Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask genuinely, why people don't get married?

617 replies

Lookandlearn · 05/04/2011 19:38

if they are in a committed, permanent relationship and have children? It's a genuine question and I am happy to be ignored if it's too mosey, but gives an airing to side issues from another thread on here.

OP posts:
Jogon · 08/04/2011 08:40

But Miss means unmarried woman or spinster.

I'm not sure why we still have different titles for women and just the one for men.

I do use spinster only rarely and only usually when referring to my poisonous , unmarried and un partnered SIL Grin it suits her to a T!

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 08/04/2011 08:42

I think the point is that you are implying that spinsterdom is a necesserily negative thing when not all unmarried women over the age of (whatever age spinsterdom) starts at would agree.

Not everyone wants a marriage or a partner.

FattyAcid · 08/04/2011 08:47

I like being a Miss - it sounds cool and independent to me
Previously I was a Ms in preference to Miss but I now see Miss as being of much higher status than it once was

Jogon · 08/04/2011 08:48

The problem is that society perceives women of a certain age who have Miss as a title as " spinsters" even though many women themselves certainly do not.

Which is an argument for replacing Mrs/Miss/Ms with one title as men have.

FattyAcid · 08/04/2011 08:51

Jogon "The problem is that society perceives women of a certain age who have Miss as a title as " spinsters" even though many women themselves certainly do not"

I think this is no longer true except for the older generation and I think Miss has the highest status now

PatientGriselda · 08/04/2011 08:52

Aren't those "many women" part of society themselves? If they don't have a negative view of it, how can you say thst society does? Unmarried women aren't some special sub group in exile from society and unable to contribute to its attitudes until they marry!

FattyAcid · 08/04/2011 08:53

Mrs plus your husband's surname is surely defining yourself as "the wife of x" - too much like chattel for my liking!

Jogon · 08/04/2011 08:54

Fattyacid - yes.

See my argument for having one title.

FattyAcid · 08/04/2011 08:55

Agree with the one title thing and think it should be Miss!

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 08/04/2011 08:58

Just don't use a title at all. They aren't required.

Wamster · 08/04/2011 09:13

Noddyholder I do not like the notion of 'common sense' when it comes to next of kin. Cohabitation does not necessarily mean full-on commitment -and some people, particularly youngsters who are living together for a bit of fun (and why not?), would perhaps prefer their parents to be next of kin.

It frankly amazes me that the cohabitees here agree with me that cohabitation can mean lifetime commitment yet go out of their way to tie themselves legally to another person in exactly same way as marriage (I am NOT talking about those here who do NOT want to divide assets etc on splitting and genuinely want to keep law out of their affairs. They are reasonable) when there is already a ready made solution for the legal stuff i.e. marriage. It's cutting their noses off to spite their face, I think.

I mean marriage is designed precisely for long term couples.
I don't know, I just find it ridiculous myself.

I don't think that everybody should be 'coupled up' for one second- singlehood can be marvellous and liberating- but if people are coupled up long-term what the heck is so bad about being wed?

Wamster · 08/04/2011 09:18

ceic makes a very good point here; although perhaps the default postion may be that spouse is next of kin, obviously people have to have choice to alter this default position. So, yes, I know that next of kin can be anyone that person nominates.

Jogon · 08/04/2011 09:19

I think some people think it's a political statement and some think it's a bit cool and trendy not to be married. Even though they are " married" in exactly the same way legally with all the hoops they've jumped through.

You can still be Ms maidenname and married.

Coalition, titles are very much required. I don't expect to be called Jogon by people in a business capacity I have just met. I expect to be called Mrs/Suitable alternative Jogon.

Wamster · 08/04/2011 09:28

Jogon, I agree with your 'political statement' idea. But you know what? I think a person not marrying out of some political ideal when a person is in a long-term relationship with children, mortgages, and pets and all the other stuff is pathetic, really pathetic.
I mean, who are they trying to kid? They're effectively married but without the certificate.
Are we supposed to believe they are radical or something? Do me a favour!
(I must stress that it's perfectly OK to have a 'political statements' about marriage if genuinely living an alternative lifestyle e.g. swinging or just being a single person. Fair enough then; I take such people seriously).

RitaMorgan · 08/04/2011 09:31

It is a pity there's no civil partnership option for heterosexual couples (and indeed a marriage option for homosexual couples).

Jogon · 08/04/2011 09:33

Wamster - we agree!!

Rita, there is. It's called marriage.

RitaMorgan · 08/04/2011 09:37

No, they are two different things Jogon. Else why do we have civil partnerships at all when they are really just marriages?

Wamster · 08/04/2011 09:42

RitaMorgan because they didn't want to offend the religious, who believe that 'marriage' can only be between a man and a woman.
Yet another reason for keeping marriage ceremonies out of church! We should do what they do in France; EVERYBODY marriages in a register office and if they want to go to church for a blessing afterwards, they can.

Legally, civil partnerships are EXACTLY same as marriage- given that gay people cannot be discriminated against, this would logically have to be the case.

exquisiy · 08/04/2011 09:44

For the other question ie Why get married - mainly because it just felt like the natural next step in our relationship, because we trusted each other 100%, because everyone I knew/know who is in a good relationship (though I know looks aren't everything) were married and those who weren't married were in my case the ones who weren't as happy or always moving on. Many other reasons too but this has been a good discussion as I can understand what people are saying and it's not all one way which is also good to read.

RitaMorgan · 08/04/2011 09:46

So civil partnerships don't have any of the historical baggage of marriage - let people who just want to tie up the legal side of things have civil partnerships. Let those who want to be someone's wife/have legitimate children/please God have marriages.

RevoltingPeasant · 08/04/2011 09:47

Wamster, I wouldn't necessarily not get married for this reason, but there is a loooooooong tradition of marriage being used to oppress/ contain women.

Can't you understand that some women just don't really want to be part of an institution which has that history?

My DP's family is very religious and one of his main reasons for not wanting to get married is that he had the whole 'white church wedding in the Eyes of God and then go forth multiply' malarkey shoved down his throat from an early age.

I know that's probably not what marriage means to you, but it has that 'ick-factor' to some.... so they just choose not to do it. Why do you care? Confused

RevoltingPeasant · 08/04/2011 09:48

Rita, agreed. Better put than me!!

Wamster · 08/04/2011 09:59

RevoltingPeasant, don't you see that women in long-term cohabiting relationships with children, mortgages etc are living their lives in EXACTLY same way as married women?
If married women are oppressed, then so are cohabiting women.
It is the nature of long-term, live-in relationships is (or can be) oppressing NOT the legal status.

Marriage is actually liberating if -and I do mean if- people go down the long-term relationship route because it means that a woman's non-financial chores will be deemed to be of worth in event of divorce.

It bothers me because I can see a time when the law will change to give cohabitees 'marital' rights which means that I will no longer be able to live with a boyfriend without fear of shelling out monies in event of split anymore.
Frankly, if every long-term cohabiting couple just bit the bullet and do what was right for them i.e. marriage this would not happen.

NotaMopsa · 08/04/2011 11:15

Wamster what tosh

Ceic · 08/04/2011 11:23

The law has already changed in Scotland for cohabiting couples so one partner can apply to a court for a limited financial settlement shoujld the couple split.

Full details from CAB Scotland Site - under the Maintencance section

It's not automatic, which is, I think, a good thing. It's for when someone has given up their career or put themselves at a financial disadvantage to look afer the couple's children. I've no idea how the costs compare with a divorce, except that it sounds like the partner would get less.

(The link is to part of a fuller list of the Scottish legal issues of marriage vs living together.)