AIBU to think not getting married for THESE reasons is daft?

[Wamster]

OK, from the off I must say that I can understand precisely why marriage is not for everybody.
People may not want to even live with another person and, truly, I think that is reasonable and perfectly acceptable. I really do see that monogamy isn't everybody's cup of tea. And from the threads here, I can honestly say that some people are better off single and would be happier that way.
In fact, the cult of monogamy most definitely does not suit everybody.
I also understand that if two people cohabit, there may not be the desire (for whatever reason) to legally tie themselves to one another other than the ways that they wish to tie themselves together e.g. a joint mortgage.
If they wish to have legal ties at all, of course. Perhaps some people actively want the ability to leave without any hassles. And I think that is perfectly OK and reasonable.
Last, but not least, I fully understand that marriage does not always mean a good relationship and that cohabitation can bring a good and rewarding relationship. I understand this very well.

Basically, all the above are, imo, good reasons for not wishing to marry, however, not getting married because of:
a, It's historical background of religion and belonging to a man.
What's that all about? I mean, marriage is surely just a legal contract and what the couple 'do' with the marriage is up to them?
I know that the legal contract of marriage has a lot of implications, but it doesn't seem to be the legal implications that put people who cite 'historical' side of marriage as reason not to marry off (which would be understandable) . No it's the historical stuff.
Surely nobody has to become a traditional wife upon marriage anymore. Nobody has to have a religious element. In fact, only a third of all marriages that take place today have a religious element.
The number of weddings I've attended that take place in hotels is testament to that fact.


b, Because of a dislike of weddings.
Surely nobody has to have a wedding? Why not just go down the register office on a quiet tuesday morning and do the deed? I just don't understand why not wanting to be 'given away' etc would put people off marrying if marriage meant something to them. If you really want to get married, you do the wedding your way, don't you?

Just seems daft to me to have these two things as reasons not to marry. AIBU?

[Hardgoing]

Zelda, again, no worries if you don't want to marry, but it just sounds quite funny to me that someone would be shy enough not to want to say vows in public but has had three dd's (presumably with midwives/doctors in attendance)! I didn't enjoy the public aspect of it, luckily it need only be the registrar and two witnesses (who can be strangers, they will find some people off the street for you). No need for anything more public if you don't want (although weddings are public in that legally anyone can attend if they know about it).

[reelingintheyears]

Hully...i think the historical freight is only heavy if you let it be.

It has never weighed heavy on me.

And the only way for women to stop it being heavy is to let it go.

[GhoulsGhouls]

Brides do not have to be "given away" - I got married in church, 17 years ago and wasn't given away.

Wives do not have to take their husband's name.

The default wording of the wedding service does not include promising to obey (which has not been part of the vows since 1928) unless couples opt for the version from the Book of Common Prayer of 1662.

[TandB]

I know a couple who specifically asked for the "obey" bit to go in.

I have no idea what they were thinking!

[Hullygully]

I am married. (Not given away, not changed name etc)

Still very aware of historical freight, all part of a piece with general second class citizenship.

General, nb. Some people don't feel this. Lucky deluded them.

[whackamole]

I think a) is pretty important actually.

It is the reason that although OH and I are getting married next year, I will be retaining my own name. It is also the reason I use 'Ms' now and will continue to.

I don't really understand why all the other reasons you cite are ok but those two aren't?

[reelingintheyears]

Second class citizenship?

Not in this household.

Historical freight?

Not here,nor passed on to my DD.

Equals...yes.

Deluded...No.

We can only change the future by teaching and guiding our children,be they daughters or sons.

History is there to be learnt from...not to live.

[ZeldaUpNorth]

Its mostly dp that is shy (well more socially awkward-he wont even answer door to postman etc) I didnt know you could just go, sign then come out!

[Wamster]

Well because we are living today and not in the past -so what has history got to do with anything?
It's a separate issue, too, but it does seem to me that if a couple are cohabiting in a long-term relationship, well, they seem to get treated like a married couple, anyway, so I don't quite see what difference actually being married makes. Unless, they've got reasons like keeping their finances separate.

I also do not see why getting married has to be a big day. It can be a simple affair.

[Hullygully]

reeling - that's why I said GENERAL.

Might not be in your house, great!

But in most of the world it bloody well is.

[Hullygully]

Well because we are living today and not in the past -so what has history got to do with anything?

I am truly staggered.

[usualsuspect]

No one really knows if I'm married or not though ,because I always use Ms

Its no ones buisness if I'm married or not tbh

[Wamster]

ZeldaUpNorth.
I must say sorry, I meant sign the form as a figure of speech. You do have to say a few words. But you only do need two witnesses present to hear those words. Basically, it need only be you, your dp, two witnesses and the registrar.

The registrars are (usually) kind people and will help you overcome your nerves.

[reelingintheyears]

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Women's rights have changed hugely in the last century in Britain.

They need to get even better.

In my house all people are equal.

[reelingintheyears]

Wamster...history has to do with everything.

It's what we are and were we all come from.

It's what yours and my Granny were and the lives they lived.

We have to learn from history or we will just go on making the same old mistakes.

[OTheHugeWerewolef]

I find it a bit odd when people describe marriage as an institution whose history has been largely or even entirely oppressive to women.

From where I'm sitting it looks as though historically marriage has done an admittedly flawed but overall reasonably decent job, in the absence of effective contraceptives or a state welfare system, of protecting women against being abandoned to raise dependent children on their own.

Rather than struggling for survival, the institution of marriage has historically equipped married woman with the full force of societal pressure in their ability to compel men to continue providing for the children they helped to create, regardless of whether said men still liked or desired the woman they created them with.

While obviously things could go unpleasantly wrong, in a situation with no abortion, no benefits system and scarce resources I'd say that made marriage in many ways an institution that worked largely to women's advantage, not their detriment.

[Wamster]

Well, I agree with you there, reelingintheyears, and perhaps marriage was a bad idea in the days when a man could legally rape his wife (no perhaps about it, actually) but, no offence, the reasons some people have provided here (not you) about it: name change, 'obey', 'giving away' are really trivial stuff that no woman has to do anymore.

[colken]

Women do not have to take their husband's surname. It is not the law that she does. I did not take my husband's name.

If woman asks me why I didn't take his name, I ask her why she took her husband's. If she says it was because she loves him, I tell her that I know a man who took his wife's surname because he loved her.

What happened to Women's Lib!!

[reelingintheyears]

Very good post, OTheHugeWerewolef.

Pause for thought.

[colken]

Zelda, I know what it's like to be shy but you can get married in a Register Office with only two witnesses (apart from the Registrar) present. It doesn't have to be a big family thing.

My sister got married in a Register Office and the two witnesses were passers by from the street outside.

[reelingintheyears]

Rape in marriage is now rape.

And quite right too.

Not to say it doesn't happen and is hard to prove.

But give a thought to what the werewolf said about protection,at least in an historical setting.

[Wamster]

It's hard to prove with any intimate relationship, though, isn't it, reelingintheyears, I dare say a woman in a cohabiting relationship would find it hard to prove, too.

That's another thing: these people who don't wish to marry for historical reasons are quite prepared to cohabit long-term. I don't understand that. 'Socially* they get treated as if they're married.

Protection was a good reason to marry in the past. I can see that.

[reelingintheyears]

Socially i get treated as if i'm in the partnership that i am in.

Not as if i'm 'married'.

In some ways i might as well be married given our situation socially.

I suppose the difference is in my mind and others pick up on that difference.

I wonder why you keep on with the 'Historical' thing when lots of people dont marry because they just don't want to.

Do you think we shouldn't be in long term relationships unless we make a legal commitment?

All rape is hard to prove.

[Wamster]

Where have I said that I think people should only be in long-term relationships if married? I have made it absolutely plain in my opening post that this is not the case. Absolutely made it plain. Saying that I don't understand why historical reasons are valid ones for not getting wed doesn't mean to say that I think all reasons for not getting wed are invalid.

Some people have good reasons for not getting wed, heck, some people just can't be asked, or not even thought about the issue.

All I meant was that does it even matter if married or not when it comes to society?