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 “?

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

But plenty do!!!! Just look at the legal/divorce & separation/relationship boards. It happens every day. At least I you're married and literally left holding the baby, they can't fuck off with all the assets.

chavtastic - I agree - also because we are not married so if my surname does change to just his (no plans!), we can also do the same for our LO's - but I quite like the double-barreled -

Plus, it's only a name - my daughter will eventually change hers!?

Loving parents, supportive family, settled life...the only thing that really matters!

At least I you're married and literally left holding the baby, they can't fuck off with all the assets

There really is no guarantee of this.

If your stbexh/w decides to play hardball they can drag you through the courts and mess around so the matrimonial assets get so depleted that they offer you less than you would have got if you hadn't been married and you know you have to accept otherwise there could be no assets left

Kokishi- and you have evidence across the nation for that rather unpleasant mysoginistic view do you?

It isn't reality around my parts at all. Us unmarried mothers aren't sad women desperate for a ring. If I wanted different things to my dp we wouldn't be together which is why I guess the divorce rate is so high. All these alleged men who have been forced into marriage will still feel the same. Lmao at the assumption that if you stamp your feet and demand a wedding you'll sail off into the sunset. Who on earth would put themselves or more importantly their children through a messy divorce?If you want different things to your dp your relationship is far less likely to survive. Ring or no ring. Take advice from a longtimer. If you want your relationship to survive the long haul you need common goals,values,committment,strength through the rough times and yes real love( not hearty flowers type love but real love). What you don't need is a wedding. Bulldozing either party into a wedding they don't want is a recipe for disaster. Focus on finding the right partner and not getting a ring on your finger.

@toomanytealights

Do you accept that some individuals are better off married rather than cohabiting?

I think once you get your head round the fact it doesn't matter if you have never had a job your name can still go on a mortgage with your DPS and you can then be put on the deeds as 50/50 owners. The fact that you can still be considered next of kin and be beneficiary of the partners pension and will. That you can still claim child support if there are children. There really isn't much protection marriage can offer.

Out of our friends of the past 30 years only 2 couples who got married are still together. I know 2 couples who's marriages only lasted 10 days and 14 days after years of going out but not living togethet. The rest only 2 couples who weren't married have split. I probably know off hand at least 10 couples who are long term living together. Of those both partners aren't fussed about marriage. At least 5 of them the man has asked but the woman said no.

It's expensive to live these days and buy a house, weddings seem an experience that doesn't take a high priority, when you're saving for a deposit.

Back in my day it was so much easier to buy a reasonably decent house and get married. It's not the case any more.

I got married before having kids because I wanted us all to have the same name, looking at how expensive it is these days, I can see why marriage is put on the back burner.

Is it also acceptable not to live together? We have been together for 3 years, have a 9mth old and another on the way - no plans of cohabiting or marriage - things work just fine for us right now? I actually enjoy the time just concentrating everything on my LO - see each other everyday (we live 20 mins apart) - our roles might be different, but we're equally balanced as parents?

Our relationship may be 'unconventional', but it works for us right now - everyone's happy and settled - ?

ToomanytealightsI'm confused. Why was my post misogynistic? I referred to Peter Pan men who didn't want to commit-I can see how some men might be cross about that, but am genuinely puzzled as to why it would be seen as misogynistic.

Who on earth would put themselves or more importantly their children through a messy divorce

As has been repeatedly pointed out, cohabiting parents are much more likely to split than married ones.

Divorces don't have to be messy, but the reason why they typically involve some legal back-and-forth is because legal and financial protection is being worked out-that's kind of the whole point of marriage. When a cohabiting couple without a cohabiting agreement splits, it's simpler, sure-because typically, the richer partner "simply" walks away and the poorer partner "simply" gets left without assets or a pension. If they do have a cohabiting agreement, the splitting process is likely to involve as much legal back-and-forth as a divorce.

Squeekums, if you're in a state with de facto recognition, are you and your partner not basically considered married anyway in terms of the legal and financial aspects? I was under the impression that was how it usually worked. If so, I can see why marriage might not seem very relevant, but do bear in mind you're primarily addressing a group of people where the legal situation is very different. Apologies if I have got this wrong and your position is more analogous to that of unmarried couples in the UK.

Also

Marriage

Is

Not

The

Same

As

A

Wedding

Repeated here, very very slowly, because some people seem to have tremendous difficulty grasping this fact.

Yes @oliver, if, if, if... There are no guarantees and there are all too many cunty men around who will do exactly what you say. Nothing is guaranteed. It’s about mitigation.

And @tealights, you are still focussing on the relationship. Sorry to be a bit less fluffy, but it’s just a contract. If you’re in a shit relationship it will probably go tits up regardless. Marriage offers some legal protection to the more financially vulnerable partner a lot (most?) of the time.

Obviously the ideal is:

1. get a fucking fantastic job and be stinking rich on your own.
2. Employ an amazing nanny or have your parents living round the corner to do childcare
3. be with a lovely man who won’t ever leave you high and dry
4. live happily ever after

But, let’s be honest, many women do none of the above. So, for those women, there is some protection if they get married. There’s no guarantee, but that’s not the point. The point is, marriage is a cheap and easy way to get some more legal protection.

You seem very emotionally invested in this and very resistant to saying there is anything right with marriage, which suggests to me that you have stronger prejudices than any of the pro-marriage folk.

But @MrsDilber marriage costs less than £200. It's the fancy parties that everyone insists on having that cost a fortune.

Too many people are concerned about having a big white wedding than they are about being legally protected if it all goes wrong.

But Mrs D fgetting married these days is not expensive for lots of people - locao registry office or our 33 guests church wedding on a week day. it is only people who are very materialistic or have the money who choose to have a more expensive marriage.

The divorced women with children all wish they never got married. All thought like the smug marrieds on this thread that it offered protection but when it got down to it the protection was only there if the ex wasn't a complete vindictive a*hole and even the loveliest dhs who had set off on the divorce route with the vision of not dragging things through the court ended up running off into the sunset after dragging the exw through the courts to the extent that if the exw hadn't agreed on a lesser sum there wouldn't have been any money left The only people to come out of the split with any money were the lawyers.

As for child support or spousal maintenance. That is met with derision.
Most are owed tens of thousands but have never seen a penny. The cost to drag the ex through the courts costs more money than it is worth.

I have a friend who after totting up the cost of the wedding and the divorce worked out that being married had cost her £1000 per month.
And she was the one who hadn't even hired a divorce lawyer. She did her divorce herself.

I don't understand what about these relationship breakdowns would have been easier to manage if people weren't married? Which element is it that would have been cheaper?

If your friends had partnered with arseholes olivers, if there were no divorce proceedings, those arseholes would have taken their chance to cause extremely expensive trouble in the proceedings relating to the children instead. That's what arseholes who want to punish the other partner for ending the relationship do. If you have children and/or any assets with someone, you take the risk of them dragging you through the courts.

It is true that the person with more assets has more to lose in that respect from marriage. Your friends have probably lost out in that respect. But then, as the divorce rate is well under 50% and thus a married couple's relationship is more likely to end with death of one partner than divorce, perhaps they considered the odds and decided marriage was the better bet.

Suspect those forced into a marriage they didn't want are the most vindictive.

Atkins why do you need to be stinking rich? I managed all on those list as have most of my friends.

Getting a job that is just fine and supports you is possible for the vast maj of women.

Children grow up,childcare isn't forever. It goes very quick. Why is the woman responsible for all the childcare?

@toomanytealights

I'll ask again, you able to accept that some individuals are better off being married than cohabiting?

People who are actually victims of forced marriage don't tend to be vindictive. They tend to be terrified.

@Sunshinegirl82 You don't have to be married to have a messy separation: both own property, she's stayed home to look after the kids whilst his career flourished. He has a great pension/she has nothing.

@lifebeginsatgin

I know! That's the point I'm trying to make!

oliversmumsarmy tealights - yes to all this

sunshinegirl - marriage is a contract but it doesn't mean that it is the best contract for everyone nor that it covers all eventualities. It's dumb to assume that defacto marriages confer rights that they do not but it is equally dumb to assume that a marriage certificate is a one stop legal shop. Both I and others, have pointed out a number of areas where the contractual obligations of a marriage are misunderstood (inheritance without a will, parental responsibility, pensions, next of kin) or where benefits/legislation have moved on to change the position or make it less beneficial (bereavement benefits).

And as for the notion that you are only ok not married if you have some job earning stratospheric wages or have parental support... that's just not true. You just need to be self sufficient and get a normal job. That's the same if you are married or not. Let's not perpetuate any Cinderella myths here. Marriage is not about opting out of responsibility for your own life.

And I think this is the rub ... the key thing here is NEVER rely on a man to support you long term. Look after your job/career and investments as anyone can end up single again...

@Oliversmumsarmy do you think it's sensible for a cohabiting couple with children, who don't wish to marry, to have a legal cohabitation agreement in place, in addition to wills and life insurance?

If not, why not?

If yes, how many of your friends who are unmarried with children have one, that you're aware?

Sorry Sunshine@ trying to read thread and get kids ready