Women who have children before marriage

[FissionChips]

..but get upset when their partner does not want to/ has not asked to marry them , yet still insist they are too traditional to even contemplate asking their dp to marry them or just discussing it like adults.

I dont get it. Most of the complaining women give the child their partners surname as well which isn’t even traditional if the parents are not married. They live together for years. They are in no way following tradition.
AIBU to not understand why they lie about being “traditional “?

@Mummy2017

I am Sat here shaking my head....A wedding ring won't stop a man leaving because he is unhappy....Nor is it a chain to lock him in.... It's your choice how you do it....

You'd be shocked how many women just don't wish to marry their partner simply they are happy as they are and have children because they do so as an expression of that love...

Isn't saying no children before marriage selling your reproduction a form of currency....

There's a name for that....

And what name is THAT then?

Don't be shy. Do say what you mean.

Got a stick up yer bum about your man not putting a ring on yer wee finger eh?

@toearlyfordecorations

HOW many times do I have to hear the story of a couple that split up after years together and the guy is married a few months later to somebody else ?

I know a number of people who this has happened to. They were obviously not happy with the first person and were waiting for someone better.

A couple could be together for ages, have kids, house etc but both are still single ? What's that about ?

I know. Most odd. Being together many years and having kids and all but never getting married. Very odd.

Who's hedging their bets her or him ? Probably him! When a couple are together many years and not married, it's almost ALWAYS the man's choice to not get married. Very rare it's the woman's.

Oh my god you guys are all actually a bunch of small minded ladies. Why are you even so bothered and belittling other women's choices? Surely your lives are so perfect in your little high towers with your shiny wedding bands, so just move on, you nasty little girls.

Fucking hell. What's your problem? Hit a raw nerve have we??????????????????????

As for the saying some have come out with:

Not getting married coz it cost too much ......

This is a sentence usually uttered by a woman whose man won't
marry her.

Their marriage certificate is going to be worth an awful lot less than the protection many unmarried couples have. Both come in all shapes and sizes

Married people will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have more protection and rights than co-habiting couples. In the eyes of the law, you have no more of a right to your boyfriend/flatmates assets than his pet hamster.

@PoorYorick

Does anyone alive today truly think that married women are legally owned by their husbands? That they can't earn their own money, buy their own property or leave the house without permission? Do you guys really think my husband can legally stop me doing anything I want just because we're married?

By some of the daft shit some people have posted on here, some people probably are bonkers enough to think this!

Not everyone wants to be married, can afford it"

My civil marriage cost me £120. Children are significantly more expensive than a marriage

or prefer to spend their money on fun things like holidays instead of an expensive dress they will only wear once

You're confusing a marriage with a wedding

You can spend your money on whatever you like. Marry, don't marry - your choice. But it's prudent to do so being fully cognisant of your legal and financial position.

If you are in any way financially vulnerable and don't put in place a legal cohabitation agreement, if you're adamant you don't want to marry, I'd be curious to understand why.

Because some people get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

I didn't need a marriage ceremony to prove that. DH and I could have continued to love each other and want to spend the rest of our lives together without getting married. But we wanted the legal recognition of our union, hence why we got married

The contract changed our legal status. It didn't change our relationship with each other.

Oh my god you guys are all actually a bunch of small minded ladies. Why are you even so bothered and belittling other women's choices? Surely your lives are so perfect in your little high towers with your shiny wedding bands, so just move on, you nasty little girls.

Get married or don't get married - entirely your choice

I don't judge anyone for their choices

I do find it baffling why anyone would not choose to secure their legal and financial position by whatever means possible, to protect their children. For a minority of women this will be specifically by NOT getting married. But most women will benefit legally and financially from marriage in the event of separation or death (newsflash, it's a cast iron guarantee at least one of those will happen)

If you are opposed to marriage, then it makes no sense to me NOT to get a cohabitation agreement in place.

I think it's sad when people don't consider their position until it's too late. But, their choice

Having a child together and bringing it up, is a much bigger commitment than marriage. I have no issue with having a child first, or not marrying at all. Or choosing to marry. It could be very wise to see what kind of a father they are before you marry.
It's really no ones business.

This thread reeks of married women feeling some sort of superiority for having a ring on their finger, for snaring a man. With divorce rates as high as they are in the UK, chances are nearky one in two of married couples will have more than one ring in their lifetime so press pause on any feelings of superiority.

lemurinthesun i agree completely. It's not always an active choice. I met dp in my mid 30s. He was keen to get married early on, but being a cautious person and freshly out of another relationship, i didn't. Fast forward a couple of years and he wasnt as bothered by marriage as we were living together and a family rift meant a wedding would be awkward, whilst i wanted to start a family more than marriage. Naive possibly, but as mentioned by pp, I've never wanted to throw away a good relationship and chance of children to look for someone else purely to get married. We now have 2dc and i have taken a career hit (although feel lucky we can afford for me to work less). Financially we have wills, joint deeds on the house, nominated pensions etc. I know this doesnt cover all bases but is some protection in the event of death/ separation.

In answer to op - i do see myself as quite traditional but a sequence of circumstances mean I'm not in a 'traditional' set up. People may not want to explain their personal circumstances to you so to say they dont want to propose may be an easy way out from your judgement.

With divorce rates as high as they are in the UK, chances are nearky one in two of married couples will have more than one ring in their lifetime so press pause on any feelings of superiority.

No.

Firstly, cohabiting couples with kids are substantially more likely to split at every stage than married couples with kids.

Secondly, the divorce rate has fallen quite a lot and the one-in-two figure is massively outdated.

Thirdly, the biggest point that people keep trying to make here (again and again) is that IF YOU SPLIT, the economically weaker partner is better off if they are legally married not cohabiting.

It's nothing to do with superiority complexes. It's just that we KEEP seeing the same bloody awful stories on the Relationships board and elsewhere (women who scaled back their careers to play the domestic role and then their partners left them, with no assets or pension) and it's sad and exhausting and frustrating when you see the same thing happening again and again to women.

This thread reeks of married women feeling some sort of superiority for having a ring on their finger, for snaring a man. With divorce rates as high as they are in the UK, chances are nearky one in two of married couples will have more than one ring in their lifetime so press pause on any feelings of superiority.

My partnership with my husband is no more or less firm by virtue of being married.

Marriage. Is. A. Contract.

Being married or not unmarried has nothing to do with 'snaring' a man. It's simply a means of gaining legal recognition and the rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with that.

It's precisely for the reason that relationships DO break up that having legal provision for if / when a relationship breaks down is so important.

Marriage is the simplest way of doing so for MOST couples with children, where the woman is likely to be the more financially vulnerable partner

You can also access some of these without getting married via a legal cohabitation agreement.

It's sensible to have wills, life insurance and either a marriage certificate or a cohabitation agreement. But anyone's choice not to

Someone who takes out home insurance isn't superior to someone who doesn't. But one person will be able to make a claim if the house burns down and one won't

@Tortycat a legal cohabitation agreement will offer additional protection over and above joint deeds and wills

Why a cohabitation agreement is essential for non-married couples

I have no objection to allowing straight couples to have civil partnerships, or indeed inventing a "sparkly unicorn" partnership concept which is exactly like marriage but called something else.

However, being realistic, neither of these options will go far towards solving the problem. Because the commonest reason for cohabiting parent couples is that you most often have a) a bloke who doesn't reeeeeaaaalllly (when all is said and done) want to make a commitment, and b) a woman who has gone ahead and got pregnant with the non-committed man in question.

The same non-committed Peter Pans who won't marry the mothers of their children will also refuse to get civil partnered or Sparkly Unicorn partnered. They don't want the commitment, no matter what it's called.

(Yes, I am aware that in a minority of cases, women are better served by not getting married either and this is a conscious choice. I am not talking about them, particularly. But most cohabiting parent couples fall into the above category.)

If a woman really wants to protect herself AND her children, she MUST get married to their father. If he won't marry you, don't have children with him for fuck's sake!

Must? Lmao. No
It was my idea to not marry. I have no desire for the piece of paper. Where i am im covered by defacto laws
Dd even has his last name cos my name will not be continued on due to my past, my choice again.
Since i dont and never have wanted marriage, should i have aborted dd since i never intended to marry?

All a woman needs to protect herself is the ability to work. I have known a few people who only stayed together cos divorce was too expensive also

Marriage is a choice, never a MUST

Do you guys really think my husband can legally stop me doing anything I want just because we're married
Depends, you wouldnt be able to get a tubal without his involvement at the very least, unless you lie to the dr and say your not married.

I’ve been married (and divorced). I have no interest in doing so again.

My DS has my partner’s surname because why shouldn’t he? And when he was born I still had my married name... why would my DS want that?

There have been some interesting opinions on here.

I think it’s a shame that people put off marriage waiting for a big ring, a day that costs the same as a house deposit etc. Surely ‘making it official’ and special between the two of you is more important than cost, having a ball etc. There’s also - as has been mentioned, the protection for the mother and hence children through legalities etc.

However it may be easy for me to say that as I had my ‘big day’. If I couldn’t have though I would have happily worn a chic white skirt suit to the local registry office.

Despite all advances in this modern age it seems funny people still prioritise the ‘event’ rather than the meaning.

Also @NewYearNewMe18 your comments on 1st page are bang on!

Im in that position you speak of. I'll give a few reasons not that i need to justify myself.

1. We were presented with the conundrum of kids or marriage first. Time was getting on so we decided kids. Im glad i did. It took 2 years to concieve our baby. The older i get the lower the chances of that happening gets.

1. I never had my fathers surname growing up. My mum did marry but then my surname changed, and what a pain in the arse that was. I didnt want that for my baby so they have their dads name. Far easier to change mine once im married than it is theirs. This was also something we considered prior to making the decision.

1. Im not religious so didnt feel the need to 'have' to do it before children.

1. Legally im covered as far as share of house etc. Again theres no rush.

1. It would be nice to gave our children there. Again not religious so this would be a nice aspect.

1. We do want to get married. We do want to share our life together in that way, as well as the many legal benifits and securities it offers over and above what we have just now. It will be on our terms when it happens .

@squeekums how have you protected your ability to work if your or your child's health declines to an extent where you can no longer stay in employment?

What a twatty conversation. What other people do and how they feel is of no concern for you and you do not know how they feel. Many people do not have work place benefits in this new gig economy but have taken out their own insurances and wills. I know a couple who have been together a very long time, buying a house together, having children and running a business together means they have made more of a commitment than a housewife who depends on a man are for money and does not need marriage for self esteem or to feel worthy. They prefer to plough everything into business which is building their future. Divorce is easy, so marriage means nothing to some women who are on their 3rd, have never worked and use it and their children to build their wealth, own property and secure their future without ever having a job. A man's surname for children means less chance of it being disputed iro child maintenance payments esp if they were secretly playing about. Feminism now is not about getting an equal job and pay as a man, it is about thinking women superior.

Maybe I'm wrong or old fashioned. I had my first DC before we were married. To me having kids is a greater and lifelong no questions contract at least to the child if not one another
My dh wasn't bothered about marriage having seen his own parents implode when he was 20ish (interesting to note his parents were together for his entire childhood though)
I wanted to get married because a) I wanted us all to have the same family name and b) i felt it gave me greater security should things go wrong (which no one wishes to consider of course!) and c) I am proud that we all have this legal official tie as a family - ok yes that's old fashioned but it gave me security I guess

Maybe I'm wrong or old fashioned. I had my first DC before we were married

Having DC before marriage is not old fashioned.

@chavtasticfirebanger * I really dislike children having different surnames to mums. At least double barrell it.
Most women in this position would deep down like a proposal i think. To be good enough to raise a mans kids but not to marry is quite frankly insulting.*
See your argument fails a bit - my good friend was married had 2 DC and DH left her. She's now remarried. New DH wants her to take his name. She doesn't want to change her name as her DC share it. But if she has new DC and they take new DH name then what?
So your argument is tosh

@LifeBeginsAtGin * Marriage is a serious legal contract that needs to be entered into willingly by both parties.

Surely bringing children into the world is more serious?

You can walk away from a marriage but you cant walk away from children.*

Yes in spades

Well I'm expecting my 2nd with my Partner of 3 years (My baby girl is 9mths now) - We don't live together - but equally responsible parents and have a great relationship -?

Channing but surely the existing kids wouldnt have the new dp's surname? So all kids would have different surnames of different dads. Thats why i said i dont agree with stepfamilies as not fair on current kids. Not tosh to argue that your kids should keep your surname-at least theyd all be the same.

*I think it’s a shame that people put off marriage waiting for a big ring, a day that costs the same as a house deposit etc. Surely ‘making it official’ and special between the two of you is more important than cost, having a ball etc. There’s also - as has been mentioned, the protection for the mother and hence children through legalities etc.

However it may be easy for me to say that as I had my ‘big day’. If I couldn’t have though I would have happily worn a chic white skirt suit to the local registry office*

OK but you can still have both!!

I did it. Several friends did it.

Scenario A: you want to have a child and would like to get married, but can't afford a wedding yet, but don't want to delay TTC. You are lucky enough to conceive and have a baby aged 30. And then have a lovely 'big day' wedding ceremony and party with a white dress etc when you're 37

Scenario B: you want to have a child and would like to get may, but can't afford a wedding yet, but don't want to delay TTC. You are lucky enough to conceive and nip down to the registry office to sign a marriage contract before baby is born when you're 30 and then have a lovely 'big day' wedding ceremony and party with a white dress etc when you're 37

What's the difference between these two scenarios except that in scenario B the legal protection is in place to protect the economically weaker partner from the minute the baby is born.

Friends did this.

I had a separate civil marriage and wedding (sadly we couldn't have kids but there you go)

Why does it have to be an either or, if you want both - you can still have both, but at different times

We have double - barrelled surnames for our LO's - ?

Exactly tally- say your kids are taylor smith, then you getva new partner called green
So new kids are taylor green.
At least the kids are both linked by tatlor instead of smith and green.