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

Is this thread only for people who agree with you then?

I understand that women who are the higher earners and who may have children from a previous relationship may be reluctant to marry as they worry that their new husband may leave and lay claim to their assets. Remaining unmarried gives some protection from this. For now.

Starmer’s leadership opened a consultation on changing the laws regarding inheritance on intestacy and the division of assets during a split - both in divorce and for unmarried couples. I am unsure what the status of this is given we have a change of PM with different priorities.

The consultation focuses on bringing fairness to women who may have given up work to raise children so whose earning power is reduced if she splits from her dp, and to make their financial rights broadly in line with married women going through a divorce. However I assume that equality law would say that men cannot be treated less fairly so cannot be excluded from being able to access these rights too. And the proposals probably can’t apply only to partners with children - women may go part-time to support their partners more at home. Or they may take over caring for step-children when in residence. And there’s always the possibility of children from the relationship predeceasing their parents. No longer alive at the time of the split, but the reason the (usually) woman may not have worked for a number of years.

These needs may be linked to children’s needs. They would include housing, capital, income and pension needs, so far as resources allow. The aim would be to ensure that each person can secure suitable housing and meet living costs.
In assessing those needs, the court could take into account the standard of living during the relationship, as this provides a helpful benchmark. A committed relationship often shapes financial arrangements and future expectations, and that reality should be recognised.

So potentially women who don’t want to risk their assets from claims by lower-waged partners would have to live separately from their dps or make sure they move out before three years (the qualifying period).

Equally, this runs the risk of men who don’t want women claiming against their wealth moving out before 3 years or refusing to live with them. Be interesting to see how, if this makes it into law, a split between a woman who lives with their child and a man who never moved in but happily got the woman pregnant, would pan out. Child support, yes, but can living separately accommodated lives really be considered a relationship?

Consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation-document

@PinkEasterbunny "Of course, women could change all this overnight by refusing to have children unless married. I know it would never happen, but if ALL women decided, from today, no wedding no children, then the shift would be very interesting to watch"

I think a lot of men would be thoroughly delighted about it.

Well if you can't see the inherent misogyny in your OP and the absolute reams of it that have spilled out as a result, I'm not sure what else to say!

Seems like what you want is just to state your point over and over again, and if anyone tries to bring up the ramifications, consequences, implications, analogies, underlying assumptions, inherent biases or any other angle, you say, "No no, that's not what I'm talking about."

Some women don't want to marry.
Why have you just cited men.

Yes! It would be just like going back in time! Keep your hands on your ha'pennies girls!

That doesn't mean that the underlying basis of your thread or the subsequent comments by you and others haven't been rooted in misogyny. You seem to have a block when it comes to understanding what you're being asked. At any rate I find your answers slippery.

I imagine lots of men would be very pleased that their partners were no longer pressuring them to have children. What else do you think might happen?

You said that in your experience, most women want to get married.

I’m telling you that in my experience, they don’t.

Of course, women could change all this overnight by refusing to have children unless married. I know it would never happen, but if ALL women decided, from today, no wedding no children, then the shift would be very interesting to watch

I think if you have children together, happy and settled it is short sighted not getting married. Marriage offers protection should the worst happen and one of you passes away, this is the very least reason you should marry.

Whatever you do, know your rights. There are legal advantages to being married in terms of divorce, wills, inheritance.

This is all so depressingly transactional. Talking about love and marriage like it's the same as swapping properties and hotels in a Monopoly deal.

I don't believe most people conceptualise their lives and life choices like this

What if she is the main breadwinner?

So if you think it all applies to women and men why is your thread title "to think a lot of MEN...." and why is the opening line of your first post "If HE is already getting everything on a plate"?

You still aren’t answering the question.

let’s go through a scenario and tell me what should be different…

girl meets boy, girl and boy date, they have a physical relationship and are monogamous
girl and boy try living together, first they rent while saving up for a property
girl and boy save up, and buy a home, they live together happily
girl and boy want to start a family, girl gets pregnant and has a baby

Where did this go wrong??? Was it when she had sex? Was it when they moved in? Or was it having a baby before marriage?

I need you to quantify your thread because otherwise it sounds like you are just complaining without purpose, in which case, why do you hate women?

My question is why did you choose that angle? It's unleashed a tidal wave of sexism and internalised misogyny!