I’ve often thought the same thing. I suspect we probably have more in common than otherwise if politics are removed from the equation.
Very true. My husband is from an Italian family and is expected to call his parents at least once a week (calls from them to us don’t count), and to see them at least every other week.
On the other hand, I’m from a family that doesn’t expect that. I live 2.5 hours away from my mother and sister, and last saw them on Christmas Eve. Our usual reason for calling is if something big is happening. I probably last talked to my sister a month ago, and my mom called Sunday only because she was going in for somewhat minor surgery on a toe the following day. I haven’t heard back or called her, but that’s because if anything major had happened, I’d have heard from her or her boyfriend, and I don’t want to bug her when she’s hurting otherwise. The expressed sentiment among us has been, “well, nothing really new is going on so I didn’t see the sense in calling.” We love each other dearly, I had a great upbringing with caring, supportive parents, and we just don’t feel the need to talk on the phone that often.
My husband, on the other hand, is of the “I love him but I don’t like him” viewpoint about his father, and after the abusive childhood and the ongoing BS from his dad would pretty much be pleased to only see him rarely except he’d like to see his mother too. He expresses envy over how mellow my family is about expectations over communication.
That being said, I moved out of the house after college and headed straight to grad school, a state away from my family, then moved to the Chicago area and in with my now-husband. I’ve lived on my own, with roommates, and with a boyfriend. My husband lived with his parents for a couple years after college, saving money to get out into his own apartment, as well as helping to look after his niece; his approx. dozen-years-older sister had moved back as well after her divorce, with her 3-year-old daughter.
I also happen to be biased towards moving out as soon as is feasible, for various reasons, especially maturation. Obviously geographic area has an effect (but that shouldn’t matter for dating prospects as you’d probably be in the same area and thus understanding, right?), as would circumstances like helping out your parents.
I have a coworker who’s just out of college; her living at home for now makes sense. She has a 27-year-old sister who also lives at home, has had a good-paying job for a while, but has zero savings and spends most of her salary on expensive clothing. Not so good, and this should throw up a “stay away” flag to interested guys.
I agree with other reasons too, like maybe you don’t want to meet the parents of someone you just began to date, or maybe you’d like another option besides “My place or… oh, right,” for romantic date/sex locations.
Very well put, thank you. I would personally consider it a huge imposition to do that to anyone, especially my family.
Edit: And I consider equally not-cool to be the people who live alone but get all their money/their stuff via running to their parents because they can’t be bothered otherwise. That’s hardly being responsible, either.
I think Parental Advisory (ironic as hell user name here) has essentially said he’s totally comfortable living at home, it’s the same thing as living on his own, and he’ll move out someday, who knows when, no concrete plan. And it’s all about the concrete plan, because if I were interested in dating him, or Guin, I’d want to know, WHEN??? But who wants to start off a relationship where you want the person to change a fundamental aspect of his or her life, esp one he seems contented with? Can you understand why Girl, in this situation, would be doing everyone a favor by walking away from Guy? And that does not make her a bad person, or a shallow one.
If you can praise the pragmatism of someone living at home until 30 to save money, why can’t you praise the pragmatism of someone who knows when not to get involved with someone? Because her decision makes you feel judged, that’s why. Well, everyone makes judgments. People who live or have lived at home dismissed Girl as shallow, which is just as bad, and less justified IMO.
You’re making a snap judgement on someone based on their consumption habits and ownership of material goods. What difference does it make whether it’s a house or a car? For example, in my culture, families tend to remain together. Even the son of a very wealthy family will remain in the same multi-generational house after marriage, it will just be a very very BIG house. Your automatic equation of “living with parents” to “loser” is 100% vanity, and a very recent, narrowly Western-centric one at that.
It’s a free country, date who ever you want. I’m not argueing, just stating the facts. 
I’m not with you on this analogy. The difference between having your own home vs living with your parents isn’t like the difference between owning a Ferrari vs owning an ordinary car, it’s more like the difference between owning your own means of transport and having to depend on other people for rides. It’s not the quality that’s a turn-on/off to potential mates (I’m sure most 20-somethings’ first apartments are significantly lower quality than their parents’ homes), it’s the implications of independence, or lack thereof.
shrug Another Western vanity. So what if I didn’t own a car? I must be a " L O S E R" then? I understand you’re making the assumption that it’s impossible to lead a normal life without a car, well I do, so I don’t. Not unlike owning a house.
I take public transit in the winter, ride my bike in the summer, and sleep well knowing that my enviromental footprint is a few degrees of magnitude smaller than most people, while saving a scad of cash. If that makes me undatable to you, so be it. I’m not concerned. I can’t possibly think of a WORSE way to spend my time than sitting in traffic everyday just to get to work, you’re going to have to be an absolute DEMON in the sack for me to put up with that. 
Is it really so strange? Isn’t it often said that fascism and communism are merely opposite sides of the same coin?
I kid! I kid because I care.
Actually, I don’t own a car either.
Again, the point is not whether you have a possession, it’s whether you have independence. A person who is continually dependent on friends and relatives for the means or the permission to go anywhere is going to be seen by many as a less desirable mate than someone who can go where they want, when they want. Whether it’s because you own a car or because you live in a place where cars are unnecessary is irrelevant.
A place to live is independence on a larger scale: a place that you (the general you) are solely responsible for is a public demonstration of how well you can manage your life and deal with the consequences of your choices (eg. stay home on Saturday and do housework or go out, have fun and come back to a sink full of dirty dishes and laundry on the sofa). Being able and willing to take care of oneself is a is usually a big plus in a prospective mate, and still living in the nest with your parents leaves that criterion firmly in the ‘unknown’ column.
…why should Parental ignore the opinions of others in the thread? People are making observations from anecdotal evidence, and extrapolting it to apply to the norm. Some of the statements made in this thread are outlandish and I personally think that they are only speaking about a minority.
Reading the stories of the posters living with parents, I don’t see any of them that match up with the sort of stereotype that many posters attribute to them. I wouldn’t class any of them as “losers.”
I’m 33, and I am currently living with the parents. I’m half Samoan and half Maori, and the concept of Whanau, or extended family, is a very strong one. But dispite that, I spent many years living away from home as I built my career in the hospitality trade.
In 1999, my godfather passed away, and I made the decision to leave my job in Auckland and come home to spend quality time with my folks while they were still around. I got another great job at Parliament, and then two years later started my own catering business. In 2005 I bought in a new business partner who turned out to be liar and incompetent, and after running into severe cashflow problems I soon found myself out of business with my (now ex) business partner running away to Napier leaving me with $60 thousand dollars of debt. For a year I fought against bankruptcy and deppression, before finally clawing my way out of the mire at the start of 2006 when I got a new job and started to pay off my debt.
During this time my mum suffered a massive heart attack, one that she only survived because she happened to work at the hospital laundry and was less than a minute from the Accident and Emergency. I pay more than half the bills in the house at the moment, I iron my own shirts and I even clean my room. I work more than fifty hours a week, am studying three papers toward a Diploma of Business through the Open Polytech, and I am steadily working on a business plan with some trusted colleagues for a project we hope to launch at the end of the year.
So while I’m 33 and living at home, I am not a loser. And from what I can tell, none of the other dopers who are living at home are losers either. While I can’t control how people view me, it is sad that if I mentioned to someone that I’m living at home, all of a sudden I’m no longer interesting as a potential partner. But then I reassure myself with the thought: “ah well, its her loss!.”
I take issue with the bolded statement. Thank you for participating in selective reading. :rolleyes: If you’ve read anything I’ve said, I never once said that living at home is the same as living on your own. Why did you assume this?
Because of statements made by those like Rubystreak. Somehow, she thinks that I correlated living at home is the same as being on your own. It’s an itch I gotta scratch I guess.
I can only think of one time where a guy I was dating didn’t like my living at home. The relationship lasted just over a month. Come to think of it, it would’ve ended the same way, I think, even if I’d been on my own. Kiz Mom just happened to be a handy excuse :rolleyes:
None of my long-term boyfriends were bothered by it, AFAIK. Mr. Kiz wasn’t in the least. Every so often Mom would either make dinner for us or I’d make it. She never interfered in any of relationships ithemselves, which I’m thankful for. However, when it was just her and I, she’d give her opinion whether I asked or not :rolleyes:
That’s delightful for you. My brother doesn’t own a car, either. He’s not a loser. He lives in Toronto, where biking and public transit are viable options.
I, on the other hand, live 12 miles from the nearest grocery store of any kind. I do own a car, and I’m not a loser for that, either, even an environmental one. I actually run it on natural gas and plan my days so my trips are at a minimum and everything is combined as much as possible.
You’re accusing people of making assumptions and not understanding cultural differences, but I think you’re making the same mistakes yourself.
Ah, but it IS. You can rationalize that however you want, you’re still making a snap judgement based on whether I possess some material good or not.
-
There’s nowhere on earth where it is a matter of life and death that one must own a car. I’ve lived in the US, both east and west coast. My parents rarely had cars. It was a little more inconvenient, sure, but I lived.
-
Even if such a place did exist, no one is forcing you to live there. The middle of the Gobi desert is uninhabited for a reason. If you decided to build a house there, then yeah, you probably need a car, but it’s still a lifestyle choice you made.
This kind of argumnet is sort of akin to people who “need” SUVS because they “need” to live in some desolate wilderness a million miles from paved roads anyone else. No, you don’t, do you have smallpox? otherwise you could just live closer to civilization like normal people do.
That’s why I’m all for higher fuel taxes, and not modifying people’s behaviour, but I digress.
Owning cars/houses is a conceit, just because lots of people in N America share it doesn’t make it less so.
Just like a Ferrari. Public demonstrations are for peacocks.
Independence and self-sufficiency are not material goods. Living on your own is merely evidence (but not proof) that you are capable of fending for yourself with little or no outside assistance.
When you’re an adult and you’re still being supported by your parents–for whatever reason–the message you’re sending to the world is that you’re incapable or unwilling to completely take on adult responsibilities. It’s possible that this message is false and that in actuality, you are as mature and capable as anyone else your age, but can you really blame someone for not willing to expend the energy in trying to figure that out? Especially if you’re essentially a stranger to them?
You can persist on seeing this as a ownership issue and continue to miss the point, or you could actually listen. Ferraris are a non sequiter.
A conceit your parents possess and that you have no qualms accepting the fruits of.
I’m reminded here of an old Don Berg cartoon from Mad Magazine about a 60’s era hippie kid announcing to his mom that he wasn’t going to get a job and move out because he wanted the freedom to “do his own thing.”
Mother: “And what about your father who works all day to earn money to support you?”
Son: “That’s his thing!”
Throatwarbler Mangrove, is there a language issue that’s making it difficult for you to understand the difference between independent living and home ownership? Because no one here has said that anyone is a “loser” for not owning a home.
Dairy farms being so famously located in cities. Yes, I know. I made the choice to marry a farmer, so I can wallow in my own horrid life choices. Dear God, what can I have been thinking?
I don’t think I made my point clear. I was objecting to your self-righteous attitude, not your particular lifestyle choice. I don’t care whether you have a car or not. If I lived near public transport I wouldn’t either. I don’t much like driving. But please, lose the attitude.
Agreed. Like I said, it’s a free country, boink whoever you want. You’re just tapdancing around the fact that you want someone to “public demonstrate” that they have what you want, and you want that in the form of material goods. I’m not making a moral judgement either way, but to deny that is dishonest.
Ditto yourself.
That’s not the point, the point is that it’s CHEAPER overall, for both me and my parents, if we were to live together. I understand most of you guys don’t have the same level of trust with your own parents, so they have to treat you like renters, but that’s remediable if you were willing to make the effort. Similarly, if you (not you, Sublight, people in general) are so feeble minded that you won’t find a job without the threat of being thrown to the curb, well, I suppose that’s probably why people tell me real estate is a good “investment” too. Because lord knows, without that threat hanging over my head, I’d probably just bake my money into pies or something.
Not at all, I used the word own, because Rubystreak had noted that she would feel icked if she “bumped into” someone else on the way to the bathroom while covered with sex sweat. It seems to me that the only way to avoid that would be to own a home or rent entirely on your own, which I find to be typically uneconomical (for that kind of money, you might as well buy the damn place). In any case, as long as you agree that “independent living” is more expensive, I stand by my argument.
Well, is the decision not to date someone who doesn’t own a car a “self righteous attitude”, or a “lifestyle choice”?