AIBU to tell women to get married before they have babies

[NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1]

This forum is absolutely full up of the following stories, repeated on a loop

Woman falls in love with selfish twunt (doesn't realise at this stage he is a selfish twunt)
Woman is persuaded to move into the home selfish twunt owns, or is persuaded to by a house but only in selfish twunts name because (insert excuse here)
Woman suffers "contraceptive failure"
Woman gives up her job to look after children.
Twunt has got her exactly where he wants her - now he can fuck other women without any fear of financial loss

I am so so saddened to keep reading these threads on here time and time again.

Women - protect yourself. There is a reason why a man won't marry you AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE'S OLD FASHIONED.

Foxjar anyone can have children with whoever they like. However, with some basic education at secondary level regarding the legal rights of people who marry or don't marry with children- they could then make an informed decision before reproducing. They could then enter a similar relationship to you, fully aware how few rights they have, compared to married friends. They would not, As now , believe (as many still do) that common law marriage is a thing. My issue is the lack of common knowledge on the subject.

As the close friend of someone who lost her home after 25 yr relationship and 4 kids, when her 'trustworthy, loyal, loving ' married his 26 yr old girlfriend 11 Weeks after meeting on a business trip - you will understand why I think if he doesn't love you enough to marry you, then don't kid yourself he'll look after your welfare if it's not legally required.

No Isa, I didn't sign anything and the cards were taken out behind my back in his name using a different address that I'd never lived at (his parents'). I didn't know the cards or the debt existed but apparently was jointly liable as his wife. I consulted a second solicitor because I didn't believe my first but yes, apparently that bit of paper (marriage cert) really did me no favours at all. Happily, I got my babies and they'd have been worth 100x the debt. That's the best (and only!) way to look at it. Otherwise I get angry and bitter and it's not worth that kind of energy!

Your friend kittens could have arranged a deed of trust over the house in which she was living. She did not need to get married

YANBU. It's good advice. I would say the same to any of my friends considering having a baby. Marriage is at its heart a legal institution design to protect the rights of domestic partners. If you feel ready to commit to to social aspects of marriage re loving each other forever blah blah blah (why are you thinking about having children with this person?!!!) you can just go to the registry and not tell anyone. To not get married is to put yourself in an unnecessarily vulnerable position.

I did get married!

Now I have to pay for the bloody divorce. And he manages to avoid paying child maintenance very well!

People make plenty of mistakes with who they marry too...lots of women and men simply have bad taste in partners. I've been there before but I never got pregnant from him because I knew he'd be a terrible father and I'd be stuck with a permanent link to him and his family.

My personal preference has always been to get married and conceive in wedlock which is what I've done. It's just how I was raised.

I do think though that if you want to get married and the other person is an excuse machine about not doing it then you need to part ways. When two people both want it they usually know early on and make it happen, sure life can slow down the process at times of getting married but it's the wanting it and starting to put a plan into action part that's most telling imo.

Actually Kitten I was the one who didn't want to get married. We both have parents in their seventies who married as teens. We know what commitment is and know a good partner when we see one. I didn't see the need of going through a service that makes me(and him)cringe or having a piece of paper to keep us together. We got engaged years ago( that was bad enough),then I got pregnant unexpectedly and was mighty glad I could cancel the wedding we had started to plan. The whole thing felt false and going through the motions just to keep everybody else happy. We never got round to actually doing it. Always far more important things to focus on and fund. I really don't like the idea,it fills me with dread. Have never been to a wedding that didn't feel a tad false and staged. Just not my thing. I'm not a showy person. Even standing up in front of just one person re my private relationship feels icky. I love him,he knows that,that is all I care about. That isn't to say I'll never do it but if I do it will be when we're good and ready and how both of us want it done. Maybe a very very tiny we made it recognition type thing just the 5 of us when we get to 30 years.

I've seen several marriages end during our 28 years of life together.If dp had a personality transplant and legged it it would be shit but I'd survive. I certainly don't earn megabucks. If he dies I'm provided for.Not hard to set up unmarried.

And sorry I don't want my dd focusing on finding a partner who will provide for her. Yes both parents need to provide for their children but ultimately both parents need to provide for themselves and their family as a whole.

There are more unmarried couples than married now. Marriage is dying out. Ultimately laws will need to be changed to acknowledge this.

Thanks m4mmy. If you're in England and Wales, which you may not be, the mere fact of being married to someone doesn't in itself make you liable for their debts. Has to be something else too which I expect is what the solicitor meant. I'm guessing they were joint debts which you ended up liable for the whole of once he went bankrupt (which can happen with anyone you have joint debts with, spouse or not)? Or it can come out of the asset pot at divorce, or with something like eg council tax arrears you're both jointly and severally liable- the latter is also true if you're not married. Although doesn't sound like that's what happened here.

But you can eg own nothing jointly and have no joint debts with a spouse and they owe debts which are nothing to do with you, catalogues or credit cards, and you'd have no liability.

Also, marriage rates in the UK are increasing. They went down in 2013 then up again in 2014 which seems to be the most recent data. I've a feeling they're decreasing amongst the native British population but other groups who engage in marriage more are becoming larger proportions of the population.

Yes both parents need to provide for their children but ultimately both parents need to provide for themselves and their family as a whole.

Nobody disputes this. But women are much more likely to be making a non monetary provision that affects their financial situation long term. If that's the case, it is likely that being married will better secure her a fair share of the assets which she jointly acquired.

Not always, obviously, but in enough cases for marriage not to become obsolete any time soon. Once again (urgh, how many times do we need to say it?), nobody on the thread has suggested women seek out rich men to marry and make no effort to earn money or stay employed after kids.

Foxjar If he dies I'm provided for. Not hard to set up unmarried

Great. But how many of the "We can't afford a wedding/Don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" people have consulted a solicitor and done the same?
Very few, I imagine.

But how many of the "We can't afford a wedding/Don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" people have consulted a solicitor and done the same?

That's exactly it. I remember when our Family Law professor asked, if people think marriage is necessary. No, outdated, no need, you can organise all this by different means etc, said people. He then asked how many people who had joint households with their partner had actually done anything like that - not a single hand was raised. And that's people who were aware of the implications and didn't assume they will get any rights being common-law spouses.

And that's people who were aware of the implications and didn't assume they will get any rights being common-law spouses.

Given that common law spouses don't exist in the UK, it would be astonishing if they did!

They still do in some pension schemes

That's a term they would use and define within the scheme contract itself; it is not a statutory legal term or status. You cannot be a legal spouse of any kind unless you are married.

No not usually defined . We would ask for proof of financial interdependence though

Hi Isa. No, not in England or Wales - which might be the difference. We were married and had joint mortgages and a joint current account. I didn't have anything else by way of cards or accounts or anything like that and as far as I knew, neither did he. But he'd taken out the cards and paid for things like our new boiler/DC's Christmas gifts using them, meanwhile lifting cash from the joint current account to spend on himself. He'd done the same with our (/his/the family) car... Got a loan in his name and lifted our entire savings for himself. Obviously I didn't question it because not knowing about his secret spending, as far as I was concerned, we were living well within our means and paying out way as we went along. When it came to the divorce, he argued that debts were joint as all credit card purchases could be proved to be for us/the family, not him. Makes me really want to swear!!

I think the thing is, you have to trust. It's right to trust because if you don't, what's the point? It can go wrong though, in situations where the person you love has no morals, no conscience and is a complete... I don't even know a bad enough word!!

Like I say, I've got my babies and they're worth the world.

Ah right ok. I'm only England and Wales qualified so that explains the discrepancy. No idea how things might work elsewhere. I know that eg common law marriage is an actual thing in some jurisdictions.

My daughter has told me she will not get married, unless she meets a millionaire, then she might consider it. She's funny. I wish I'd had her brains.

At 54 I've known enough women who've been dumped by men who said marriage wasn't important but yet then went on to marry the OW.

What makes me raise a brow is women who are with a man, they have kids but aren't married, then speak as if they've done something "out there" and edgy. No - you haven't. You're just doing all a wife does but with no legal protection. That's it.

Relationships board I find is always a reminder of reality regarding common law wife (I know that such a thing doesn't exist really) and relationship breakdowns where advice is sought, as if married. I don't get that - if you aren't married why assume marital rights will relate to you?

Women - protect yourself. There is a reason why a man won't marry you AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE'S OLD FASHIONED

I don't think this is bad advice at all. Better than "Don't" get married. Or hope for it "one day". Marriage doesn't have to be a goal for every woman at all. But handing a man all the cards as it were, when in a LTR isn't the way

Some posters are obviously not understanding that sometimes its the woman who holds all the cards, in which case it is very foolish to get married. Only marry up, otherwise don't bother.

It's not about 'get married first' per se. It's about knowing your legal and financial position, about going into any relationship with eyes wide open. It's about making an informed decision.

If a couple decides that one member will be a SAHP, that's fine and good. As long as the SAHP understands the ramifications of the decision as far as pension, income, etc in a worst case scenario.

Of course marriage doesn't guarantee that the SAHP will end up with sufficient income/resources in the event the relationship ends. But it does give some legal protection AND at least the SAHP will have made an informed decision based on the law.

Not married = Earning partner can simply walk away with all of their income, pensions, and assets in tact. No legal (or very little) recourse other than child maintenance.

Married = Earning partner can't simply walk away with all of their income, pensions, and assets in tact as the court will decide what's 'fair'. Assets are/may be considered joint even if held in one name.

If I were to be a SAHP, I know which option I'd choose. It's still a gamble, but the odds are better.

Only marry up, otherwise don't bother

While I agree that women who have more to lose financially should make their own decisions about marriage, the phrase “marry up” makes me cringe. It smacks of money grabbing, and seems very old fashioned.

the phrase “marry up” makes me cringe. It smacks of money grabbing, and seems very old fashioned.

It's utterly ridiculous, completely illogical (50% of people who marry wouldn't be doing it) and doesn't always go where you plan it anyway. When we married, I had a bigger existing pot of money, but my husband now earns significantly more than I do and has a much larger pension.

‘All women marry beneath themselves.’ Oscar Wilde