The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#101

Post by em-bee » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 9:13 AM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #85

OutOfHere wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#102

Post by isaacremuant » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 9:44 AM UTC

wussboy wrote: post #49

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…

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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#103

Post by isaacremuant » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 9:47 AM UTC

pentamassiv wrote: post #84

wussboy wrote: post #49

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…

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 usual…

The complaint from people who do live with shitty roommates is precisely that they DONT do that thing you claim people "have to do".

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#104

Post by isaacremuant » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 9:52 AM UTC

andrewrn wrote: post #95

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) sere…

> 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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#105

Post by gherkinnn » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 10:51 AM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #26

mock-possum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Rubbish. What a dreadful world you seem to inhabit.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#106

Post by lantry » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 1:23 PM UTC

CMCDragonkai wrote: post #94

lantry wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#107

Post by OutOfHere » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:07 PM UTC

gherkinnn wrote: post #105

OutOfHere wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#108

Post by OutOfHere » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:11 PM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #85

OutOfHere wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#109

Post by filoleg » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 6:22 PM UTC

derektank wrote: post #24

mock-possum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

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.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#110

Post by Telaneo » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 10:33 PM UTC

RHSeeger wrote: post #99

sdenton4 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

> 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.