Location, Location, Location. Commitment, Commitment, Commitment

If you ask 10 couples how they first decided to live together, they may give you 10 different answers.   I have often wondered if there might be some driver or drivers that are not considered.  Some couples are honest enough to say that money was a factor in deciding to live with one another.  To me, money is the worst of all reasons to make that commitment, but on the flip side it is certainly the most understandable.  Especially in New York, the economics of co-habitation can be extremely attractive.  The rent is too damn high.

As relationships grow stronger, couples tend to spend less and less time apart and spend more and more nights together.  The implication of that is that one person’s apartment might become more frequented that the other.  Often times, the apartment of choice is the one with the better location.

Nothing I have said so far is groundbreaking or surprising.  But the theory I am about to suggest is not for the faint of heart.  If the woman has the better location, than moving in together will probably take longer than if the man has the better location.  Men generally will go further out of their way for intimacy, and therefore will put up with a two residence situation for a long time.  However, women are more likely to get sick and tired of shlepping between two residences and tend to be more willing to reach that next level in a relationship.

Lets go through some examples to prove my theory.  Lets start out with a couple where the man lives in Manhattan, the woman lives in Queens, and they both work in Manhattan.  Given that one of them lives in Manhattan, that will most likely be the apartment of choice.  Why should they both be inconvenienced.  There are other factors such as apartment size and roommate situations, but lets leave those out of this discussion.  Our second example is a couple where the man and woman live in Brooklyn (5 blocks away from each other) and they both work in Manhattan.  In this example, to be fair, the couple would likely split time at each other’s apartments.  No one apartment will stand out as the obvious “winner” and therefore they may not spend as many nights together.  Instead, what will happen is a stalemate.  “You come over.”  “No, YOU come over.”  What may result is that this seemingly convenient situation can result in more nights spent apart.  Also, since time is being split more evenly amongst two apartments, there is less feeling of “this is our place.”  It is my contention that a big part of building the comfort that leads to cohabitation is for both parties to feel “at home.”

“But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more
Just to be the man who walked 1000 miles
To fall down at your door”

In conclusion, I think that men have a higher threshhold to inconvenience themselves if it keeps them from having to reach the next level of commitment before they are ready.  All you players out there should consider my findings. Next thing you know, you may be selling your apartment in Manhattan to live in an inferior location.  Your commute will increase, but so will the expiration date on your freedom.  Play on player.

Bright Lights, Big City.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Location, Location, Location. Commitment, Commitment, Commitment”

  1. Boombastic Says:

    Huh? Your examples are that people live in different places and date… Where do your examples show a resistance to moving in? And which example was supposed to show this resistance?

    Did a few paragraphs in the middle of that post get lost in the ether of the intertubes?

  2. My examples were simply to show that when one location is superior to another the following may happen:
    – one person may go out of their way more than the other.
    – despite this, the couple may spend more time together in less conflict.

    In referring to the couples that live a few blocks away where there is no clear “better” apartment, it can lead to stalemate. Hence, there might be less feeling of “this is our place” because you are just visiting your respective places. And as a result, the couple that lives 5 blocks away may spend less total nights together than the couple that lives 1 hour away.

    Lastly, the more time spent together, the shorter the road to commitment. Therefore it can be extrapolated that if you are a guy or girl with a great location while your dating co-hort does not, you are more likely to officially live together than otherwise.

    • Boombastic Says:

      But that’s not your “theory”… “But the theory I am about to suggest is not for the faint of heart. If the woman has the better location, than moving in together will probably take longer than if the man has the better location.”

      So your examples cover location, but not the “theory” about a man’s place vs. a woman’s place…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: