StrippingTheVelvet - no I think there are mners who are naive and unaware of how vulnerable they've made themselves. There's a few on this thread alone and if you look on the relationships board there are many dealing with the repercussions of doing so or who are sleepwalking into such situations.
I've seen posts by mners ADAMANT that "common law marriage" is legally recognised in the uk - usually cos "X told me her brothers friends cousin who's a lawyer told her so"
I've seen posts by mners who think just by having someone's children that entitles them to a claim on the home the family is living in even when they're not married, not on the mortgage/deeds/tenancy and are shocked when they're told they don't.
Who think having someone's children or living together for x amount of time entitles them to rights re their home and even "spousal support"
On this thread there are several examples of mners who think they're covered by wills, being named on life assurance, death in service, pensions etc without being married BUT they're not because their partner can unilaterally and without their knowledge revoke those at any time.
So yes it IS important here as elsewhere that myths are busted.
I've been on threads like this where more than one poster has basically gone
"Shit really?? So if we split I'm screwed?" Outlined their situation and indeed been told "yep you're extremely vulnerable if you split"
Sometimes followed by
"But I thought..." [insert myth]
Then other mners - some of whom are lawyers - come back often with links
"Nope that's got no legal standing"
And the mners that thought they weren't vulnerable clearly panicking.
"It’s disingenuous to demand the rights of a club while refusing to become a member." Totally agree.
Intheheatoflisbon NONE of those things are required by law so NO marriage in itself is no longer any more misogynistic than any other contract one enters into. If people do those things it's their choice, nothing to do with the legal requirements. And the wearing of white to show purity is actually inaccurate - it was originally to show wealth actually.
"And that is still a matter of opinion. Theres examples of it on this very thread. In 2019, women have admitted to receiving better treatment when they say they are a Mrs. That's absolutely outrageous." I was one of those that noted this issue - but it has no bearing legally.
Not marrying while you are or plan to be a sahm dependent on your partner financially "cos patriarchy/misogyny" is cutting your nose off, hypocritical and nonsensical!
"But seriously. I don't think that marriage would protect me at all. yet this thread is full of reasons why it DOES
DP has no assets (other than our jointly owned house) so there is an asset that needs protecting
or death in service benefits, no pension to speak of (my pension will be far better than his) whats the situation with his pension if he dies? If you're 'named' as recipient now I suspect he can unilaterally change that without your knowing
we jointly own the house and have the same amount invested in it. I set up the life insurance policy, so he couldn't change it without my knowledge (it's a joint policy, shock horror they let you have these even if you're not married). I'd genuinely love to know from an expert if this is genuinely possible. Even if it is there's still I would have thought the ability for him to withdraw his consent/agreement with your knowledge - they'd tell you - but neither you nor the insurers can stop him from doing so
"but then that would fall on his parents, who I get on well with and would likely refer back to me any way." My relative who was made homeless by her de facto in laws after her partner died thought she got on well with them too - you cannot predict how people will behave.
"Oh yeah and all our meagre savings are in my name, so no problem there either. If we split I would be in a better position than him (but I wouldn't screw him over, because I'm not a bitch!)" does he want to marry? As for "I wouldn't scree him over" it's less common but there are occasionally threads on the relationship boards posted by people who ARE screwing their ex over, more often seen on other sites - they don't believe they're screwing their ex over they think they're acting fairly and protecting themselves.
It's mostly women that are disadvantaged by being unmarried and having children in that partnership, yes less commonly it can apply to men and to lesbian partners too, but the fact is its mostly women in het relationships, a lot don't know the law or their rights and far too many THINK they're covered by "common law marriage" which does not exist!