Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide, which can point you to expert advice and support.
Never getting married...how do I get over the upset?(193 Posts)
My 'D'P has basically announced we will never be married. On paper the reasoning is sound (it's a big expense that could be put to other things), but it still makes me feel desperately sad.
How do I get over these feelings? I'm currently sat here quietly sobbing, I just need advice on how to stop feeling this way
is he talking about how expensive registry office wedding is?
I think you should ask him why he said that , assuming that up until now you were planning to get married...
But it doesn't have to cost a lot of money. Two of the most fun weddings I've been to both involved a registry office, then food/bbq at home with 20 ish friends and family and a posh frock from the high st for the bride.
Another friend did it even more cheaply with just the two of them plus two friends as witnesses and then a pub lunch for 4. Less than £100 all in.
So is your dp objecting to a big white wedding or the actual fact of getting married?
Are you upset at not getting married or at not getting a wedding? Getting married need not cost a lot and money isn't everything. I think you need to talk to your DP about how you feel.
I think you need to talk to your dp. For a start, he is not the only one in this relationship - your view carries as much weight as his and this is something a couple discusses, not something he just announces.
Secondly, if marriage is very important to you and he absolutely doesn't want it, then you need to consider the future of the relationship. Being married isn't everything, but if it was important to me and my dp wouldn't even entertain the idea, that would be very telling to me about his priority not being me and my happiness.
I think that a man who truly loved you, does not dismiss out of hand something that matters to you..
I've told him I'd be happy going to a registry office and the off to the pub but he is very conscious of appearances. He thinks we have to have this massive church/grand hotel type thing, we can't afford it therefore it's not happening.
He knows I crave marriage (I want the commitment and declaring our love to all) but he thinks we live together and have children that should be enough. And it should be, but I've wanted marriage since I was a child. I just need to get over it
When i got married (14 years ago so prices might have changed a bit!) the registry office bit only cost £50. If it's the being married part that's important to you, it really doesn't cost much at all.
Unromantic as it sounds, marriage puts things on a legal footing. I don't think you "need to get over it" at all.
So he's putting appearances over your feelings? No, you don't just need to get over it - he needs to sort out his priorities.
Do you know yourself whether you wanted a marriage or a wedding? It's not entirely unreasonable to feel sad if you did want a big party and a floaty white frock and now it seems you will never get it: any long-held dream that's suddenly taken away will make you sad.
However, if you wanted to be married to this man and he's now reluctant to marry you, that can be more worrying and upsetting because it's hard not to feel that he's demonstrating a lot less commitment to you than you wanted. Do you have DC together? Or a mortgage? Have you been together a long time?
BTW (thinking of another recent thread) it's actually a lot easier to get married cheaply than it is to get buried cheaply. You could point that out to him. Even a cheap funeral costs about two grand, a wedding can be done for a fuck of a lot less.
So because you can't afford a big do you have to live with not getting married? His priorities are all wrong. Why is his feelings over not being able to afford the do are more important than your wish to be married?
"conscious of appearances" v. your feelings, and he chooses the former? What an idiot.
Can't you get the kids on the case? Guilt him into it? Why not suggest you do it quietly at the local registry office then tell everyone you got married abroad while on holiday, or something?
My DP doesn't want to get married either.I would be happy to walk into a registry office with just the two of us.
We have two DC and he has two from his first marriage.
However,unlike you I have been married (to a total twunt) and DP was also married before.
I am still hopefull.
do you go to church?
If he's worried that people will think that you are poor if you get married in the register office then you could get married on holiday.
Of course he may genuinely be against marriage for ideological reasons, or he might think you'd get more rights in a split if you're married.
Ultimately, although it's not just him who gets a say, you can't force someone to marry. Not without a shotgun.
Xposted with other people. Does your DP generally get his own way? Is your household set up so that you have to plead for what you want and he decides whether or not you are allowed it? It's not very healthy to be in a relationship with someone who expects you to accept and obey and never make any demands.
I think it would make more sense for him to get over his consciousness of appearances.
I think it's a bit of both, I've always wanted the "floaty frock" as you put it. But I also want to actually be married to him. Yes we live together and have children (I've actually moved from my home town to live with him, something I still don't think I'm over truth be told) but I want this next step (hope this makes sense, I've got a bit of a sore head from crying. Feel so daft).
Wow, missed a lot of posts, I'm very slow typing!
He isn't demanding at all, he actually does make a sound argument. It's just like another poster said, it's hard when it's a life-long held dream.
I can see that for both of you this is not really about the legal side - but have you worked out the figures for what it'd cost to get you both the same legal protection that marriage would provide? I believe it's typically rather a lot more expensive than a registry office do.
If you're not going to get married, and you have children, it would be really worth sorting out the legal side. Otherwise neither of you is protected.
I think you both need to talk this one over. I get where you're coming from and the way you put it, his reasons sound a bit superficial - but we're only getting your side (naturally) and maybe if you explain to him as you've explained to us, he'll be able to explain a bit more.
On the face of it, saying you'll 'never' get married because it's too expensive and insisting he would want a very posh do is not really a very nice attitude.
if he were that worried about appearance he'd want to appear married lol. right?
I'm with karmabeliever on this one. He sounds controlling with no regard to your needs whatsoever. Do any of you have expensive hobbies, go on holidays abroad every year etc. You could even do it on holiday without much extra expense if you did without having to worry about what people thought. Anyway, do you really want to be with this man after all? Sounds like a right prat, sorry!
He sounds a bit of a meany but I suppose he has as much right to not want to get married as you have to want to get married. Have you discussed this before? How old are you both? Do you have moral or religeous grounds for wanting to be married?
I discussed wanting DCs with my DH very early in our relationship as I knew I wanted them.
What about a very quiet registry office wedding now with the promise of a big celebration/blessing years down the line when you can afford a 'lavish' do befitting of your DP's
I think if two people are in love and want to be together (puke! ), and one doesn't care about marriage and the other does, then the former should get over themselves and do it for their partner. UNLESS it's a massive point to them. But if they say they just don't care/or it's the expense, they should do it for their partner.
Massively simplifying things there, but there you go.
You have moved to be with him?
What is your housing situation? Do you own, rent? Do you work and/or have money of your own?
In short - is he using this excuse as a way to keep you at arms length from any assets that he has?
ali said what I was hinting at.
I know it sounds horrible but that's why I'd bring up the cost of the legal situation with him.
Well, I would say, "If you don't want to get married, that's your choice. I will be getting married one day, though. It doesn't seem as though it will be to you, does it?"
So you have moved to be with him - sounds like all the sacrifices and compromises are happening from your side.
I don't know what kind of argument he could have made against marriage, which would supersede the legal protection it offers you and the fact that it is so important to you, emotionally.
I'm not sure you should be "getting over the upset." I'd be tempted to say/do what ImperialBlether says.
What's your financial situation? Are you financially dependent on him?
If yes, you are in a very vulnerable position, and it certainly seems that you are making the sacrifices and he is calling the shots in your relationship.
Not a good place to be.
I've been married twice. It's overrated.
However I do understand how you're feeling. Never is a long time and if it's something you've always wanted I can see how sad that would make you. Do what he says usually go in your house or is it just this?
Sorry to jump on your bandwagon OP, but could some of you wise ladies who've mentioned the legal protection of marriage give me some tips?
DP and I have been together a fair few years now, joint mortgage, bought as tenants in common (I think, always get the name wrong....our sol made us both sign to say if we split we'd walk away with 50% each?). 1 DD, nearly 2yo. He has issues surrounding marriage relating back to family/friends experiences. I'm a bit "meh" on the big fluffy dress, huge cake, party side of things. We can't afford it right now and I'm not too bothered on the status side of things.
BUT since the arrival of DD its been niggling me that I know vaguely I'm not as protected without marriage, but not exactly how/why.
Can anyone point me in the direction of an idiots guide to what protection marriage offers and what we would need to do to protect ourselves if we ultimately decide not to go down that route?
Sorry, but I think he needs to meet you half way. From the sounds of it, he is calling all the shots. You are willing to compromise on the big church wedding, he should be willing to compromise on the venue. This whole appearances thing sounds like a red herring,I am sure more people will have looked down on him for not marrying you ( especially if they know you want to) than for not making a grand show of it. In some circles, being unmarried with kids is far more harmful for appearances ...
Being married means you are each others next of kin - important if one of you is ever seriously ill and wants the other to have some say in what happens wrt treatment. Some jobs have benefits for the spouse if you die. Life insurance automatically pays put to bok, unless someone else is specifically named on the policy. You have to consider inheritance tax and who would get your share of your house if you died. Also pension rights. Sahm are particularly vulnerable because they are financially at a disadvantage if their partner leaves (no spousal support).
Just to offer another viewpoint OP - there are plenty of men who do not want to get married and they are not all controlling or unaware of your feelings or trying to keep you at arms length re finances etc. They just don't want to get married. Don't let posters on here put the willies up you!
It's a hard one to compromise on though. One does, one doesn't... What do you do?
It's a tough one, OP, but I would agree with the posters who say that purely for your own legal protection, you need to point out to him that his refusal is leaving your vulnerable and that's not at all fair to you. He can tell you all he likes that he'll never leave you, but no-one can make a promise like that. Gather together information on the disadvantages to you of being unmarried - perhaps he genuinely doesn't realise what would happen to you if he died/you split up.
It's showing a fairly gross disrespect of your future security to refuse to get married just because you can't afford a showy wedding.
If he really just doesn't want to be married, well it's up to you to decide whether that's okay with you and what to do about it. If you decide to stay with him, please make sure that the two of you get excellent legal advice and get wills etc in place to protect you and your DC. This will probably cost more than getting married but one way or the other, you need a legal framework around your relationship.
Will have a proper read at a sensible time of day, not on my phone. But other than next of kin, I can't see much on there I'm too worried about at first glance.
OP I hope you get some good advice and sorry again for jumping in!
Sound arguments are all well and good.
Wouldnt it be great if everything ran on logic - well thats how I think most of the time. But theres feelings and emotion. They are also important.
You say he made a sound argument - was it sound to disregard your values and wants? To put up a barrier to reaching a compromise position? Was it sound to disappoint you?
A relationship involves both of you. You shouldnt feel that you have to hide how you feel. I think it would also be fair to him that you explain the deep importance of marriage. He may not think you assign as much value as you do, or he has picked the wrong solution to not being able to afford a big do.
Please dont suppress your own feelings without talking to DP first and airing how you feel and why
For medical purpose nok can be partner he can nominate you as nok
register preference with gp.this goes in dp records.
I wouldnt want to marry someone who didn't want to marry me
Pragmatically get wills,is house in joint names
If it is about appearances you don't actually have to tell anyone you have done it.
But I agree with the previous posters about legal protection for you and your DC. You've obviously already made sacrifices.
He would never get married because of the cost.
There are lots of things I don't do because of the cost - big houses, expensive dinners, holidays.
But I haven't written them out of my life - not just yet.
Is what youre really wondering 'Would he if he could I?'
He would never get married because of the cost.
There are lots of things I don't do because of the cost - big houses, expensive dinners, holidays.
But I haven't written them out of my life - not just yet.
Is what youre really wondering 'Would he if he could I?'
Don't think I would have moved/had kids without sorting this out first one way or another
I really don't get it when people don't want to get married when their partner does. If they have some big moral objection to the institution itself I suppose that's one thing.
But it it's just "nah, rather not..." I don't get it. DH and I do plenty of things for each other because the other feels strongly about them.
You seem to have made a lot of changes in your life for him. Why can't he do this for you?
It's important to you, you're not suggesting spending a bucket load of dosh on it, why on earth wouldn't he?
TBH, I think it should have been something to sort out before you lived together and had children, if it's that important to you.
He's not likely to change his mind just because you want it badly. Not now that you are already living with him and are "stuck" because of the children.
Unless you were prepared to leave him because of this. Even so, it could well spectacularly backfire on you.
Do you have any reason to think he'd not committed to the relationship?
If you don't get married, make sure you are financially protected should you split up.
On the other hand, if you don't get married, it's easier to just leave. No messy divorce.
Again, do you have any reason to think this is what he's thinking?
If he won the lottery, and you could 'afford' the wedding you both want, would he marry you?
If the answer is yes, then compromise on both of your expectations - he should be prepared to do that if it's important to you.
As a divorced woman I can tell you is NOT just a paper! You are totally unprotected as a partner if you are not married. Yes if you split he will be asked to pay a small percentage of his income to support his kids and nothing else, but if you don't have a job you will soon find out that it is far from beingt enough to keep a roof over your heads. If he were to die you will loose access to some benefits and even if nothing untiward happens, how do you deal with the idea of him not caring enough for his family?
You are doing far more to stay in this relationship than he is, if he doesn't want to protect you and his family with marriage, you care about it, and he is just thinking about appearances... Well, it may be a good idea to put your dreams of a wedding to the side and start working in becoming financially independant from this man, so you are free to leave him if he is not being the partner that you thought he would be.
I'm with Karma, in this particular case the fact that he cares more about appearances than your feelings is a ver telling thing. :-(
No one can compel a partner to marry.no woman has right to marry because wants to
Instead of hoping for financial security,pension,allowance if split up from man make own provision
Women should Work to support self,not hope to marry for security,pension
An ex partner told me in front of a fairly large group of friends that he didn't believe in marriage and we wouldn't be getting married! Ouch that hurt!!!
Anyway we subsequently broke up a year or so later and guess what he's now married.
He just didn't want to marry me and was never going to change his mind about marrying me.
If you want to be married which is perfectly reasonably btw have a frank discussion with him raising the issues of costs (as others have said) it doesn't need to cost a fortune. If he won't budge then you need to decide what is more important. If you stay together you may end up resenting him and feeling sad for ever more
SM, that's all very well, but the reality is that a lot of women find themselves financially disadvantaged by having dc. Even if they return to work quickly, motherhood tends to affect career. And when couples split, it is generally the woman who finds herself with the dc to look after as well as trying to hold down a job. I think a woman would be wise to make all the provision that she can for her future security and that often involves marriage.
Taking aside couples who have an idealogical opposition to marriage (and if he has one, he should have been upfront long before you had children and committed to moving in with him), I often think that people who don't want to get married, likely just don't want to marry their partner. I know anecdote doesn't equal data etc, but you hear often of long term couples who lived together, splitting up and then one of them is married to someone else within a couple of years.
Got to admit, I would be very wary of a man who would allow me to make sacrifices, put my security at risk and have children with him, but who wasn't prepared to make a commitment that I deeply valued.
I agree no-one can compel a partner to marry. But he has stated it is not a philosophical objection but a financial one (cost of wedding rather than cost of divorce!). Solve the financial aspect and in theory he should agree, unless he has other reasons for not wanting to marry. Which is entirely his right, but he should be honest with the OP about what they are.
I get the impression from her repeated 'I just have to get over it' comments that this is basically what he's said to her as well - which I don't think is a particularly sympathetic way of dealing with a disagreement about something fairly fundamental.
NoK only really matters if you're abroad when an accident happens and the jurisdiction is stricter. Or if his family loathe you and insist on their primacy.
The big differences are that: property is not assumed to be 50/50 owned, so it goes with who has legal title. if not jointly owned, then one partner is (literally) left with nothing. Best case is a residency order until any minor children are of age. Household 'contributions' (mortgage/rent payments, paying bills etc) will not count at all. Big items of moveable property, such as cars, jewellery, gadgets etc will not be split, they stay with legal owner too.
Pensions - probably do pay to non-marital partners, but you need to check as there are still some which don't.
State bereavement benefits do not pay unless married/CP. And IHT exemption cannot be claimed either. The latter is valuable.
What is this "sound argument" he makes? Because not being able to afford a fancy wedding is by no stretch of the imagination a sound argument for not getting married.
Sounds like an excuse to me tbh.
Men don't allows women to make "sacrifices" for family.women chose to do so
The choice is influenced by culture,upbringing,expectation but it's mire than being allowed
Chose wisely,weigh up pro and con ESP long term
If you go about putting all the legal framework and contracts etc in place that would be necessary to all intents and purposes as though you were married, getting married is easier, cheaper and much more fun/ value for money.
Do your dc have his surname? If you thought one day you would get married, I guess they do?
The appearances thing is a red herring to me. It just doesn't make sense. Why would friends and family care if you dont splash out on a massive wedding? He shouldn't put their unsubstantiated feelings before yours anyhow. If anyone asks why you aren't getting married, will you say the truth or brush it off with a " we don't want to" which will perhaps get you down?
Go through all the legal implications of marriage, house, wills, pensions, guardianship for dc should anything happen to him or you or both, pensions, life insurance the lot, his bank account - what happens to it if he dies, and vice versa. . It's only a piece of paper yes, but an extremely important piece of paper that protects you and your dc and your dh.
Wow, so many replies. Thankyou all for taking the time to reply.
I don't believe he is controlling or keeping me at arms length, it really is just this issue. Thanks to those of you who have pointed out the legal aspects, I hadn't quite realised this and I don't think he does either. Will definitely bring this up with him.
I'd never leave because of this issue (well I think I'd consider it once we've discussed the legalities and he still says no) as I don't think it's fair on the children, we are fine as we are (so to speak). I think I may be romanticising the idea, will need to have a talk about the practicalities of it with him.
*just a quick bit about our situation for those asking. We rent the house we are in now, he owns a house that he rents out. We moved here as its closer to his work. I'm a SAHM, I get CB and CTC plus he gives me money (he also pays all bills), but if I did need any more he wouldn't withhold it. I do have a 'just-in-case' fund if I ever did need to leave.
spiteful people who would judge you for a small-scale wedding are the same spiteful people who would judge you for having children without being married - and you've already done that... So how would he like those keeping-up-appearances apples?
Does that help?
I agree that you need to focus on legal protections.
Fine, he doesn't want to get married, but he can't leave you all so legally vulnerable.
If he doesn't want to marry, then he needs to sort out wills, and insurances and all that stuff that gives you as many of the same rights and securities as possible.
If he doesn't want to do that then you will at least know the reason he doesn't want to marry.
You are in a vulnerable position then. You have no claim on the house he owns and if you did split up, you would not get spousal support from him, only a small payment for the dc. Your 'just in case' fund would not last very long.
Now it might be that he has no idea of how vulnerable you are, but you need to make this crystal clear. Remember that he will probably promise to see you right if you did split, but should that happen, there is nothing in law to compel him to keep that promise. Plenty of women on here have found that out the hard way.
I know that if this was me, if I made my position clear and he still didn't do something to protect me, I would start making my arrangements for a life without him.
I think if you had a career and decent income of your own, you could afford to not be married in a financial sense, but as a sahm, you really need to be as protected as possible.
Op you'll get all the dogmatic marriage/security or walk responses.great online kickass
Utter tosh in real life to recommend split up family on this basis
Sort nok with gp,insurance policies etc and accept you're overall happy,unmarried but overall happy
A wedding is as expensive as u make it. Cost out properly what u would like to do. Present it to him. Ask again why not. There's bigger reasons than £ I'm betting.
I apologise that I havent read all the threads but couldnt read post and not comment.
1st. A marriage can cost hardly anything at all! a divorce is expensive!
2nd. i always desperately wanted to get married. married first man who asked and it lasted 8 months. oh dear! BUT.... i got my wish, i had my day and i can b happy knowing i experienced it.
3rd when a man says "i'll never get married" i think it is a power thing. They are basically saying they wont compromise and they are holding that power over u. annoys me that some1 thinks they have the right to deprive u of that experience in ur life - whether it be good or bad.if he knows its important to u yet says "i'll never give it to you". it's very unreasonable.
If woman wouldn't marry but man keen,would responses still be effusive yea do it?
Or is this one of the lingering gender imbalances,eg marriage to financially protect,sign commitment
Is it assumed marriage beneficial,desirable for women,and if men dont they let woman down?
to add... either sort out a compromise where u r both happy or you have to decide if you are the sort of person who could cope with not being given the chance to do what u want. i am not that type of person. i went out wth a bloke once who said "i will never go to Paris!" .... so i went on my own. Arse!
I hated being married .... but that's another story!
In general I do think men who have an objection to marriage just haven't met the woman they want to marry.
This may be make or break OP but I wouldn't let it lie.
You love him enough to want to marry him.
I would open the discussion back up. I would say he is committed to you but just needs the push..
If he does not want to marry you, you need to ensure you are not so vulnerable and dependent on him financially. He can walk out any moment without a backwards glance, and how are you going to pay your rent and put food on the table?
Find a job, being a sahm is an unsound luxury an unmarried sahm cannot afford.
If he wont spend his money on YOU ensure he spends money on his childrens childcare costs.
"being a sahm is an unsound luxury an unmarried sahm cannot afford." should say:
being a sahm is an unsound luxury an unmarried mother cannot afford.
No man has power over woman via decision to marry or not.only if she gives him that power
Reading that had my day,I thought I'd hurl.is that zenith of woman being?marriage
but then I've never dreamt of being married.my achievements are graduations,kids
Can I just remind everyone that there is no such thing as 'Next of Kin' in the UK (apart from matters of mental health care)
Even if you are married, your spouse will not automatically inherit everything unless there is a valid will.
Unless specifically written in trust, life insurance payouts go to form part of the deceased's estate and are dealt with under the rules of intestacy.
Its such a common misconception; really suggest people read up on the subject.
"I would be very wary of a man who would allow me to make sacrifices, put my security at risk and have children with him, but who wasn't prepared to make a commitment that I deeply valued."
He's got a house he rents out, which presumably he's benefiting from, while you pay joint rent together?
Man, he's covered his arse and exposed your's hasn't he?
Sorry, I think he's got no commitment to your relationship and one day he'll walk and leave you in the shit.
It's not a question of "leave the bastard". I think sooner or later he'll leave you. He's clearly not committed to you.
How you deal with that now, how you try and re-cover some of your arse, is up to you.
Medical Nok covered down thread,yes there no legal construct nok.lot misconceptions
Make will,dp inform that op is nok,amend insurance policies
You do not "need to get over it", do not dismiss your own feelings in that way, even if someone else is.
Do you think that your dp actively does not want to be married to you? If so, you have a more serious problem.
If really is just about the money, it's easy. You have a cheap legal wedding now, and a huge frou-frou renewal of vows when you can afford it.
There are all sorts of variations on these themes, but if you can't discuss them with your partner because he just says "no", and has ingenius obstacles to throw in the way of everything you suggest, then I would seriously investigate whether he really wants to be with you permanently, and even the possibility that he is, gittishly, limiting his liabilities should you split, which he has not ruled out.
I think you are terribly upset - not because, as he is trying to convince you, you are pettily hung up on something expensive and pointless which you have no right to care about (by the way, you have the right to care about anything you want); but because you suspect he is sending you a message (not deliberately), a not-nice message, which means serious bad things for you and your relationship. Get to the bottom of this. Who knows what is going on (certainly not me), but you owe it to yourself to find out what is going on here.
Well we at it there's no such thing as common life wife benefits
scottishmummy yep, I would say the same if it was the man was keen. I am in the school of thought that the person who says 'marriage doesn't matter to me' should be willing to do something meaningless/trivial to them for the sake of their partner if it does matter very much to the partner. After all, if it's 'just a piece of paper' why the angst about signing that piece of paper? If it's pointless, why not indulge your other half for the 15 mins a registry office ceremony will take?
Of course if partner is demanding a big showy ceremony, doves released, free bar and designer wedding outfit, then that's different and someone who does't want that kind of wedding should be fine to object - but OP has said that's not the case here.
In the OP's case, the money issue has been the main reason given for not doing it, so - as posters have already said - this need to be addressed on 3 fronts:
1 - It doesn't have to cost a lot. We can marry on a very small budget.
2 - It gives important legal status to me and our children.
3 - It is extremely important to me personally and would make me extremely happy.
OP, do you think your partner would pursue his 'sound on paper' arguments in response to the above? Why not try these points on him and find out?
ok scottishmummy! you asked for it. First off - thanks for assuming i have no other ambitions. I have two degrees and am studying a masters. i have a career and a child and have many other ambitions as you put it in life. wanting to get married doesnt make me any less of a woman. It was something i wanted to experience.just like i would want to experience child birth or travel to certain places. If the man i was with said "im never going to do that" that is completely a power thing as they hold that power over you. and i am not ashamed to say i had my day - i did! and it was lovely.
and to try and ignore the gender differences in this is flippin ridiculous - we are talking about marriage!! come on.
This isnt about money,it would cost less than xbox game for marriage licence
He's not married cause he doesn't want to.this isn't money
curryeater's suggestion is also a good one. You have a very minimal marriage ceremony now and plan a party in 10 years' time, when your oldest DC turns 18, as a joint christening / birthday party or whatever.
There is another thread here about a mother of 2-3 kids who was with a partner who did not want to marry her. She thought they were happy. Turns out he has now left her high and dry and is marrying another woman he has seen on the side for 6 months.
I would never believe a man who does not believe in marriage. It is just an excuse.
Asked for what,your post was frothy had my day gush and tulle
It's immaterial whether you've got cookery nvq or phD
Your post was v bertex bride,my day.that's what commented upon not your academic record
You could put together a breakdown of the cheapest wedding you'd be prepared to accept.
You could suggest that you have a very quiet wedding to get the legalities sorted out - then a big renewal of vows when you can afford a splurge.
But if he really doesn't want to be married, you can't make him. Just please make sure you are protected financially. As an unmarried SAHM with children buy no house, you are very, very vulnerable.
Unmarried woman really shouldn't be SAHMs. And in your case, you don't live in a house that he owns, he owns one elsewhere but you rent, this is the worse case situation for you and your DCs.
Sit him down, explain the legal side, ask him what sort of state you and his DCs would be in if he was hit by a bus tomorrow. Who would inherit his money? How would you cope financially? Point out that drawing up a will for each of you often costs exactly the same as a registery office wedding. This is before you look at how shit a situation you'd be in if he left you.
I would offer him a deal, suggest a purely for legal side of things wedding in the next couple of months, couple of random witnesses, not even having to tell anyone, just to get the legal side covered. Then at a later date when you can afford it, doing a religous or humanist ceromony and party for 'show' (no one needs to know that you've already been married for x number of years at that point)
If he's not prepared to do this, you raelly need to start looking for a job and sorting yourself out so that you can afford to support your DCs just on your wage and the pitance you'd get via the CSA if he left you. If he wants a legal get out option, then whatever he says, he's not commited to you.
(Also never assume a man having DCs with you suggests he is committed to you, you can be committed to a child without being committed to their mother)
As others have said OP, the important point is that you are protected as a SAHM. I would be insistent on getting that sorted out, either by a marriage or going to a solicitor.
If he's unwilling to protect you legally, you have bigger issues than a wedding!
If a man wants to have a family with me and plan his life with me, then he needs to show some commitment. For me the only way to show that commitment is to get married. I will not have children with someone who is not prepared to show me he is in it for the long run.
Utterly depressing 21century so many still equate security with hoping man marry them
Make your own security,contribute to own house,pension.instead of hoping one marries
Either he needs to marry you so that you have legal protection, or he needs to pay you for his share of the childcare and housekeeping you're doing so that you have a regular wage and can save for the day he leaves you, or you need to stop doing it and get yourself a wage elsewhere.
You are in an incredibly vulnerable position. Please don't "get over it" or bury your head in the sand about it. You need to face up to it.
Oh yeah, also, I agree with the poster who said something like "men who say they are never getting married are doing it as a power thing". Like, not only do they not have any legal or financial responsibility for your material wellbeing, having used you as free childcare and whatever else all these years, but also there is usually some utterly dickish part of their pathetic sloping-skull heads that gets off on announcing that they will never get married, like they're Hemingway or something: no bitch gonna tame this wild stallion, no way. Fuck's sake. Grow up. You are not 16. It is not a badge of honour to have managed to wriggle out of responsbilities that real men step up to.
God yes Curryeater they're appalling.
I've got no problem with someone who genuinely believes it's a patriarchal institution which is a load of shit. But the macho types - euuurgh.
By the way OP, if you get a job, don't assume that childcare costs come out of your wages - they come out of his as well, he should pay proportionately from what he earns.
Lots of women make the mistake of thinking they can't afford to work because for some reason, they believe themselves to be solely responsible for childcare costs, even though they're not single parents.
A man can only exert power via marriage,if woman gives him that power
Instead of hoping for security via aerate,dirt your self,uour own security
All Unmarried men aren't all redneck and all marrieds aren't gentlemen
I know scottishmummy, I am not married to my dp who is a real gentleman. But he has taken time off work to be a SAHD, does not boast about never getting married, and has taken as much of a financial hit by having children as me.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
FucktidiaBollockberry - it's not entirely true that some women think they are solely responsible for childcare, it's just that when they do the maths, it turns out that the family is worse off when they are in work than when they are out of work. If the family pools all finances, as is usually the case, childcare comes out of the general pot. But when the new salary going in is less than the childcare coming out, the family has less money and may not be able to afford to pay bills.
This is somewhat of a bugbear of mine. When I took 18 months off because my family couldn't afford for me to be in work with two sets of nursery fees and grumbled about it, I had endless helpful people telling me that the childcare should come out of my DH's salary too. The semantics of who was paying were irrelevant - we would have lost our home if I'd gone out to work.
In general I do think men who have an objection to marriage just haven't met the woman they want to marry.
In my experience this is very true.
SM, it's all very well saying the OP should sort out her own house and pension, but the OP is a sahm who has moved to a new place for the benefit of her partner. How exactly is she supposed to do as you say? The best advice we can give her is to not just calmly swallow what her partner is saying, but to assert her own wishes and get to the truth of why he doesn't want to marry her.
fwiw, I would say exactly the same to a sahd. The unmarried sahp is always vulnerable, unless they are independently wealthy or own property.
Also, marriage is no guarantee that your dh will be nice or faithful or never leave you, but it does mean he cannot just bugger off with no consequences.
Yes thats my advice,not sit moping and hoping til he ask marriage which he may not
Op should look to build her own security,contribute own pension and share childcare costs with dp
This is depressing reading hoping marriage make op secure.op can study, retrain,work
If you don't have the legal security of marriage, you should do whatever you can to build your own career - even if in the short term that means what goes into the family pot is less than comes out in childcare and travel costs. A man who won't marry wants the option to leave, regardless of what other excuse he gives (and the cost of the wedding and wanting to put on a show are excuses, these are not valid reasons not to get married). Even if he doesn't leave, you'd be very stupid not to prepare for the possibility.
He is insisting on keeping his options open, if he cares about you at all he should be prepared to do everything he can to help you also keep your options open. If he won't then he doesn't really like you all that much.
I left my first fiance because he simply wouldn't walk down the aisle - everything else really was great, but it was a deal breaker to me. He said he didn't see the importance. My argument was, well if you don't see the importance, it won't bother you to do it will it when you see how important it is to me! In other words, it was more about his lack of respect for me if that makes sense. (as in, he wasn't bothered I was upset, he still wasn't going to change his mind)
My friend has just walked down the aisle with her man who was adamant (after 15 odd years and 3 kids) that he would never marry her. SOMEHOW she managed to wear him down. And I mean, wear him down. She had the wedding booked within 2 mins of him proposing (hardly proposing, just said, fine we'll do it then) and wed him within 2 months.
I went to the wedding. It was the most unromantic thing I have ever been to.
Surely if someone doesn't want to marry you that should ring alarm bells?
Forcing someone to do something they really don't want to do (for whatever reason) is never going to end well.
Money is bullshit. It's what, £400 for a church service? Dress off ebay for £150. A wedding doesn't have to be a huge affair. Ours is costing hardly anything. First fiance used that excuse too. Ten years on, I can see that he just didn't want to marry me, and the day when we would have enough money would never come!
You need to have an honest chat with him, and make sure he knows how much you really want to be married to him.
Only then can you decide if it's a dealbreaker if he still says no.
I'm sorry if I'm being direct, but it took me 5 years to walk away, and with hindsight, I should have listened to the warning signs. Of course, never an issue if actually being married isn't something you want either!
BTW - if anyone says "yes but X% of marriages end in divorce, it doesn't mean he won't leave you just because you are married" are missing the point of the legal protection for a SAHP (or even just a lower earning one) - a relationship that is happy and long lasting, ending in the death of the lower earning/not earning partner in old age once the DCs have flown the nest is not a relationship that needs the legal protection of marriage.
A relationship that breaks down or where the sole earner dies when DCs are still children and dependant is one that needs the legal protection of marriage.
Blimey, you are totally exposed here OP. You have absolutely no security at all.
I'm just wondering why you were 'sobbing quietly' - was it because kids in the house, or is your relationship one where showing your feelings isn't acceptable?
I'm also wondering why he 'gives' you money. ie he has it, he doles it out. You're sounding rather like a kept woman from where I'm standing.
If you can both afford you being a SAHM then it looks like there's plenty of money floating about - certainly enough for a wedding, and certainly enough to buy the house you live in.
Your story sounds very fishy to me. You have made all the sacrifices and got precisely zilch in return. Your legal standing leaves you entirely exposed on every possible front.
Do you meekly go along with everything he says? ie in practise - you may or may not make a fuss but the bottom line is that you do what he says.
He's calling all the shots here.
scottishmummy, not sure what you think the OP can do without her partner's consent - she could maybe secretly cream off some of the household money into a private slush fund? Otherwise, the reality is that people who have children have to negotiate with their partners for access to time, money, "retraining" etc - or, if they are married, and their partner is a git who won't negotiate reasonably, they divorce the git and set up alone with a reasonably share of resources accrued to date. You seem to be implying that people can't be downtrodden without somehow inviting it and deserving it. It's a dangerous approach to take because it is unrealistic about the ways in which people's lives are woven together and the reality of being with a git. And is the very very next thing to victim-blaming.
OP, a just in case fund isn't going to take you very far. Get a job for yourself and don't talk to him about marriage anymore. He's had it all his own way so far and now you need to make sure that you are secure.
She doesn't need permission to Look at local college prospectus,or try get a job
Dont twist my posts to suit your premise.op said dp ok with money never denied her finances
So on basis of being unwaged many courses cheap.read op posts dp never denied her monies
OP you are so very vulnerable here.
Why don't you live in the house he owns?
I wouldn't be so sure that he is ignorant of the legal aspect of your relationship, it sounds like he has everything he wants and has protected himself 100%. He could leave you tomorrow and only need to give you maintenance for the DCs. You wouldn't get a penny of support from him, or any of the value of his house.
What would his reaction be if you were to get a job do you think?
Curry,you've made some shocking assumptions to support your pov,needing dp consent
Has op actually said she beholden to him needing consent for her actions?no she has not
Op thread is she wants marry him,not seek permission to undertake activities outside home
Scottishmummy, I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. If the partner is earning the money and doling it out the OP is in a vulnerable position. It's not a reflection on her ability to 'undertake activities outside the home'
Keep up,to redress imbalance I recommend op look into studying(online),job or voluntary
So let's be clear you think unwaged,with male parter doling out money is vulnerable?
Applying that logic housewives are vulnerable upon waged partner doling out monies.only change is folk recommend she marry her p in case he hops off do she has security
Scottishmummy, I am not suggesting that the OP isn't allowed out of the house. I am pointing out that once you have children, your time is a severely limited resource and you may not have any for personal projects without the support of your partner. You can only do things while someone else is looking after the children - either your partner does childcare (work patterns allowing, assuming willingness) or between you, you find the money for paid childcare (which has to be a joint decision with family money - assuming it is remotely affordable), or you can maybe make some arrangement in kind with another family to swap childcare, but this will still take resources (the person's time and labour) out of the family pot and must be negotiated and agreed.
My dp and I have very equal arrangements but with small children there is very little slack of any kind, and I know - as does he - that anything I do outside the necessities of daily life is basically going to mean it puts work of some sort on him. I don't have spare time, if I want to do anything I take some time I would have used for something else and put it to another use, and he basically covers for me. We agree to this, we do it by arrangement. If other people live differently and have 30 or 40 idle hours a week kicking about that they could use to get a job or do a course, I want to know how they do it.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I think scottishmummy is just being pointlessly contrarian. I think her "point" is that if the OP were financially independent, marriage would not matter to her. This is untrue and / or irrelevant, because one of the things that matters to OP is a public declaration of commitment; also, no matter how much she may earn or have the capacity to earn for herself, the financial arrangements of her domestic partnership should reflect the work that she has put into it, which as a sahp is considerable, and her current arrangements do not reflect that in the event of a split.
My point was more subtle but I think relevant: that the every-man-for-himself, bootstraps "solution" offered by scottishmummy takes no account of the realities of partnerships with children, where everything is always at the expense of something else - the op cannot just invent new resources and unilaterally decide to keep them - she is using her resources for her family and can only make changes about the use of those resources as agreed.
Sorry but without getting into the details of everyone's individual situations, it is possible to actually be against marriage per se, and it's not just because you "haven't met the person you want to marry", are looking elsewhere, need to "grow up", etc.
I think these comments are ignorant and presumptuous. Some people genuinely dislike marriage as an institution and/or weddings as events. I find the whole idea of standing up in public to show off that someone wants to marry you quite tasteless and attention-seeking. (Before anyone says 'sour grapes', I've been proposed to by three men, all of whom I was in LTR with. One of those relationships lasted 11 years but I didn't change my mind.)
I can't speak for the OP's partner, nor can anyone else who doesn't know him, but people are allowed to hold different views without necessarily being cheaters, financial abusers, flakey, dishonest, childish or the other accusations being flung around on this thread.
And if he is opposed on ideological grounds, then that is his right. But he ought to then be prepared to sort out some legal protection for the OP, given that he is refusing the thing which would give it to her as a matter of right and he should have made it clear to her before she moved to live with him, had dc etc.
From the sounds of it though, he isn't objecting on ideological grounds and seems to have organised his affairs to give himself the best possible outcome in the event of a split, while leaving the OP up shit creek.
For me, this would all hinge on his willingness to draw up a contract promising financial support if he decided he wanted out, and giving you a share of his property, in recognition of your contribution to this partnership, plus wills and naming you as his nok on insurance etc.
Yes she should definitely be entitled to all of the legal protection if she wants it.
However, I was replying to the great majority of posts on this thread which say outright that anyone who says they are ideologically opposed to marriage is "really" just using that a smokescreen for their unwillingness to commit to a particular individual, or their inherent untrustworthiness.
I've seen enough unmarried couples with total trust, commitment and fidelity, and enough marriages riddled with lies, deceit and cheating - I find the association of marriage with "true commitment" pretty laughable.
I agree she should protect herself financially, especially if she doesn't trust her partner to treat her decently in the event they split up. (I have no legal protection but do have faith in my partner (who is also my DD's father) to do the right thing financially if we split up.)
I also think that most (not all) weddings are less "a public declaration of commitment" and more a public declaration of "look how gorgeous I am with my hair done and my £3000 dress and my colour-coordinated bridesmaids, now let's have a day of speeches about me and how great I am"
When more than half of marriages end in divorce, it's not really a great statement of anything.
Yes what karma said. Fine to oppose marriage on ideological grounds, but a) this doesn't sound like that and b) he should be prepared to put equivalent protection in place, which he has not suggested doing.
eccentrica, I agree with most of what you say, but trusting a partner to do the right thing by you (if you are a sahm) is dodgy.
People lie and people break promises. The things that people promise,they truly mean when they are in love with you, but it's amazing how quickly that all changes if they happen to fall out of love with you. For every decent partner who would do the right thing by his ex, there are hundreds of others who won't.
It's impossible to know which type you have until it all goes pear shaped.
eccentrica, I agree that it is fine to oppose marriage on ideological grounds, and in fact I think I do (although I am coming round to the idea now that dp and I look like we might buy a place, I think it might be the most tax efficient situation if one of us were to go under a bus - does anyone know if that is right?). However the op doesn't and actively wants to get married, and so, apart from her material security, which is obv itself very important, she wants the wedding, and she is being made to feel stupid about that, which I think is mean and unfair; and while as a feminist I have grave misgivings about marriage and fluffy weddings, as a feminist I also have very grave misgivings about everything that women want and feel emotionally attached to being treated as automatically stupid and trivial and foolish.
karma that's true. It could all go pear-shaped for me as it could for OP.
curryeater my DP and I just bought a flat together. We own it jointly; this means that both of us own the entire flat. In practice, this means if either one of us died, the other one would automatically be the owner of the entire property - it's not a question of 'inheriting' the other's 'half', as each of you already owns the whole property, so there's no tax issue. (genuinely) HTH
It was easier in our case as we each contributed 50% towards purchase price, but even if you contribute different amounts you can draw up a separate deed which lays that out.
Also speaking as a feminist, I understand what you're saying but equally, just because some women want a thing, that doesn't automatically make it worthwhile and serious and important, any more than it makes it stupid, trivial and foolish.
I take financial security, love, commitment and having children very seriously; however, I don't feel obliged to respect the desire to dress up as a princess for a day any more seriously than I did when we were seven (and it was always the girl with the longest, blondest hair...)
Let me spell it out,posters repeatedly assert op vulnerable,dependent upon her dp
If she worked,retrained to earn money,contribute to pension,not be wholly dependent upon dp
Instead a fair few on here recommend marriage to get security/money as opposed to work
and er why is it you need to spell it out exactly sm? Is it because we is thick?
I have to agree that you have a point sm, it is not so much about protecting yourself with a marriage certificate but about ensuring that you keep at yhe same level as your partner financially speaking and as financially independant from your partner as you can. But in practice this is difficult as many men and women seem to asume (perhaps because that's what they have grown up with as a role model) that the woman's career takes second place to the husband's.
But we cannot put to the side how likely it is for the dad to fess up and leave the wife with the lion's share of raising the kids, which obviously will have her career options reduced in order to bring up one or several children.
I have to say that I totally agree with whoever said that being a SAHM is a luxury you can't afford if you are not married. Having said that, I am totally convinced ghat should br extended to married couples too.
I have taken many stupid decisions in my life, but the only one I'll regret until the end of my life will be being a SAHM. 3 years if baking cakes and going to the park do not makd up for the difficult financial position I have put myself in to support the career of a husband/father who is no longer with us. But even if he were, it is not fair to let one partner to provide all the money to keep the family... As long as the guy takes a 50/50 approach with regards to raising the children and doing house chores.
Another thought on the legal side. Marriage can be used to timeline a relationship. It determines when the legal commitment starts and also if/when it ends.
Many of the legal commitments of a marriage can also be made separately with a (fairly expensive) visit to a solicitor. However, many of these can be undone unilaterally. This means that one partner can decide to change the commitment without consulting the other partner.
You can only legally be married to one person at a time. Sounds obvious but it does mean that while married to one person you arent married to someone else.
why am i being explicit in spelling out because someone asked what was my point
In an ideal world, we would all be financially independent, childcare and responsibility for earning money would be split 50/50 and no one would be disadvantaged by the nature of their relationships or the choice to sah with their dc for a period of time. Opportunities, career wise, would be equal to those that men enjoy. However, we don't live in an ideal world and we have to play the hand we're dealt. The OP may well, in the future, return to work and therefore have no financial risks in maintaining the status quo. But that's not where she is now. At the moment she is a vulnerable sahm, who has moved home for the advantage of her partner and she needs immediate protection. Marriage would offer her that. And imo, her partner, if he loves her would want to minimise her risk.
Even if she was completely financially solvent, it still wouldn't remove her desire for this level of commitment from her partner. That's an emotional thing and doesn't hinge on need for physical security.
There was mention of there not being a tax issue if an unmarried couple owned their property jointly and one of them died. That is not correct - there could be inheritance tax to pay if the property is worth over £650,000. The surviving partner does inherit the house, but the half-share he or she receives is only exempt from inheritance tax if they are married (or in a civil partnership). Sorry if this is pedantic, but it's an important point which a lot of people don't appreciate.
WorrySigh that is a very good point. Wills etc can be changed unilaterally and without the other partner's knowledge, so if someone really wanted to screw you over they could do that quite easily if you weren't married, whereas a marriage can only be dissolved with the knowledge of both parties, at which point you are then protected by the divorce legalitites.
I'm of the opinion that if a bloke didn't want to marry me then there's no bloody way on earth I'd have his children and I really don't understand the people that say that having children with a man is commitment enough - no it isn't, men leave children all the time without a backward glance. At least if you are married you and your children are afforded some financial and legal protection.
I have to say that I've also found that men who profess loudly that they don't want to get married are usually the type to string a woman along for years before they dump her (and any children they have had together) in order to marry the woman they really do want to marry. I've seen it happen so many times.
I am a harsh sod though and have immediately dumped blokes that announced they weren't ever interested in marriage - usually much to their surprise 'cause they think they're such a catch. My DH could quite easily have just lived together but he loved me enough to marry me because I wouldn't have stayed around if he hadn't and he wanted to be with me that much. That's how it should be in my opinion, a man should be desperate to be with you, not laying down rules about not getting married.
If he doesn't want to get married for moral or ideological reasons, fair fucks. If that was the case, OP you should've debated the issue before you got this far down the line, had two kids, jacked in your job and moved away from your support network to be with someone whose views are so diametrically opposed to your own.
But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. He's giving you excuses, not reasons. If he cared about having a cheapie wedding and people "judging" you then he'd consider just going to a registry office on a Tuesday afternoon and not telling anyone, just to make you happy. But he's saying "no" using an argument that, if he were a woman, would be seen as weak, materialistic and just a bit shit.
I agree completely that it's fine to object to marriage as a patriarchal institution or for any other valid reasons. I have never been married and I never will; I am not even interested in having a couple-relationship.
But if that's how the OP's partner feels, that's not what he's saying. He's said they can't afford a lavish wedding, so there will be no marriage, and appears to have said it in such a way that he intends to shut down any discussion of the issue. That's what's unfair and wrong in this situation. Particularly as the OP appears to have said to him that she doesn't want the white frock and the stately home and the meal for 5000 close friends.
That marriage can end with divorce is another part of its importance. At the very point when a relationship breaks down, when no one is being 'the bigger person' when no one is talking and it is everyone for themselves that divorce forces people to behave at least halfway decently. You have to declare assets. Ultimately you have to talk even if it is through mediators.
This is not the case when you are not married. Especially when one half is a SAHP. It is very easy for the employed and mobile partner to be somewhere else and with someone else, taking all the assets with them.
scottishmummy, the op can take steps to gain access to material fruits of her future labours - by making sure they are the sort of labours which attract financial reward - but this will do nothing to recompense her for her labour to date, being a sahp and supporting her partner (by childcare if in no other respect, which I doubt) to the extent that he is able to own property. I don't know how old the op is but if she is, say, around 30, well I would not want to write off my work to date at the age of 30 and start from scratch.
However this doesn't solve the "public declaration of love and commitment " thing anyway
It is not as if the two are separate really. A public announcement of commitment and esteem is naturally connected to a financial agreement that recognises the non-earning partner's labour. A lack of respect for the person and for their labour can be intertwined.
I don't say that not to marry someone is not to respect them (I am not married to my dp whom I respect very much). but to refuse to listen to them when they talk about what they want, and to refuse to share, shows a certain lack of respect.
Agree with scottishmummy these views are sad. Take control of your own lives and stop placing men in this 'role' and then complaining about it.
Ah yes because women "place" men in this role and then whinge.
Nothing to do with men's choices or actions at all, no, not ever, they are passively placed by women, they don't do any placing of their own.
I really think the OP should find work and get empowerment for herself and not beg the dp to marry or continue the subject. He might feel very differently when she's not under the thumb...
However, the rubbish excuses the dp is giving for not wanting to marry are another thing. I don't buy any of the reasons he has given and the OP needs to give some serious thought to what that means.
It does matter to you. So why does it matter so much to him not to be married. I would think seriously about ending the relationship if he is not willing to make the commitment of marriage. But it's up to you. If you are quite happy with the situation then fine. But you are so obviously not.
The habitual advice to ophassaidher been marry for security,for finances
So actually it is putting her in role of needing male security as housewife
So,don't be housewife,get own monies and dint hope for security via a male
This is all very well in theory SM but not much use to the OP in the position she is at the moment.
She has to go from where she is right now, not where it would be ideal for her to start from.
Actually, if she were in the ideal place, she wouldn't need any advice because there wouldn't be a problem.
There is no ideal place. Getting married doesn't solve every problem even though I personally am in favour of marriage.
dp and I both work full time. We pay a lot of money for childcare. If we didn't have two salaries we couldn't afford it, but as there are two of us, if we didn't have two salaries one of us would be free for childcare. If dp or I died*, the person left would be in the financially uncomfortable position of having to fund full time childcare for two small children from one salary. Actually I don't think it is possible. Perhaps some benefits would kick in? (not sure as both of us are not anywhere near minimum wage), but that isn't exactly independence. It is mistaken to think that having a good job = independence. Unless you have a stratospherically good job, you still need the other person. I think we are being very misleading if we imply that relatinships don't matter because getting a good job means you don't need anyone. It is not a great way to get on in life.
*yes alright in real life we have life assurance, but ykwim. I said "died" and not "buggered off" because if one of us buggers off, we still have financial responsbility for our own children
Utter rot,the majority advice of get married for "security" as housewife
It's 21c no woman needs to find security wholly through marriage.
op,any woman,can study,volunteer expand opportunities,look for employment ake her own security rather than advice to marry for security
Plenty course on line,local colleges, volunteering.these are things op can do for herself.
It is really sad that the advice if security/protection is via man and marriage.what about making your own security being autonomous and able to provide for self.other than hoping for big day and man to make security
Housewife is precarious state,I'd address that rather than marry
Putting aside all the practicalities, good old fashioned marriage IS very important to the OP.
Unfortunately you cannot switch this desire on and off. If it is deep-rooted, it never goes away, not even if you are doing a great course, got a good career etc etc.
Sorry to sound harsh op, but he does sound as if he is protecting his own interests, and is not wholly committed to you.
Please keep posting because having been in your position (but without children) I really do know how you feel, and I hope it works out for you.
Marriage is deep personal preference,and love is wonderful thing
But as individual and parent,marriage isn't universal panacea.nor is it automatically security
If op wishes to marry,fine.but don't be wholly dependent upon another for your security
Good point scottishmummy, but think we've all got that now!
Presumably to be fair youll go back to those advising get married for security
And say ach we've got that now,you've made your point
The point is that it is better to be a married sahm, than an unmarried sahm, unless you have organised will and contract through solicitor.
The fact that he refuses to marry you, shows he does not care much about your feelings. So no wonder you are upset.
Finding a job, whilst that may well be a good idea, is not going to change the fact that he does not care enough about your feelings.
His excuses sound feeble. Either he is a bit of a dick, or else he does not love you enough to care...
You cannot MAKE someone marry you, but you can sit down with a solicitor and make a proper will, and a cohabit. Contract ( much like gay couples do). If he refuses that too, you may have to wonder whether he is trying to keep his options open, and for what reason...
Yes I think you're missing the bit about the actual relationship SM.
It's perfectly possible for women to be financially independent of men and behave as if they are soleley responsible for their own money, children, orgasms and emotional state.
However, most people in a partnership have an interdependent relationship, they aren't living these peculiar atomised lives where all they're sharing is the house and domestic labour / childcare.
I think you're ignoring the emotional side of this.
The big red flag for me, is that the OP's DP is not ideologically opposed to marriage. He's just opposed to marrying her.
I'm missing nothing.he doesn't want to marry her.she housewife in precarious position
The majority advice is marry for finance,Be legally tied for security
it's 21c women not only have option of male protection.it sad to so vigorously advocate marriage to protect housewife
You're just not getting it.
Perhaps one day when you meet the right person you will.
You know what, she can do both.
She can have financial security from working in a cash job and she can have financial security from being married.
What she can't have is financial security being an unmarried SAHM.
You have really made your point, that she should go and get a paid job. And now you're going to bang on about it ad nauseum, aren't you. That may not be possible or a solution to the whole problem right now. Even if she goes and gets a job, when he leaves her and takes his share of the assets and income with him, she'll still have a problem because chances are she'll have done more of the childcare and domestic work than he has and as a result whatever money she can earn will have been compromised compared to his earning potential.
And you can say that she shouldn't allow that to happen, but frankly she's not really in a position to negotiate, is she. He has all the power here, I think we're agreed on that. But you are insisting that there is only one solution to that. There isn't. There's a whole lot more going on than just her failure to have protected her own long term interests.
'Sorry but without getting into the details of everyone's individual situations, it is possible to actually be against marriage per se, and it's not just because you "haven't met the person you want to marry", are looking elsewhere, need to "grow up", etc''
Yes, exactly. I'm sorry for your situation, OP, but I have to say that if my partner threatened me with marriage or walking, I would yes probably marry him but resent him quite madly for forcing my hand.
But mi, this bloke isn't idealogically against marriage.
He just doesn't wnat to marry the OP.
I think that's very different from being generally anti-marriage
im completely getting it she housewife and the dp doesn't want to marry her
one cannot compel him to marry her.so in all likelihood they remain together unmarried. good option if they are a solid and loving family
op say he a good dad,gives her adequate monies.id still advise she get work,study toward less dependency
her desire to marry doesn't trump his desire not to marry her, and frankly why compel or coerce.
id advise op
at bigger picture,if they happy,if kids happy then remain unmarried
but make nok provision with GP,make wills, change insurance policies. check out work related benefit for named partner (my work allow to nominate unmarried significant other)
her financial precarious position stems form being housewife, id suggest address that. earn some money,get own pension
it may surprise some of you,but not all adult women want their day or a frou-frou dress to get affirmation or play at being princess. I dont need affirmation form marriage to confirm i am in a stable long term relationship. If one wishes to marry, great.love is indeed a wonderful thing in all its manifestations
but dont get all you is well jel about people choosing not to marry.or youll end up sounding like the woo hoo engagement thread who brayed that anyone not engaged was wel jel or just not been asked
i have met the right man
im not secretly dying to be asked
im not financially dependent housewife
KeepCoolCalmAndCollected - "scottishmummy
You're just not getting it.
Perhaps one day when you meet the right person you will."
^^This has to be one of the most condescending things I've ever read on MN! Not every women is waiting for her knight in shining armour to marry her and make her into a real woman.
Some people, as much as they love their partner, DO NOT want to get married, for a variety of reasons.
It has nothing to do with "meeting the right person".
clearly thinks i is well jel and not had my day,and if only i met the right man
commeuneimage You wrote: "There was mention of there not being a tax issue if an unmarried couple owned their property jointly and one of them died. That is not correct - there could be inheritance tax to pay if the property is worth over £650,000. The surviving partner does inherit the house, but the half-share he or she receives is only exempt from inheritance tax if they are married (or in a civil partnership). Sorry if this is pedantic, but it's an important point which a lot of people don't appreciate."
That is not correct.
I just bought a property with my partner (worth less than £650k but that is not relevant to this point). We went through this in great detail with the solicitor.
You are talking about a situation where each partner owns half of the property. The other then inherits their half and therefore is liable to inheritance tax.
The way we have bought is that each of us owns the entire property.
So there is no 'his half' and 'my half' to inherit. I already own the entire propety, so does he, so neither of us will be liable to pay inheritance tax even if it was worth more than 650k.
says more about them than you scottish Tragic if you really think this is jealousy or wishful thinking. My dp asked me years ago becasue he thought it was the next step I think he was relieved tbh when I said no and explained why. R5 did a phone in once and lots of men rang in saying they had been co erced
AnnieLobeseder Totally agree, that was probably the most condescending and wrong comment I've ever read on here.
Yes of course, every woman is just waiting for the perfect man to come along, so she can post facebook pictures of her ring and get angry about people plagiarising her 'grey and cherry blossom' colour scheme
the man has no power of the op.choosing not to marry isnt exerting power,its preference
as much as op has right to have marital preference,he equally as right to not want marriage
the imbalance is the finances,that she is wholly financially dependent,she can do something about that.redress the power imbalance
we have emancipation, we can work, you don't need a man marrying you to make you secure,you can do that all by yourself
Tell him that men like him are putting divorce lawyers out of a job.
He's not someone who doesn't want to marry though.
Just not the OP.
I'm slightly mystified why people seem to be wilfully ignoring that.
I'm not a flag-waver for marriage - never done it, never will. But I think you can separate a political analysis of it from individuals' motivations in either doing it or not doing it.
Yes I can't understand why people aren't noticing that he just doesn't want to marry HER. This is very hurtful and the OP is right to be upset. It's not pathetic or foolish. Marriage is an agreement to be a team and work towards the same goal together. I'm not saying it's the holy grail or necessary but it is an institution that matters to a great deal of people, including me. I take it seriously.
My answer to the OP's question of how to deal with the hurt is that she can't. I suspect that she recognises the prevariacation but doesn't know what to do with the knowledge. If he's as great as she says he is why won't he marry?
Scottish mummy, you doth protest too much. If you didn't care you wouldn't feel the need to bang on about it endlessly and for your information I didn't wear a froufrou dress, the proposal was genuine and perfect and our wedding was a brilliant day.
No.having a different pov doesn't mean im secretly wanting to be a bride
Applying that flawed logic means vegans really want bacon sandwich,cause they doth protest
Some bridie types clearly find it incomprehensible that one doesn't want to marry.
I didn't say you secretly wanted to be a bride. But when people are are obsessively offensive about a group of people it indicates a dissatisfaction with an area of their life so I made a wild guess.
Let's be clear op made 5posts stating dp doesn't want to marry her,
Op has not elaborated on his global view on marriage we know his view on marrying her only
is an elaborate interpretation to take his views on marrying op,and make global
Gosh don't get stitch all the back trackin,
doth protest too much commonly means protest about thing one actually desire
Clear inference is I'm lying i secretly desire to be bride but am thwarted so deny it
Where has OP said he doesn't want to marry HER specifically, rather than anyone at all?
Who's going to look after the kids though, while the OP is rebuilding her career? As a family, they have decided they want the OP to be a sahm. Given that this makes her vulnerable, the OP's partner should minimise her risks, by giving her the legal protection of marriage or shared ownership of assets etc.
I think you are right, SM, about what the OP needs to do long term if he refuses to give her any protection, but if I was in a relationship with a man who wouldn't give me that protection, well it would be a deal breaker for me.
I think that he's had it too much his own way, so far. If I was the OP, I would be inclined to say that she is unwilling to be a sahm on this basis and he needs to start forking out for child care, so she can start putting herself first.
Sad though, if sah is something they valued for their dc and sad if she has to give that up because he is being selfish. I guess if it matters to the partner that his dc have a sahp, he will have to offer the OP some concrete security.
he has specifically told op we wont marry has given her reasons inc fine as they are.
op describes a direct discussion,he has declined,op stated her obvious preference
its more than clear in op and subsequent posts he wont marry her,thats op point
CandlestickOlder, his objections to the marriage were that they couldn't afford it.
That means it's not ideological, as someone else said, it's not a reason, it's an excuse.
Of course he's not going to come out directly and say he'll marry someone else one day if he wants to enough, it's just that he doesn't want to marry the OP. That would draw attention to the elephant in the room wouldn't it? Better to leave it there unremarked.
positives are op says he good partner,obviously thinks hes a keeper,good dad
if they have a solid loving family,are good parents then that is great
may just be they continue to do all that unmarried
Yes that's possible.
The OP can choose denial and cognitive dissonance as a self-defence mechanism to help her deal with this.
Lots of women do.
And if he doesn't meet anyone else, then who knows, they may even have a long-lived marriage.
Lots of people do.
Poor OP. Thread totally hijacked
Fucktidia dont impose your psychobabble dribble on op relationship status
If she says dp good dad,good dp you have no factual basis to dispute that
Op clearly thinks a lot of him wants to marry him,loves him.until she comes and says other we need to accept her narrative
I am a good partner totally financially independent and a good mother and I didn't want to marry dp when he asked? Would you tell him I was a bad partner and he should ditch me?
There are posters on here who will jump on whatever they can to make women feel bad about themselves and their relationships - shitstirring with absolutely no basis for their ridiculous generalisations. It's almost as if they like the thought of these women suddenly doubting themselves and their DP/DH. It's very sad to watch.
I just hope it doesn't really affect anyone.
OP- if your DP is kind and a good father and loves you, you're doing better than most. Communication is the key. And maybe things will change.
alarms bell ring for me, so he would get married if didnt cost a lot, but also he doesnt want a cheap wedding as then makes him look bad , ie appearances
so he cares more about what his friends/family think then what you want
as many have said that weddings dont have to cost a lot, and if you really want to just get married then go and do it just the two of you, or do you want a wedding, rather then get married
and yes funerals cost a lot more then weddings, dh's funeral cost more then our wedding and we got married in the caribbean and no expense spared
did you not discuss /marriage/weddings before you had kids?
and yes someone pointed out, hes happy to have kids out of 'wedlock' and be 'bastards' but not happy to have a cheap wedding
his priorities are wrong
and if a wedding/being married means that much to you op, then maybe spilt up with this man and find a man who does want to get married ..........
or can you live with not being married but being with a man who sounds like he is a supportive dad and partner in all other ways
bastards? have I been transported back in a time machine to the 50s
lol - didnt mean any offense, but seems weird that op dp likes to keep up appearances but happy to have kids out of marriage -some may frown on that (not me)
just seems more then just the cost is the issue here
Kids out of wedlock and bastards are pejorative old fashioned terms
Op has said he's a good dad,good partner,loves him to seek marriage
Not wanting to get npmarried iesnt render him bad,nor does unmarried justify calling kids bastards
sorry if i offended - didnt mean to
was trying to make the point that op oh doesnt want to get married as couldnt afford the wedding that others expect
ie keeping up appearances, yet some people (not me) dont believe in kids outside marriage, and 'may' look down on them being born out of marriage
i did say in my first post that if he is a supportive partner/dad then is marriage everything?
guess depends what is more important to the op?
Ah yes SM, of course it's more valid for you to impose your narrative, than for anyone who disagrees with you to impose their's.
CO the OP already feels bad about her relationship, that's why she's posted here. I reject your assertion that women posting here that they're suspicious about the OP's OH's motives for not wanting to get married, are doing so in order to make her feel bad about her relationship.
I don't tell you that you're posting in order to try and invalidate the OP's disquiet about her OH's unwillingness do you? I attribute more positive motives to your postings.
You can disagree with my advice, but please don't attribute meaningless malice to me, any more than I would do you.
Mind you don't get skid marks all that backtrackin.you trashed op relationship
You said op would need "cognitive dissonance and denial" to sustain herself in her relationship
Your Obvious implication is her relationships flawed indicated by dp not marry her
Have I vigorously assured my pov,yes of course as have others,including yourself
Have i trashed her relationship,no.I said given she said they overall happy family maybe they'll remain unmarried
Youve cast aspersion on her relationship and now denying it
Er, hello, of course I've cast aspersions on her relationship.
I think it's suspicious that a man who has financially covered his arse while allowing his partner to expose her's, who has no ideological opposition to marriage, refuses to give his partner the security of marriage.
You have obviously misunderstood my post. I don't cast aspersions out of malice, which is what CO was implying. I cast aspersions because I think it's valid to. Not to make the OP "feel bad about her relationship" just because that's fun - but because sometimes, people should feel bad about their relationships because there is something bad about them which needs to be fixed.
You're not saying this relationship is perfect are you? You're saying that it needs to be fixed, by her going out to work. I think it needs to be fixed any way she can fix it.
You are simply bizarre.
You ignored bit she said he good dp and your summation was psychobabble dribble
Worthy of Module one frasier crane box set
Arf. You do make me larf SM.
I love your posts too. When I can decipher them.
Don't know about the integrity of her relationship
I do know all the advice about security via a male and marriage is antiquated
She can become secure by working,studying doing something not dependent upon male wage
Well I don't disagree with you on that.
That's one way of doing it, if you're in a position to do so.
But that's not actually addressing her issue is it.
It's unresolvable impasse given she cannot compel him to marry her
The financial precarious position can be addressed by work,not dependent
Other factors wills, nok with gp,named as beneficiary with work can be changed
I think it's really pessimistic to say it's unresolvable. I think couples who love each other and are committed to each other, are often able to resolve their differences.
OK, so "resolution" means different things to different people - some people's idea of resolving something is someone else's idea of sweeping it under the carpet - but I think it's just a bit pessimistic to think that only the financial side of things can be resolved.
Having said that, sometimes when the financial side of things are resolved, the emotional side of things can be too. Being less financially dependent on someone can change the relationship dynamics and all sorts of attitudes, feelings etc. can change (on both sides).
Anyway I'm just noodling away now so prob not much use to OP - will STFU.
eccentrica - I'm sorry, but you and your partner cannot both own the whole property. It's not legally possible. You can own it jointly, i.e. as joint tenants, so that if one of you dies it automatically vests in the other one, regardless of what your will says. But you can't both have the full value of it in your estates for tax purposes. Your solicitor can't have explained it properly. If the property is valuable enough, the only way to be sure of not having to pay inheritance tax on the first death - even if you are joint tenants - is to be married.
Believe me, I have been working in this area of the law for many years.
Sorry this is a digression for OP but it is a really important argument in favour of marriage if you co-own a valuable property.
commeune OK, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. The property in our case is worth a lot less than 650k, so that's probably why I was wrong about that.
FWIW, I won't be getting married even if it does cost me money! But I am not totally financially dependent on my partner as (as well as owning 50% of the property) I am self-employed and earn about half of what he does (half a pittance!).
Join the discussion
Please login first.