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 many of the things you mention are to do with weddings, not marriage. Marriage can be private and low cost.

If you work PT or SAH, or step back in WoH in any way after DC and are not married (relative to your DPs’ work/parenting responsibilities), you’re taking a huge, potentially long term personal financial risk. Especially if you don’t have independent financial assets.

If you work PT or SAH, or step back in WoH in any way after DC and are not married (relative to your DPs’ work/parenting responsibilities), you’re taking a huge, potentially long term personal financial risk.

Sorry but this is not necessarily the case. It depends on what financial and other arrangements are put in place. It's perfectly possible for two adults to make their own arrangements that suit them both without being married. Of course not everyone does that and I agree there should be more knowledge/eyes open etc but I don't like being "told" I'm risking myself and my children when it's not the case.

Marriage is clearly not necessary but making choices with a clear understanding of the implications is - and certainly on some of the threads I have seen far too few do.

I married my DH because it is something we both wanted to do and we are very much a team with everything joint. As I get older I am increasingly aware that one of the reasons this works well is that we are both earning similar amounts and contribute more or less equally to house and marriage. Had we not married there would have been some financial drawbacks (such as IHT) but we could each stand on our own two feet. So definitely not necessary.

However, I would think very carefully before giving up my financial security to become a SAHM without some protection. Marriage is one way (and the simplest and cheapest) but there are obviously others.

I am not sure why that is controversial. I don't think anyone is suggesting that marriage guarantees a good relationship or that all women must marry come what may, are they?

Far too many... obviously!

I would btw say the same to a man who was going to give up work.

True, you could be an unmarried SAHP and your partner transfer money and/or assets to you. That would be security too. Doubt it's happening much, but probably sometimes.

It depends on what financial and other arrangements are put in place. It's perfectly possible for two adults to make their own arrangements that suit them both without being married.

Of course. But what guarantee is there that the WP will honour any such 'arrangements' in the event of a split? Because it's not about what happens during the relationship that's the problem, per se (absent abuse, etc). It's what happens in the event of a split that ends up reducing the SAHP's living standard, often landing them on poverty's doorstep, especially if they have no job qualification. Marriage means that (generally speaking) you have some future security in form of assets and pension pots in the event of a split. Cohabiting means you do not.

Would such an 'arrangement' be legally enforceable if it were in contract form? And if you're going to have some legal contract, well then, you may as well get married.

I am not sure why that is controversial. I don't think anyone is suggesting that marriage guarantees a good relationship or that all women must marry come what may, are they?

No. Not one person on this thread has said anything of the kind.

And if you're going to have some legal contract, well then, you may as well get married.

The last time I was on a thread like this, there was a poster who had been happily unmarried with her partner for many years and they were very much in love. Neither of them wanted to get married, fair enough.

But she was sad and annoyed that she wouldn't get IHT exemption, that she would not automatically be assumed to be NOK in various situations, and that in theory, her partner could change his will without telling her. She wanted there to be some sort of legal contract in place where she would get these benefits, but not marriage.

I really wasn't trying to be a dick, but however many times I asked, I absolutely could not bloody understand why she wouldn't get married if she wanted the benefits of marriage. It's not as though she wanted to and her partner was unwilling - she was very adamant that she believed marriage to be patriarchal and outdated. But she wanted a legal contract that was basically the same thing. As far as I could tell, she wanted a duplicate system that was exactly the same, but called something else.

I couldn't see the point.

Perhaps they wanted the option of a civil partnership Yorick?

But to answer an earlier posters question, a properly drawn up cohabitation agreement is enforceable in law just like any other contract.

In this case she didn't because she wanted a contract that could be dissolved over adultery and CPs can't be. Marriage has certain elements that assume it is between two people in a sexual and monogamous relationship (e.g., you can divorce over infidelity and if the other person had a communicable STD when you married).

CPs in essence don't take into account the sexual nature of the relationship, if I understand correctly.

I'd have no objection to CPs for straight people if they wanted them. Marriage is often preferable though, which is why gay rights activists (rightly) weren't happy with CPs alone and wanted same sex marriage to become legalised.

Yes, YABU. Women as well as men men can parent children, work and be financially independent.

goodbyee of course, in some situations the unmarried woman reducing or stopping WoH after will have independent assets. Or the man will transfer assets to her sole name. But in many, many cases this isn’t the case and women are taking a huge risk.

Within 7 years children born out of wedlock will be the majority.

Instead of forcing women into marriages they don't want maybe other options should be considered and brought in- if the situation is so dire.

In my home country, that's already the case. Almost 60% of children are born to unmarried parents. And the country also has a registered partnership available for people who for some reason do not want to get married.

Has not made any difference. The people men who don't want to get married claiming it's just a piece of paper and not needed are no more likely to agree to register a partnership or sign any other cohabitation agreements.

And even after all the recent public discussions when the partnership law was adopted about unmarried partners and their rights, people still think their relationship is different and it will never happen that the financially stronger party won't be fair in case of a break up. Or they still believe they will get some rights by simply living together.

Nobody is forcing anybody to marry here. Some people are simply trying to point out that one should consider the finances and your rights before you take any decisions that benefit the family and your partner, but not necessarily yourself.

Nobody is forcing women into marrying. Not validly consenting is grounds to annul a marriage. If women do not want to marry, they don't have to.

Not surprised to hear that katharina. The only way around this really is automatic attribution of certain rights after a certain period of cohabitation, ie couples are considered legally equivalent to married when they've lived together 3 years or whatever. Which is done in some countries, but in itself it presents two big issues.

The first is that this fucks over people who want to live together and don't want the legal consequences of marriage. They're basically being told if you want to have the freedom to leave your assets to your kids/the dogs home, you lose your right to have a live in partner, because other people either can't or won't make provision for themselves.

And the second is the possibility that people who really don't want to commit to the person they're sleeping with and having kids with (and let's be honest, it would mainly be men) will just ensure they don't move in officially. Always stay on the electoral roll at their mum's and have their bank statements sent there etc.

No good solution here really- all we can do is push education. Which is why these threads have value.

Marriage is clearly not necessary but making choices with a clear understanding of the implications is -

Are there any good books or resources that are child/teen friendly that deal with this for UK based children?

Unfortunately some family members and their friends have odd ideas about legal and financial things which they can be very vocal and stick by vehemently which I have to counter with my own patchy picked up peicemeal knowlegde.

Not child friendy but for your own information, I've seen this link recommended
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Thanks Katharina but I already know that link though I came to find it long after I'd married and it's very useful. I do find it hard to drop the information into everyday life for my three children though.

I’ll try browsing Amazon see if anything pops up.

I remember a book my parents got that was dealing with wills probate and taxes which touched upon marriage implications just before I left home sudden panic to teach me about budgeting - first time it was pointed out there were implications to me.

My DM gave me the Which guide to cohabitation when I was 18

Totally agree with Isa. It's not right to force legal commitment on to people without their active consent. If someone is not married, we should assume that that is their choice. Plenty of women on this thread cohabit and do not wish to be married or have any legal joining of assets. Why should they not be able to do that?

And as well as it being very easy to avoid officially living together, it has awful implications for people who have serial live in relationships. A friend of mine lived with her then boyfriend for three years at uni, when they were both students, and broke up shortly after graduation. Then she lived with someone else. Now she lives with her husband. Should she have some sort of legal entanglement with the two previous boyfriends?

Rather than introduce these things by stealth, we need a system whereby people are assumed not to have consented until they actively do.

The system has to assume people have free will and will look after their own interests. Unfortunately many people don't but that doesn't mean the system needs to or can take over. At some point people need to be accountable for themselves.

People in long term cohabiting relationships often point out, very rightly, that their relationship has lasted longer than a lot of marriages. This is true but it isn't the point. You shouldn't get marital rights/obligations based on how long you've been in love, you should get them based on whether or not you've officially stated that you want them.

As before, lots of people want to cohabit without being married and they should be able to. If my widowed mother had another serious relationship, I know she would want to make sure that her estate passes to me and my siblings.

Some people - usually women - who would benefit from marriage financially and in terms of legal rights etc are not aware of their lack of protection cohabiting. (So excluding those with high wealth, assets etc).

I suspect far more people ARE well aware but are in a relationship with someone who they know or suspect doesn’t wish to marry them and choose to settle for cohabitation and hope for the best. Fair enough, but a big risk, especially if you have DC and then do anything to reduce your personal earning power, eg move locations, go PT, SAH, don’t seek promotion involving longer hours, travel.