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 “?

fish, not fish's. Need more coffee.

PeanutButterSquash Ginandplatonic sorry but that's actual bollocks

It really isn't. De Facto and married couples have the same rights under Family Law if they register their relationship (in States and Territories where that's a thing) OR they cohabit for two years OR they have children. It's simpler to prove a marriage certainly, but the rights are the same.

We should have a system where no-one can walk away from their financial and social responsibility to their child and that child's primary carer regardless of the legal contracts between the parents of the child. Simple.

Every single week this same discussion happens about marriage.

Someone said upthread about the disney ring, no disrespect but marriage is not about one day, a dress and a ring. It is a legal contract where the celebrations have now become ridiculously out of hand.

Read up on legal rights upon marriage before making flippant remarks. No, it will not be suitable for everyone for various reasons but please educate yourself (I'm talking broadly) before you stubbornly decide it is not for you.

Marriage is a legal contract that you should have to sign in front of a witness if you want the rights and protections that come along with it. It should definitely not be something that just happens after a while!

Except that life doesn't always proceed in a nice orderly fashion. People end up in relationships intending one thing and another happens; children are conceived unexpectedly; a partner says they want marriage then drags their feet while the other partner gives them the benefit of the doubt (in the hope that time spent together or fertile years will not have been wasted, perhaps); financial positions change unexpectedly; there are betrayals or doubts; people make choices that are predicated on emotion or hope or fear rather than cool-headed logic.

Relationship protection acts are a backup so that even when people don't make perfect choices, they don't end up disproportionately penalised (which can also tend to affect children, causing a long tail of negative effects). The reality is that relationship property protections generally only come into play when one long-term partner is actively trying to fuck the other one over.

This thread is indeed hilarious and disturbing at the same time!

We should have a system where no-one can walk away from their financial and social responsibility to their child and that child's primary carer regardless of the legal contracts between the parents of the child. Simple.

I couldn't disagree more. Of course parents should be held responsible for their children but I don't think they should be held responsible for another adults financial situation for 18 years or more, just because they had a child/ren together.

If people want financial protection then they can go to the registry office and get married for less than £200, which is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying things for a baby. If people choose not to do that (which should be their choice) then I don't believe the government should be able to force that onto them.

Women are often the vulnerable ones (not always, but mostly) due to maternity leave and the physical effects of pregnancy and I think more people need to be educated on the important of marriage in a relationship where one partner sacrifices their earning potential/pension and future in order to have children.

But it should be a choice.

I don’t really get why unmarried mums give their kids the dads surname either - unless there are plans to marry in the future and so all change to the same surname.

His surname was nicer. But I wouldn't change mine even if we ever married because my name is my name. I 'really don't understand' women who want a proposal and ditch their own name.

As for all the legal protections - there really are not that many.

Gosh a lot of assumptions being made here! I'm not married, two kids with DPs name. I did that as I thought we might get married some day. However it's not something I really want (some days I definitely don't want to marry him - depends on my mood ) however, I live in a country where living together gives pretty much the same protections as marriage so there's no incentive really. I'd hate the rigmarole of divorce if it came to that (very arduous, expensive process here). I'm a child of divorce so a bit cynical about the whole thing and change my mind regularly. I don't think it's always so black and white as some pps suggested.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, marriage doesn't seem terribly attractive for the higher earner/ non primary parent. All the risk is on their side. In fact it's surprising that so many DO agree to do it.

Considering OP's original question i suppose women could refuse to have children with their partner until after marriage. But IME many men aren't bothered about having children anyway.

It's all very well saying that it's social conditioning that marriage/motherhood is seen as a goal for women and less so for men. But doesn't nature have a lot to answer for? I'm generalising here but women seem more likely to have the urge to have children, be the primary carer, and be provided for. So marriage is a desirable state for those women and less so for men...

Relationship protection acts are a backup

I don't want to be forced into having that kind of contract, though, which is what you're suggesting. Some people are much better off unmarried for various reasons and they should be allowed to stay that way without the government forcing them into a contract they have no interest in!

Too many people get swept up in promises and far too many women get themselves into situations where they're pregnant to partners they've only known a week, or whatever.

Obviously life isn't perfect and things happen but that doesn't mean you should be forced into some government contract! If you want the protections that come with marriage then get married!

Only time the kid has the mother's name is if the father is a deadbeat with a restraining order against him and the mother didn't want the kids to have his name

Bizarre sentence. My DCs have my name because they are as much mine as they are their dad's - and we were married! It wasn't a big deal to him, it was to me. And I'm delighted that my gorgeous GS also has his unmarried mum's name. I think the tide is turning - very slowly.

And yes, men need to take responsibility for pregnancy too, but it's naive to suggest that it impacts them just as much as women (physically, let alone financially).

Personally I think having a child with someone is a much bigger commitment than marrying them - but I wouldn't do the former without the latter.

We might have the biological urge to have children but that's not to say we just have them anyway, regardless of our own situations and ability to provide for them. I do think people should think much more carefully about getting pregnant - it's something that changes your life for ever but some people spend more time choosing a toaster than they do thinking about having a baby.

“Marriage cements a lot of legal rights and entitlements unavailable to unmarried couples (where I am) so I can see the reason for wanting marriage after babies. Ironically, a marriage is far more of a legal contract than having a child with someone!”

All the more reason for getting married before having babies, surely?

Excellent posts NewYearNewMe18 and Iwasjustabouttosaythat

“So many men like to keep their options open and their wallet tightly closed.”
I love this ^^ expression.

“Getting married and having a wedding are not the same thing.”

I totally agree. So many bridezillas seem to lose sight of this. Why are you so anti marriage Zampa?

“But hey, let's just make assumptions about unmarried mothers financial situations. It's more fun that way.”

Because in the majority of cases this is exactly what does happen. Well said Helpmeplan

I don't understand. Why wouldn't they have their father's surname? Even if you are defacto and no married, most kids go by the father's surname, even today

Traditionally, children take their mother's surname. In most cases the mother would have been married to the father and therefore had his surname, hence the children getting it as well.

This business of giving the child the father's surname when you're not married is very new. I assume it's because there's an expectation of subsequent marriage?
Seems a bit risky though, if that doesn't happen you're stuck with a different surname as your children.

I always wondered about when you have a baby first then a child free wedding... Seen it twice! That's my most confusing! Or baby first then a wedding on a credit card! Once you have ababy you need to be sensible? We used our savings for our wedding but can't imagine draining my savings for a wedding now I have a baby as I wouldn't want him to miss out so I could have a nice day! Obviously though if they have the money then why not do a royal style wedding with the kids and get hubby to propose! I think the thought would be if you ask he might be guilted into saying yes as you gave him kids rather than him wanting to? Most women don't ask as they want their partner to want to marry them? Don't get the traditional thing though that is confusing!

You need to read
'Promises i can keep. Why poor women put motherhood before marriage.'
www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271463
It's american but same ideas apply in uk.

Oh god not this old chestnut.

I am unmarried, have two children and live with my partner.

Getting married is not on either of our radars atm. That’s ok by be. I own half the house and have my own income.

Oh and we have two autistic children who need all of our spare money to finance their therapy. That’s more important than spending money on a party.

I’ve also changed my surname by deed poll so we all have the same name.

I’m not worried about not getting married in the slightest.

Not rtwholeft yet but I think a lot of women don't initially realise just how important it is. Or they intend to get married at some vague point in the future, have a baby, become financially vulnerable and then discover that their partner doesn't love them enough to give them legal security! No one fully appreciates just how much having a baby can affect career/earning potential etc until they have one.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your partner to want to marry you, man or woman and sometimes people fool themselves rather than face up to the realisation that they don't want to.

I had my first child before I was married, but I gave my baby my name and stayed in work, because you can never be certain how things will work out. I was happy to change things once my dp and I were legally committed to each other, but not before. I am lucky that I was raised by parents who were strongly feminist in many ways.

The baby came first first because of a contraceptive failure.

Because our surnames hyphenated sounds and looks ridiculous, I have no emotional attachment to my surname and as it can be a male first name, DS got it as a middle name.

Because we want to buy a house first. Weddings aren't cheap. I'd happily go to a registry office and get it done but DP wants to "do it properly as we'll only ever do it once".

We've been together 9 years. Whilst marriage has always been our plan, paying for a wedding is low on our priority list.

I am not angling for a proposal, we'll do that when we decide to get married. I do sometimes make jokes that DS will get married before we do 😉

The ones that make me are where the woman can't propose because the man who's had several children with her outside marriage is "traditional".

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.
The legal protection means much more security-it isnt a bit of paper. Having babies before marriage makes women vulnerable. I do think a lot of men see no reason to marry in this case-why buy the cow when the milk is free?
Often these are the same men whom when they separate from their partners go on to get married very quickly. It kind of just says you will do until someone better comes along. Being proposed to is a sign that a man is commited to you for life (doesnt always work but at that time the thought is there), that is why they are upset.
Imo having babies before marriage isnt traditional.

If you both work and have incomes And share assets legally and equally marriage doesn’t offer much

Where it comes into it’s own is for SAHP in the event of a split , from
My research legally that’s the main issue

The children’s law applies regardless of weather you are married or not

I have absolutely zero desire to be traditional or get married. It’s not in my life’s ambitions to follow so called traditions. I do what makes me happy and that doesn’t involve a legally binding contract tying DP and I together thanks.