to think a lot of men will not marry if they already get everything?

To the women saying they don’t want to get married, they’re already in a committed, loving relationship & marriage offers no benefits, I ask this:

Do you realise in the event of your dp’s death, you are not considered next of kin?

All funeral arrangements will be the responsibility of his parents, siblings or older children. You have no legal right to insist on services and ceremonies your dp may have wanted but which may be at odds with his family’s outlook.

This may not be an issue if your dp remains close to his family and you all get along well. But if there’s any history of disagreement or ill-will between you and them then you’ll be elbowed out the way pretty sharpish.

The same, of course, applies to you. Are you happy for your grieving dp to be legally sidelined in the event of you suffering a serious illness which incapacitates you, may require a decision to switch off life support or funeral arrangements? If you really love your dp, do you honestly think this would be fair on him?

Your underlying assumption is that marriage is something men do to women. Men are active, women are passive and lack agency - this has echoes of the past where women had no identity of their own.

It took me far too long to realise that men benefit so much from relationships and are built to enjoy sex regardless of attraction, therefore many MANY men will be in a relationship with a woman they barely like, let alone love.

Agree.
And marriage isn't the bullet-proof protection it's always made out to be on MN. Try getting a divorce when you've been a SAHM for years having done things "the right way" as described by previous posters - you're pretty much fucked. The focus shouldn't be on marriage, it should be on financial independence of both partners.

IMO men only want what suits them.

Many say they are 'traditional' men i.e they thinkwomen should be SAHM and cook/clean/shop etc, but they ALSO want them to share finances 50/50.

Yet these so called 'traditional' men also insist that their children MUST have their surname, yet they aren't willing to give their partner their surname by marrying them.

They always insist on 'protecting' their money by refusing to have their partners on the mortgage/house deeds/rental agreement, simply so they have the 'power' to kick their partners out, should they choose to do so in the future.

Basically, they want ALL the benefits of marriage, but without any financial risk. They excuse this, whenever asked, by saying they are 'traditional' however their 'traditionality' doesn't extend to an actual marriage...IMO they're only half hearted or evasive when the set up doesn't benefit THEM.

Yes my dp has been getting the whole show for free for > 25 years.
Having seen 3 of my friends lose out in their divorce ( they were all the higher earner, as am I ), you'd have to drag me kicking and screaming down the aisle.

I'd be reasonable in the event of a separation, we are family and I wouldn't see dp struggle but I wouldn't want a judge in control.

I don’t have children so that probably influences my decision but I’m not bothered about getting married to be honest. If I did, it would be a quick register office affair, with a pre nup.

Gpu are not wrong but you might get flamed for it.

It's always "he won't marry yet because we cannot afford the big white wedding he wants and he is very traditional..."

But they already have three kids together... yeah very traditional 😂

Doesn’t love enough imo

its very important to dh i am taken care of if he does and everything is as seamless as possible for me..

Depends what the woman wants. You’re saying this as if every woman wants to get married, some genuinely aren’t arsed and some think it’s patriarchal.

Do you think the people saying this have never split up with someone?

Prenups are not legal in the UK. Once you're married pretty much everything belongs to you both.

People who see marriage as not important are going to be in for a shock when they split. There's no obligation to them anymore. I recently divorced and would have been screwed financially if not for that very crucial piece of paper.

Men will absolutely have kids with someone they don't want to marry as they see walking away from kids a lot easier than divorce as then the wife wants all his money 🙄.

I loved with my boyfriend before marriage but no way would I have had a child without being married.

I agree with this.
Let's face it, the legal protections brigade are not thinking of the relationship when marrying, they're thinking of the Divorce.

No flipping reason you can't share everything when cohabiting!

So they're entering into something with the fact it might fail from the OUTSET

What's that expression you got a plan B, then you won't work at plan A.

DISCLAIMER: Obviously people should be allowed to divorce.

Does this only work one way round? If a woman loves a man then will she want him to have those protections as well?

Sometimes reading MN is like stepping back into a time when women had no earning power at all.

FWIW DH and I married because of those reasons. It didn't prove we loved each other - we'd been together over a decade at that point and had actually agreed that neither of us really believed in marriage. But we both have difficult families and there were some legal protections we both wanted for each other. We could have done that legal admin without getting married but realised that a wedding could involve a fun party (without the difficult families) as well.

😮

This really sums it up. I spent 20 years in a relationship and didn't realise the extent of exdp wealth.
He kept it well hidden.

We split up. He cleared the joint account. Never paid CMS. Never worked again.

Theres absolutely nothing I can do.

This is not the point you were originally making. Your OP is absolutely chock full of sexist cliches - women want marriage! men just want sex and status! It doesn't seem to occur to you that women might also enjoy the "full benefits" of married life without necessarily getting married. Plenty of women are extremely happy with unmarried relationships as they are, and see little reason to change that.

The point you've pivoted to is that both partners should be aligned on whether they want to get married, which is pretty obvious. Though I agree a lot of people stick their heads in the sand regarding compatibility.

Getting married can be a very simple thing. A wedding is optional.

I think if a man loves a woman he will want her to have the protections of marriage as regards inheritance, being next of kin etc.

I have no interest in having a wedding at all and I'm a woman in my 30s with 2 kids. My OH has been getting the 'whole show for free' for nearly 10 years because we are both introverts and would hate that much attention and we don't have money to waste. Neither of us have substantial savings or property, we both have equal parental responsibility and neither of us will ever inherit anything from anyone.

Get married, if you intend to have children. Cover your back legally. Don’t hope for the best, and give anyone all the benefits of family life without the commitment.

Most men will work in their best interests understandably. Keep their options open. If it suits them and benefits them - they will marry. If not, they will stall.

Women may prefer for their own reasons not marry, that’s valid too. You don’t have to be married, but if you have dc it’s the best protection of your future.

It proves a commitment. That the person wants a legal tie to another person and that they consider that person to be the most important person in their life. You can’t just walk away from a legal marriage, there are complications.

One of my friends who wasn’t married to her partner but had children with them and lived with him, died. Her parents were the ones making decisions for her in the hospital and ultimately were the ones who planned her funeral. Within the next year both of the unmarried couples in our friendship group who were very much ‘marriage is only a bit of paper’ got married.

Yes. If there was a contraception 'failure'.

They can stay with them out of a sense of duty to raise the children.

ETA: There's usually one child here, not plural.