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

But can't you see that any marriage is a bargain and every party to the bargain is trying to get something out of it for him/herself? It sounds crass, but it is true. Nobody sets out saying 'Oh, I would really like to marry a poor person, in poor health, preferably ill-educated and with a nasty character'? Everybody is searchign, subconsciously or not, for the best deal for themselves, and unfortunately, preferably, for free? Or at least, at the lowest price?

Men will only propose to women they think are worth marrying.

If the man refuses to marry a woman who wants to marry him and with whom he has children, then he probably thinks she isn’t good enough to be his spouse.

Harsh, yes.

But true.

Blimey, your version of the world is a bundle of joy. I guess you missed the love boat completely.

This is such a sexist post.
What do you mean he's getting it for free?
Men don't buy women for marriage. It 2026, we're equals now and most marriages have partners with equal earnings, some women have more than the man they're with.
You've basically used the 'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free' but with a twist to try and hide how sexist it is.

Yes. I would say it's obvious that - unless a woman has substantial independent resources - she would rather be married to the father of her children than not, so in the majority of cases it's reasonable to assume he doesn't want to marry her.

Of all the unmarried couples with children I know, the woman would marry him in a heartbeat if he was willing to marry her.

Some men do settle for a woman who "will do" until the "right" woman" comes along and - inexplicably in my opinion - these women are happy to accept this arrangement.

I think the reason some couples have children together and marry much later, is that the man eventually realises he has over-estimated his romantic worth and the "right" woman will never appear (or if she does, she won't want him).

He then starts to realise he is no better than the woman he settled for and he's facing a lonely old age. Then he'll marry her, if she will still have him.

I think a man can love his partner, but not enough to marry her.

Women who give a man everything a wife would give without the legal and financial protection of marriage are making themselves vulnerable. Such relationships have poor long-term outcomes in most cases.

Of course they won't marry! To change status, be it about marriage, work, etc. you need to have an incentive - i.e. what will change for the better, if I change my status? If they already have everything handed to them on a platter, what is the incentive?
Cohabitation without marriage is the worst sort of arrangement for women, I am afraid. In most cases this is usually 'stringing a woman along', like we see on MN threads - until she is in her late 30s and then 'maybe we should postpone having children a bit' - and then they fuck off when they find a new partner and they are OK, have children, etc. and angry women on MN ask 'is it OK to fall pregnant without telling him, I am about to leave my reproductive years' and right-on idiotic MNers say 'no, it is evil to stop contraception, just leave him and use a sperm bank'. Aye, right, after he was stringing you along for 10 years.

It’s pretty common. Lots of colleagues at work where couples are buying houses together, having children and no marriage. The men aren’t not bothered. The women usually do want to be married but they are waiting for him to change his mind.

But jointly deciding not to do it, or separating, is NOT unique to Gen X! Its what this whole thread is about - the dilemma of couples who don't get married, often because one party doesn't want to do it, the alternative being separation.

If you want to get married to a man, find one that values marriage itself. A man who believes that marriage is a necessity. Probably will be for Godly reasons

I think your last paragraph sums it up for me. I'm really struggling with the idea that people still think in that way. Also the idea that women are foolish and careless if they don't marry before having children is appalling and pure victim blaming. Women are oppressed by patriarchal structures and also blamed for resisting them - what will ever change if we refuse to look at the root of the problem?

Yes. I would say it's obvious that - unless a woman has substantial independent resources - she would rather be married to the father of her children than not, so in the majority of cases it's reasonable to assume he doesn't want to marry her.

Of all the unmarried couples with children I know, the woman would marry him in a heartbeat if he was willing to marry her.

Some men do settle for a woman who "will do" until the "right" woman" comes along and - inexplicably in my opinion - these women are happy to accept this arrangement.

I think the reason some couples have children together and marry much later, is that the man eventually realises he has over-estimated his romantic worth and the "right" woman will never appear (or if she does, she won't want him).

He then starts to realise he is no better than the woman he settled for and he's facing a lonely old age. Then he'll marry her, if she will still have him.

It is quite something for a man to watch a woman give life, keep a home, cook, work full-time, and still expect intimacy on demand — as though his mere existence were contribution enough.

Many men enjoy seeing their women 'endure'.

Then you decide jointly not to do it, surely, like any other relationship choice? Or you separate. I remain unconvinced that there are significant numbers of women passively longing to be proposed to nor large numbers of men (in 2026!) thinking along the lines of what previous posters have described as getting milk/ a show/ a purchase free of charge. Those overt double standards have ceased to be acceptable.

Surprise to be completely honest. I'm of Gen X and it's never been my experience that women of my generation have longed to get married. And if they do, they decide jointly with their partner, not perform some odd mating ritual trying to persuade a man by stealth to marry them!

But that's missing the point slightly? You can't decide jointly to do something, if one party doesn't want to do it.

I take offence at you perceiving underlying misogyny in any of my posts.
I too am a Gen X feminist. If you can't cope with the reality of a sexist, misogynistic and patriarchal world, that is a 'you' problem.
I'm done here.

Great, please do. It's hard to know what your questions have to do with anything much, and their underlying misogyny is really troubling.

I think your last paragraph sums it up for me. I'm really struggling with the idea that people still think in that way. Also the idea that women are foolish and careless if they don't marry before having children is appalling and pure victim blaming. Women are oppressed by patriarchal structures and also blamed for resisting them - what will ever change if we refuse to look at the root of the problem?

OK, so you are surprised that some women get pregnant before marriage, in the hope or expectation of getting married afterwards.
Given that they do this, do you agree that this is foolish of them?

The thread seems to have pivoted from "men are bastards who just want sex" to "unmarried women are silly little hussies".

Getting pregnant before marriage is not something I'd ever do. But then getting pregnant at any point isn't something I'd do either. Seems a fast track to messing up my career, my fitness, my relationship, my sleep, my sanity and most importantly my beloved spare time. Countless threads on MN bear this out.

I could say it's foolish of any woman to get pregnant. Certainly neither me nor my child-free friends seem to have any of the struggles I read about on here - I enjoy my life and I like my husband. But I wouldn't say that out loud because something that's even worse than being an unmarried mother is being judgmental of other people's lives.

My main issue with how this thread is presented is that it doesn't take into account that unmarried women may be doing scandalous things like having sex with their boyfriends because they enjoy having sex with him rather than because they're giving him some sort of precious jewel in the hope that he'll put a ring on it.

Sorry was that 'No' in response to my question 'Given that they do this, do you agree that this is foolish of them?' ?

I am not finding your posting style or your arguments easy to follow, so happy to bow out at this stage.