcetera.

the Netherlands recently passed legislation that changed the default marriage agreement to no longer have the shared ownership stipulation.

And even then, that's only one option (marriage, that is); there is nobody (except maybe family, church, etc) forcing anyone to marry. There's other options as well.

[ajsnigrutin]

Not everywhere. In Slovenia (and some other countries probably), we have a "zunajzakonska skupnost", which rougly translated means "out-of-wedlock relationship". If two people live together for a (undefined) "long" amount of time, and act in a way married couple do, they can be treated exactly as a married couple would be. That means, that one of the partners can claim they lived together in an "zunajzakonska skupnost", and everything acquired during the relationship canbe treated the same as with marriage, and split in half (unless someone proves they contributed significantly more,...). The existance of "zunajzakonska skupnost" iz not well defined and has to be decided in court, but it can bring many many problems.

We also have only recently legalized prenups.

Oh, and living wills are very very limited too. ..so yeah...

[thaumasiotes]

In the United States (and presumably England) this is called "common law marriage".

I don't know if it's enough for one partner to claim marriage to the other, but if they both claim it the marriage is valid.

[ajsnigrutin]

Here, only one has to claim it, but they have to prove it in court. Usually this is usually done by proving they lived together, bought things together, etc. and if there were other elements of a relationship.

I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.

[nkrisc]

Presumably they end up on Judge Judy. More seriously, sounds like something that could be handled in small claims court if there's really a dispute about it.

[PeterisP]

It can't be handled in small claims court because the claims aren't small and exceed the limits of what a small claims court can rule on - I mean, if someone has spent 20 years in that 'common law marriage' then that generally comes to the full extent of divorce proceedings - how to divide up the house, car(s), other property and custody of children.

[dfawcus]

It hasn't existed in England for quite some time. It existed in variant form in Scotland until recently.

[alexhutcheson]

Common-law marriage only exists in a handful of states (8 out of 50, plus DC) in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...

[TazeTSchnitzel]

It can bring problems I'm sure, but is not having such a legal concept better? If two people build their lives together then I think they need to be explicitly about what is whose if they want legal clarity when things go wrong.

[tootie]

My wife and I joined our bank accounts a few months before the wedding. We consider that to be our true wedding day. We got to Admiral status with Vanguard much quicker this way. Also, I intend to spend 100% of my time with her once we retire and I can't wait. My parents and her parents have been living like that for years.

[ekc]

They could just, not get married.

[kweks]

In many Common Law countries, you are automatically considered to be in a de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example)

Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.

[Blackstone4]

> de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example)

I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.

[kweks]

Thank you.. you're correct, but there are some nuances. The defacto status is a qualitative status.

My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances.

In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way.

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/

[zxcmx]

In NZ it’s 3 years of de-facto but the “family home” (even if one partner brought it freehold into the relationship) gets split 50/50.

It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”.

The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.

[dijit]

In Sweden there is a special word "Sambo", if someone lives with you (in a relationship context) for 6mo+ then they're entitled to 50% of your home, it also applies if you buy a home with the intent of living with someone.

Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.

[username90]

No, that is not true. Sambolagen is for when a couple gets a new place to live in, not for when someone moves into the others home. Basically it makes a difference between assets acquired as a part of the Sambo relationship and assets acquired as a private person.

So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.

[H8crilA]

This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? Similar to the evergreen debates on contracting vs employment - the reality of the relationship should decide, not the title of the contract. Also often your parents can sue you for alimony if they can no longer support themselves in their old age, just like a child can sue a parent. Family law can get you by surprise.

[Barrin92]

>This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality?

because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around.

It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.

[H8crilA]

That's exactly what I meant by "Family law can get you by surprise.". It's not there to protect you, like HR is not there to protect you. Just keep the ship going.

[tonyedgecombe]

it's also rather frightening

I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.

[kweks]

Surely the uncertainty is scary for both sides! Frightening if you contributed less financially but risk to lose your house, etc. Frightening if you contributed more financially and risk to lose your house, etc.