Irunlikeahippo - does all that mean he's treated his ex, the mother of his children worse than he's treated you? Financially? Why does he think it's better he had his kids with his ex rather than you? Honestly I'd be embarrassed to post that I was married to a man like that.
Beaverhausen as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only on this thread but other similar ones it's not about happiness, or family it's about where a financially vulnerable woman, especially a mother, would stand when things AREN'T happy, when the shit hits the fan! THAT'S when you find out where you really stand and FAR TOO MANY expect men to behave decently in the event of a split (when things are usually naturally quite acrimonious), which frankly they rarely do! Expect their partners other family to behave decently in the event of his becoming disabled or even more so if he dies. Death in particular can throw up extreme complexities legally and financially and few people are properly prepared. I and many others who I suspect have a fair bit more life experience than you and have seen in real life repeatedly how women get treated in these events, are the ones saying you CANNOT rely on good will at a time when the relationship is going well. It's naive and unrealistic.
"A ring does not stop your DH husband from being a total twat and leaving you on your arse with nothing to take care of his offspring while he starts a new life with someone else." It does stop him from withholding assets you've both contributed to but where there's no formal recognition of this (especially important for sahm which as has been pointed out repeatedly are the most vulnerable), it does make it easier to deal with cms, it does mean for many women that they can't just be instantly evicted from their family home, it does mean the DC are better recognised in law as his children. We may not like that for various reasons but that's the truth.
As for "what has it got to do with you?" I know I'm coming at this from a place of compassion and I think op is too. It's because we DON'T want women wrongly thinking they're protected when they aren't.
"There is much naivety on this thread
I'm actually quite shocked" I've actually read worse on this subject. People believing the most ridiculously astounding things about "common law marriage" and division of assets (eg thinking they can kick their Stbx out of his house that they haven't their name on and no legal claim to), life assurance (that it would automatically pay out to the "common law wife" and DC, even excluding DC from previous relationships even marriages), that if their partner dies intestate they'll still inherit either by being "common law wife" or the mother of his DC. SHOCKING misinformation out there.
"but at the same time I am very very lucky that my DP is an old fashioned man and would pay the bills if we was to split up." Sorry - famous last words spoken by MANY mners who've then found when they did split those words mean zip!! I was married to a man who'd publicly decried men who'd acted poorly following a split, happily told myself and others about how his father (a divorcé when he met his mother) set a good example of staying involved in his older DC's lives, voluntarily paid generous alimony and cm... That same father is now utterly ashamed of how his son has behaved toward me and dd. If we'd not been married he'd have happily walked away without paying me a penny! Marriage meant the finances were sorted fairly at least, unfortunately couldn't make him step up and be a decent parent to dd.
P3ony nobody said it makes those things easier WHILE YOU ARE TOGETHER, but it DOES make it harder to deny assets to the Stbx partner in a split and makes it easier for organisations to know what they're legally bound up do with assets following a death.
"it's all too easy to clean a joint account out, which is why I refuse to have one." Bit more complicated. My ex dos this BUT because we were married he had to pay me my half back (took ages but got it sorted eventually) but if we'd not been married I'd have had to prove I'd given him the cash to put in the account (very difficult).
GunpowderGelatine - well said. My ex was also army when we split. Our being married even though I wasn't the one in the army meant I was given 3 months grace to find somewhere else to live (I hit other issues but that was not the army's fault). While he was still in the army it made it slightly easier to chase him for cm too, because not paying it classed as a debt which is against regs and a disciplinary issue.
"I’d like to invite all of the women who once thought exactly this way, and were 100% sure their DP would NEVER leave them struggling/ disadvantaged, and have since had EXACTLY that happen to them, to please come forward and warn these naive and frankly stupid women!!!" Throughout this and the other related threads I've been debating starting a thread asking exactly that!
"Aibu to ask if you were told/thought your ex would be reasonable in the event of a split...until you DID split?"
I'm 46, out of my group of close/long term friends out of those who've split from a long term partner, the majority of the time the men did NOT behave reasonably (and not all my friends are women and not all the nrps are men). My experience is that the majority of nrps behave APPALLINGLY in the event of a split.
When I first joined mn there was a prolific poster who was (as she herself admitted) initially a "smug married" type - she wasn't married. She'd posted on numerous threads that she truly believed
A - he would never cheat
B - he would behave reasonably if they ever were to split (which she thought HIGHLY unlikely)
He DID cheat, got ow pregnant, left op and basically completely screwed op over! For a good while after she posted her story as a "cautionary tale" very brave of her actually. I hope she and her DC are now doing much better.
P3ony the mother Gunpowder referenced is not in the shit though! She has X years to build up credit/save for a deposit/improve salary while living in the marital home until the youngest is 18, when the house is sold she may get half the proceeds of the sale which will add to those savings, she can use that time to retrain, she doesn't have to stay unskilled. Also your comment on poor forces pay is not strictly accurate - depends on his rank and trade. An officer in a skilled division can be on a good wack actually! Currently a major on step 6 £60k salary. Also pension depends on career trajectory, length of service, contract upon joining etc. Given the narrative it's likely the dh in that scenario joined at a time when pension agreements were actually pretty good. And it's ALL better than not being married and getting a big fat ZERO!
And I can't help think that your posts rather smack of "the lady doth protest too much"
"You are seriously clutching at straws now" yep!
"I've been looking at how to leave and being married makes it that much harder to leave a toxic unsatisfying relationship." Genuine question how? Emotionally I can't see there's a difference. When my ex cheated, once I felt I had enough evidence I knew without a doubt he was gone! Marriage doesn't legally bind you to living with someone if you no longer want to.
Hideandgo - not always possible. Sometimes yes, but not always. Contraceptive failures do happen (unless you want to go right back to no sex before marriage and even when that was supposedly the case, watch a few episodes of heir hunters and who do you think you are? And you'll see it was never really the case). Also sometimes there aren't red flags until it's too sodding late (as in my case. Absolutely no indication of what a twat he'd be after DC. Met at 19, engaged at 21, married at 22. Various issues meant dd didn't show up for another 6 years. So hardly a rush job either)
"But I think it’s super rare that people genuinely don’t understand that there’s no such thing as common law marriage" several fairly recent threads on here where many posters, inc well educated successful women absolutely believed common law marriage was legally recognised.
For women who genuinely don't need the protection, have their own assets etc of course it could make sense for them not to marry. But that's rarely the case especially for younger and working class women and biology means that it tends to be younger women wanting/able to have DC. It's generally older women who've already had DC that are not financially dependent. That's not misogyny that's reality.
"But it would help if they were taught that the world hasn't changed as much as they think it has." HEAR HEAR
We STILL don't have equal pay
We STILL don't have true employment equality
We STILL have women doing the majority of childcare and housework
We STILL have maternity discrimination
We STILL have pension inequality
We STILL have credit inequality
Until we do, or are certainly a LOT closer than we are now, it would be doing our friends, sisters, daughters, nieces etc a disservice NOT to ensure they have the full facts about where they stand if they aren't financially independent (which is often through no fault if their own, especially for working class women there are still MANY barriers to the good careers/pay other than sex), and especially if they have DC and even more so if they choose to go PT or become sahm.
"Some people (men) think that having DC is a big enough commitment" I'd argue they don't really think that, they just say/claim it in order to avoid the commitment that THEY think least benefits them.
Bellendejour - on the contrary, it's not criticising those women it's sympathising with them, and hoping other women not yet in that position avoid ending up in it!
CherryAide - congratulations on the pregnancy. Are you planning to go back to work FT after baby born? Do you both have wills? Although bear in mind either party can change these to exclude the other without their knowledge let alone consent, they can also be contested by other relatives. Life assurance? As for wills, can be changed unilaterally. Plus what BlueLady said.
"but aren't in a position to at the moment." Why do you say that? If you mean you can't afford big white wedding, that's not necessary. You can get married in 3 weeks for less than £200 in most parts of the U.K. As others have put it very well a marriage and a wedding are NOT the same thing. You could always do the "wedding" - white dress big party etc at a later date in whatever form you want.
"If we split up tomorrow we would both be fine in my opinion without a divorce to worry about." You can manage on your maternity pay? Where would you live? Are you absolutely certain he can't kick you out?
PaulDacreRims - exactly! Well off women are likely to be better informed, have more resources etc. It's poor women that are most vulnerable ESPECIALLY if the relationship ends due to death.
Roundaboutthetown doesn't surprise me. I suspect most cohabiting couples have found themselves cohabiting by happenstance almost and not considered the full ramifications. Re mother dying in childbirth (rare but does happen) I think unlikely to go into care, but I can see the possibility of the mothers family applying for and even getting custody. Legally the father has no parental rights.
Matcha - I used to work in the wedding industry. I don't think the industry is completely to blame it's far more imo SM and people especially younger generations focusing too much on "style over substance" in ALL areas of life.
Weddings have stopped being primarily about the marriage and turned into an event where the imagery is seen as more important.
NOBODY is forced to spend a fortune on a wedding that's a personal CHOICE and too many people are trying to claim that's not the case. It's ridiculous. It's perfectly possible to have even a medium sized wedding on quite a small budget. Spending several years EXTREMELY financially vulnerable in order to save for an unnecessarily expensive wedding is illogical.
And yes, as has already been said, people are mistakenly confusing matters with idealised views on love, cohabitation, equality etc.
I had a "big white wedding" in terms of numbers and it was a church wedding. But it was done on a budget with a lot of help from friends and family and creative thinking. Great day, lots of fun - shame the marriage went to shit!
Out of my friends and family funnily enough the ones who've had the simplest weddings (including 2 elopements) have had the longest most successful marriages (which in the case of the elopements is a flipping miracle! As the elopements were due to toxic family on both sides! THATS a lot of pressure on a marriage). The 3 fanciest weddings I've been to the marriages didn't last...one they married the month before I did, they'd split up by the time we got back from honeymoon!! £25k wedding 20+ years ago! Quick look on inflation calculator shows that wedding would cost around £40k now! They'd been together a while too.
"It's about personal choice" - that's all well and good it's the lack of INFORMED choice that is the problem. Too many women are choosing not to marry, to cohabit, to become sahm WITHOUT KNOWING how vulnerable they are or worse, thinking they're protected by non-existent laws! (Common law marriage).
Kickass - completely agree, current cm legislation is woefully inadequate.
"Say the woman has more in assets like in my case I don't want to have to give half to a partner I want to leave it all to my daughter." Which is why myself and others are against bringing in cohabitation laws. Entering into a legal agreement to be tied to another person should be an active choice not a passive one. Plus endless issues with proving veracity of such claims as I said before.
"Marriage doesn’t protect women exclusively.; it protects the less well off partner, be it male or female." Yes but due to a combination of biology and a patriarchal society that's USUALLY the woman.
G5000 absolutely! Thank you! "It'll never happen to me" - ANYTHING can happen. Even IF you take the "bastard" element out of it there's also serious illness, disability and death - all of these can also cause MASSIVE headaches for an unmarried partner to deal with.
"Trust is lovely but legally counts for fuck all." Campaign strap line right there! 