Having separate space is undervalued IMO. Expanding that to separate apartments does take me by surprise, but in this case, what can they do? It's the economy.

For financial reasons eventually sharing an abode makes sense (for the married), but having separate bedrooms and maybe even separate home offices is perfectly acceptable to me.

I think it's a great idea. Being married doesn't mean you automatically like each other's tastes and habits (far from it in my case). I would have loved a three-bedroom arrangement...mine, his and the "love room" in the middle ;-). Maybe next time!

It amazes me people think that there has to be a "right way or wrong way" here. Whatever you prefer is the perfect way. My wife and I wouldn't dream of living or sleeping separately. That is perfect for us. But, if a couple prefers to live apart or sleep in separate rooms that is the perfect set up for them.

I agree with Jay and Aunt Judie. Why should a couple torture themselves? If they keep wildly different hours, if one or both of them snores, or whatever else, why not have separate spaces?

I've always kind of admired Amy's and Gregg's setup, too. If there aren't any children, I can see something like that working very well.

BTW: "I am a big believer in the man-cave, and my one-bedroom apartment is like Liberace and Carol Channing had a baby,"

That's a great line for a Monday morning, isn't it?!

I recall watching an episode of Phil Donahue's show back when I was in college - it featured a couple who had been dating, and then engaged, for years. They adored each other, and neither of them could ever see themselves with someone else. Yet neither of them could see themselves living in the same house together. They both liked having personal space too much. So they compromised. When the condo next door to hers went on the market, he bought it. They were able to see each other whenever they wanted, but could go to their respective apartments when they wanted some alone time. The were happy as clams. Donahue did a follow-up on this same couple five years later. They had married, and still lived next door to one another (though they were contemplating cutting a connecting door inside their units).

Their solution always made a lot of sense to me, but I'm one of those women who really likes my own space and doesn't want a 24/7 roommate. Perhaps my next purchase will be a duplex townhouse - I can have one side, and he can have the other.

We have a three-bedroom, which means we each get an office. That's very nice.

DH's dream is to have his own man-room. I told him if he gets one, the master is mine and mine alone. We're fine with that. Seriously, just cause I love the man doesn't mean I should have to smell his sleep-farts.

I would love Ms. Gandi's idea of a duplex!

Right now I'm in an eight year relationship and we live a mile from each other. We are together all weekend and generally go out to a movie or something with friends one night during the week. Both of us are highly independent, have very specific tastes on decorating, etc. and have no desire to marry or move in together. (I'm quite sure if we did marry for some reason we would still not share a house).

I say if it makes you happy, go for it. No where is it written that every marriage has to be exactly the same.

I call my boyfriend's apt. his 'man-cave'. I'm working on making mine into more of a boudoir. He suggested moving in together, but I told him it would be way hotter having our own apts. and just visiting each other.

I was married before, and I had lived with a few guys, and invariably, I start to resent the guy because I wind up doing all the housework, and then we fight about money, so where's the fun in that? Sex gets dull or non-existent if you resent each other, so then it's game over for me, I'm outta there.

Maintaining two residences is an expensive luxury that few married couples will be able to truly afford. Then, what about kids? (Oh, right. Passe`. Inconvenient and expensive. Never mind.)

As Ann has pointed out so many times, why even get married if you are going to be mere visitor in your spouse's life?

"Then, what about kids? (Oh, right. Passe`. Inconvenient and expensive. Never mind.)"

You're catching on!

"Why even get married if you are going to be a mere visitor in your spouse's life?"

If you love something set it free, but if you REALLY love something, make sure it gets bogged down with a bunch of legal hassles if it ever tries to leave.

Eh. Whatever works, works. I can't see living seperately from my husband, but I can definately see taking separate vacations every once in a while. We do have extra bedrooms, though, and there's a pub in the neighborhood that I can send him to when he gets annoying.

I remember reading Jane Austin novel where a girl was being showed around her friend's house. She was showed to the mother's apartments, which were completely different (and on a different floor) than her husband's bedroom/dressing room/study. I remember thinking, "wow, maybe people would stay married longer if that was commmon again". You have to think that being able to take off by yourself for 3 months or so to "visit friends" was a bonus too.

It seems to work for Robert and Joan Parker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/23/garden/at-home-with-joan-and-robert-b-parker-a-house-divided-lovingly.html

The article's a bit dated, but I didn't see one about a divorce in my search, so I assume this is still the arrangement.

"As Ann has pointed out so many times, why even get married if you are going to be mere visitor in your spouse's life?"

You sure that's me? Because it sure doesn't sound like me. What I meant was, if you want to marry and live apart, go for it. I personally don't find marriage all that appealing, but that's my personal choice. I was married once and found it's definitely not my cup of tea, but for someone else it might be just fine. I am no less committed to my partner than I would be if I married him. Actually, I probably like him better because I'm not picking his dirty underwear up off the floor on a daily basis.

I think if you're going to have kids it might be difficult, but not impossible.

I think Pirate Jo said it best: "If you love something set it free, but if you REALLY love something, make sure it gets bogged down with a bunch of legal hassles if it ever tries to leave." :D

"That's great -- and may make it into one of my columns. Was it Pirate Jo who said it? (Sounds like it - just wondering.)"

Feel free, Amy! The thought occurred to me a few years ago. A nosy co-worker was wondering why myself and my then-boyfriend hadn't gotten married. The same-old, same-old, 'why don't you take it to the next level' crap. I responded that we didn't need a reason to NOT do something, but that maybe she could enlighten me as to a few reasons why we SHOULD get married. Some ways in which our lives would be better, or ways we would actually gain from doing it.

Her answer to me was that if you marry someone, they can't just up and leave you if they feel like it.

It just about blew my mind! If I have to entangle someone in a bunch of legal fees and lawyer hassles to keep them around, why would I *want* to keep them around? If they don't want to be with me, I don't want them to be with me either! That she would sit there and say that, suggesting I should marry someone out of insecurity - the worst thing was, even saying it out loud, she didn't realize how dumb it sounded.

No plans or space for kids? How sad. You don't know what love is until you have kids.

No plans or space for kids? How sad. You don't know what love is until you have kids.

If that is true, then why does just about everyone I know say that if they had it all to do over again, they would never have had children?

Children are not a blessing, they are a burden. And with society and government making them an ever greater burden, fewer people are willing to bear that burden to ensure the continuation of the species.

I'm a young-ish childless widow with nine nieces and nephews. When my oldest nephew becomes a father in a few months and another nephew leaves for Marine boot camp around the same time, my heart will be wrenched in different directions and I'll cry and laugh and beam with pride.

Don't tell me I don't know what love is, Memphis Aggie, just because I have not procreated.

"You don't know what love is until you have kids."

Phhbbbbtttt. Sanctimonious self-justification, down to the last word. (Or maybe Memphis Aggie works for Baby Gap.) I'm with Brian. I'd rather stick a fork in my ear than have kids.

Wow - touched a nerve! I actually work at a children's hospital by the way.
I do apologize for the insensitive tone - if I'd rendered my comment as "I didn't know what love was until I had kids" it'd be more accurate and less caustic. For me at least, (now that's better) all of the burdens children bring were obvious before hand, but the benefits were not.

but the benefits were not.

Name one.

Seriously. I can't think of any.

The benefits are very counter-intuitive and unexpected, so they are hard to describe and they'll seem terribly corny to you, but I'll try anyway. Once you have a baby they become the total focus and center of your life - the needs of the baby completely drive the household and especially when they are very young. They provide nothing but cooes and cries and you change literally everything including work sleep, friends and fiances to serve them. Sounds hard right? It is but the hidden benefit is that you forget yourself. You are lost in amazement at this new little delicate wonder, so soft and fragile. I found new love and admiration for my wife's heretofore unappreciated strength and nurturing skills and in new respect for friends and family (especially my mother in law). We were knitted together into a family and tied much more closely than our marriage vows because we a had a life between us. I forgot about work and career for a while. It gave me distance/detachment from the stress of the corporate job I had at the time. Everything I thought mattered was dwarfed in importance when compared to my son. Like I said, it's hard to describe clearly.

Brian, I hear that if you have kids they give you stuff to hang on your refrigerator. I thought about it, but decided to keep the stainless steel instead.

Memphis, you sound like a good egg after all - but we love to make fun of kids around here.

Thanks Pirate

If a cost benefit analysis was done having kids would be written off as long term, high cost, high risk investments. The costs are tangible while the benefits are not.

Memphis - I don't want any of that. When I hear a child cry, my spine contracts and I scream. It's involuntary.

I can't even run my own life. How the hell am I supposed to find the responsibility to run someone else's?

Let me rephrase that in a not-me-centric way.

In what way is it a benefit to have the entire focus of your existence be someone else?

"In what way is it a benefit to have the entire focus of your existence be someone else?"

Yeah, if you are in a relationship with someone and you get that way, people say you're co-dependent and/or need to get a life. Not trying to bash on you Memphis, obviously you are really enjoying parenthood. I just never understood why anyone ever does it in the first place, unless it's by accident. I don't *want* any one person or thing to become the total center and focus of my life, especially if it messes up my sleep, friends, or finances. I like all of the above just the way they are. Yet here you are, talking about that like it's a GOOD thing. Anything that becomes the entire center and focus of your life has the power to ruin it. And boy I've seen some people whose kids have ruined their lives. (Though to be fair, I've also seen the vice versa.) The whole thing sounds hideous!

"He lived to serve those he loved."

"She always looked out for number one."

"She always made family her first priority."

"He had so many great toys."

It's the meaning of life, folks. YOU pick what you would liked to have etched on your headstone.

"It's the meaning of life, folks."

Would it give your life meaning to wash my car for me? You are welcome to it.

"YOU pick what you would liked to have etched on your headstone."

How about 'enjoyed life while it lasted' - Actually I don't even care what gets etched on my tombstone, since I'm only concerned about what happens before I'm buried beneath it.

Jay -

I don't care to serve. I've been putting other people's needs ahead of my own for 40 years. I'm likely going to be forced to do so for the next 40. I'm not going to voluntarily take on more dependents.

I don't care if anyone even knows I existed once I'm gone.

"YOU pick what you would liked to have etched on your headstone."

"Get me the hell out of here!"

On a more serious note, Robert Frost's epitaph was one of the best I've heard of: "I had a lover's quarrel with the world."

Brian and PirateJo,

At least you're honest. How nice for you the way the modern world is working out. Not long ago, people would have been embarrassed to publically cop to such a self-absorbed view. Now, you are both well-accommodated.

Good luck with that.

Why does Pirate Jo's meaning or Brian's meaning have to be your meaning to be right?

Not so long ago, people believed that there was a big guy in the sky who was really, really concerned with whether they copped a couple of the neighboring farmer's turnips and such. Oh, wait -- I guess people still believe in that sort of silliness.

A side point: If you're actually so fabulously superior, why so snotty?

If anybody finds themself ill-suited for raising children -- and I would be one of those people -- I commend them for figuring that out.

I'm rather unconcerned with dying. I do my best not to cross the street absent-mindedly or to sky-dive or jump off tall buildings. I'd like to avoid dying painfully. But, I'll spend the balance of my life living, so I focus on that. Dying happens in a few minutes, a few hours, or maybe a split second. Who spends a lifetime worrying about that? Seems a real waste of a life, huh?

Jay -

Can you give me one good reason why I ought to contribute to the continuation of humanity?

Why should I give the fruit of my loins to a world hell-bent on destroying it?

Better not to make the effort, I think.

I am trying to be as honest and clear as I can be and, yes it is very counter intuitive - perhaps even a bit Zen, but being other focused is incredibly liberating. I'm a self centered mess and always have been, but whenever I have been fortunate enough to have looked away from self and got caught up in something larger I've been much happier. Even though I am not pursuing my own goals or what I thought I wanted for me and taken on what someone else wants or needs, at some cost, I gain in my sense of well being.

Sounds odd, and a bit hippie even, but you can achieve a taste of the same thing at a trivial cost by visiting an elderly person in a hospital or sending a cheerful letter to a friend or even just by being pleasant and complimentary with an acquaintance or coworker. Try it as an experiment some time, it's surprising how uplifting even very small things can be. You don't have to devote your whole life to get a sense of what I mean, just devote five minutes you 'll be surprised.

Amy, Pirate Jo, Brian -

From Fred Dolan, the National Post:

"The late 19th century's self-declared "psychologist" and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, preached the futility of being concerned with the care and comfort of other human beings.

Nietzsche's creed came down to the declaration that "there is no God, no afterlife, and therefore man is completely on his own." His outlook on life can be summarized as "maximize earthly enjoyment at whatever the cost because that's all there is." Pope Benedict XVI has masterfully summarized Nietzsche's approach as offering only: "a narrow this-worldliness -- with the will to get the most out of the world and what life has to offer now, to seek heaven here and to be uninhibited by any scruples while doing so."

For anyone who has bought into this vision of life, the driving force will be an ideology of power and domination. Such intangible values as generosity and mercy will most likely be scorned.

We don't need to scale the lofty heights of German philosophy to see the damage done by this belief system. We encounter it in our daily lives, for example at work when we hear the boss who barks, "I don't care what or how long it takes, just get it done!" Suddenly, people become merely a means of production, or even obstacles to production, rather than individuals possessing dignity and worthy of respect. Forgotten is the fact that we are not machines but rather human beings who have been created to be happy.

There is, and there always has been, another way -- one that begins and ends with the word "service." Not self-service. Rather, service as a way to recognize the great dignity and worth of those around us."

Or, "no man is an island" and "you reap what you sow."

"Snotty"? No, more just a sense of loss and regret.

MemphisAggie

perhaps even a bit Zen, but being other focused is incredibly liberating.

It's been my experience that being "other focused" is incredibly draining. You completely lose sight of what you are, and become nothing more than a tool for someone else's survival.

Jay R

There is, and there always has been, another way -- one that begins and ends with the word "service." Not self-service. Rather, service as a way to recognize the great dignity and worth of those around us."

As I have said before, Jay, any civilization that requires God to survive isn't worth having.

God doesn't give a fuck about us. That should be patently obvious by now. Why should we give a fuck about him?

"You feel a sense of loss and regret because I don't want children?"

No, Amy. My comment was directed to Pirate Jo and Brian, who seem dead-set against the concept of "serving" anyone else but themselves.

As for you, those who don't desire children should NOT have them, but they certainly can still serve others they encounter in life, as you do. (Think of it -- you're like a nun! Sort of ... .)

Brian, my point has nothing to do with God or religion in society. Intead, my point concerns the quality of the character of society's members. I don't view unremitting selfishness as a virtue which will promote society's best interest. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Fuck society, right?

Finally, while not particularly religious myself, I sure note an attitude to religious belief expressed here that can only be decribed as hostile bigotry. I tell no one to believe in God. I expect in return that no one will presume to tell me what I should or should NOT believe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Brian, my point has nothing to do with God or religion in society. Intead, my point concerns the quality of the character of society's members. I don't view unremitting selfishness as a virtue which will promote society's best interest. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Fuck society, right?

Society has already decided that their best interests and my best interests are at odds.

I can only serve society's best interests by becoming something I am not.

I do what I do because I benefit from it. I do what I do because the people I do it for benefit from it. If society somehow benefits, I don't care.

So long as I don't get a say in how society functions, why should I serve it?

Jay R, you whining, tiresome boob. I can't believe you are this stupid. There simply is no direct line from this:

"there is no God, no afterlife, and therefore man is completely on his own."

to this:

"maximize earthly enjoyment at whatever the cost because that's all there is" ..."and to be uninhibited by any scruples while doing so."

Stop pretending that A must lead to B, you know better. You're not putting words in my mouth on this one. I am NOT saying that an immoral life (one without scruples or regard for other people) is a better life. As Amy just explained, (and you included her in your snarky comment too, so stop sucking up) life is better when you treat other people with consideration and respect.

Which has NOTHING to do with whether a person has kids or not. Can't you just be honest like Memphis Aggie, and say you became a parent because you thought you'd enjoy it? Why does it always have to be a sanctimonious lecture with you? "The meaning of life" - for chrissake. That's just unsufferable.

Pirate Jo,

There is a good way to deal with articulate people such as yourself: "Hey, it appears a real jerk stole some of your letterhead!"

You ARE tiresome. My comments have nothing to do with having kids. Nor did MY comments (as opposed to some comments contained within the quoted piece) rest on the concept of religion or God.

My point is that people who reject the concept of service to others (whether as a parent OR OTHERWISE) fit the definition of asshole and societal leech.

In light of your comments, I rest my case!

Oops. The previous post is from Jay R, not Pirate Jo (who is the recipient of this fusillade!)

It seems like living apart together with kids works too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21369007/

I think it's human nature to be selfish, regardless of what side you're on. Some people don't have kids because they don't want their life to change or be out of their control. Some people do want kids, to feel like their time here is validated. Or to please others. Or to ensure someone will take care of them when they're old. Everyone has a reason for doing their thing, and if you delve down deep enough, it's always a 'selfish' reason. Selfishness is survival.

Hmmm. Why get married? This is the reason for waiting. Don't marry until they're ready. Only when they could afford a place together, that's when they should get married.

YOU pick what you would liked to have etched on your headstone.

I want either:

Buried alive

or

Don't feel bad that I didn't have kids. If I'd wanted a parasitic growth in my body, I would have had a tape worm

hehe, all joking aside, we do get to pick what is on our headstone, that is if you plan your own funeral in advance.

Nice post. It reminds me... Have you ever heard of this quote before? “I have concluded the evident existence of God, and that my existence depends entirely on God in all the moments of my life, that I do not think that the human spirit may know anything with greater evidence and certitude.” - René Descartes