Marriage vs living together (breaking the wealth taboo!)

[Elderflowerasusualthxs]

This follows from another thread started earlier just a few days ago and related to women who have v wealthy men by their side. I would like to know what's your real opinion when...

A) Women legally married (wife) with a wealthy man.
B) Women living together (partner) with a wealthy man but they have kids.

I know people in one or the other situation but for the sake of your future security and that of your children I'm sure marriage beats partnership and if people want the rights of married couples, then get married.
Would you be willing to accept to be the partner of a wealthy man if they don't want to marry? I know some mums living long term with partners, who won’t get married for various reasons and I respect it but I think is a mistake. A child means you are committed to the child, not necessarily to each other.
Aibu to consider that cohabitation/ living together does not have the same importance as being married, particularly when the man is the affluent and the woman depends entirely on him? Just another point of view.

Not being married if you have children and are financially dependent on your partner leaves you very vulnerable, should anything go wrong. It's a very personal choice and many men wouldn't leave their children or the woman that raised them in poverty so it's not a universal black and white rule but I don't think that one half of the partnership being wealthy makes much difference actually. It's being dependent that creates the vulnerability, not the wealth.

I would not live with someone that I am not married to.

Also it leaves the person with the least money very vulnerable. Not only women but mainly women, especially when children are involved.

I think unless the woman has independent means, having children whilst unmarried is stupid. It's not so bad if you make sure you have rights to the house, assets etc through costly complicated legal documents. It's silly though when marriage is cheaper and covers a raft of legal documents that you would otherwise need to have, to form the basis of some protection.

If a woman plans to be a sahm then she is silly not to have got married first. Yes children happen but get married in that situation before giving birth. Don't get strung along saying we are saving/waiting and all that crap.

Also some women don't want to get married then fine. Don't moan about a lack of legal protection, when there is a scheme which though flawed legally protects you and its called marriage.

Boom45

many men wouldn't leave their children or the woman that raised them in poverty is a bunch of bullshit.

What happens is that after a separation or divorce that it is mainly women that are left in hardship and often poverty. This is born out by evidence over many many years that the cms (the csa) and absolutely no government has properly attempted to change. There is no will in government to do anything concrete about this so instead they commission/write reports about childhood poverty following family breakdown and do nothing with those reports.

Nothing wrong with being the unmarried partner of a wealthy man but you'd have to be completely daft to give up work yourself and become dependent on his wealth!

I find something very disturbing about the idea of having a family with someone who says 'I love you, but not enough to marry you'. It's all very well cohabiting while you're starting out, but there comes a point where you decide if you are going to stick with each other, whether you are going to have kids or not, and that's the point where you get married. If someone wants you to stick around but doesn't want to make it official then to me that's a massive slap in the face. Been there, split up over it. Fortunately he realised he was in the wrong and we've now been married 20 years. I can see the money side makes it all more complicated, but to me it's primarily about respect.

I married my kids dad. He tried to take me for everything (I had inherited some property) after he walked out. He won nothing but it cost a fortune in court. Marriage offered me no legal protection at all and in fact without it he would not have had a leg to stand on. At one point he was insinuating that I should be helping support his new partner and their baby! It was a nightmare.

No, I wouldn't have a child when not married.

I wouldn't give up my career and be a SAHM for more than a year or 2 either.

and the woman depends entirely on him
There goes the error. I was brought up to believe that men and women are equal, and that means being so when it comes to finances and responsibility towards children. However much I would have loved to be a SAHM or even work PT, my financial Independence was always a priority. I made choices so that I could be so whilst still raising children and giving them the best I could.

No woman is forced to be financially dependent on their partner or father of their child. I have high respect for women who feel secure in their own self to not feel under pressure to be married to their partner for the purpose of security. It is so undermining the female sex to consider that marriage should be a mean to such end.

@RedSheep73 "but to me it's primarily about respect". Agree!

Nonsense dontdisturbme. There are posters on here who have DC with SN/complex health needs to the extent that it wasn't possible for both parents to hold down jobs, and they had to give preference to the higher earner's because food and roof. Such a wide generalisation is never going to be helpful.

In answer to the OP, having a marriage contract wasn't negotiable for me. The other partner having more money wouldn't have changed that.

Until people really understand that marriage has nothing to do with love or weddings the situation will continue to be chaotic with "But I didn't know..." and "But I was faithful for twenty years" etc etc.

MArriage is a contract. It gives both parties rights and requires both parties to accept certain responsibilities. Each person should decide whther in their own individual circumstances it is a contract that they wish to sign.

It is like owning a house v renting - If you buy you have a degree of freedom and can stay as long as you can pay the mortgage but if the neighbours are hellish or there is ssevere subsidence that is your risk. If you rent the landlord might be a shit and give you tow month's notice just before Christmas but if you want to move you can do so in a month and if the roof falls in it costs you nothing - you just elave.

It is a choice - to marry or not to marry.

Marriage is a choice, for both sexes.

Perhaps if we stop subscribing to the men work and women don’t and aim to be financially equal then it wouldn’t matter. Children are a choice and quitting work or going part time is also a choice.

I think as long as everyone knows where they stand before the children come along then it’s a personal decision

It’s when there is lies or mistruths that it’s a bigger issue imo

When DH I and first met he said “I’m widowed and have a young DS, for his protection I won’t be marrying again”. I knew exactly where I stood and what the plan was.

I said “after being screwed over by my DDs dad I won’t live together or have more children again without getting married” so when he broached the subject of living together he came at it with a short term plan to check we enjoyed living together and a proposal.

Knowing where you stand is the most important thing so you can make your own decisions based on the truth rather than a “one day”

I chose not to get married. I had two children. I worked. I maintained financial independence. My partner and I met in 1986. We split up amicably two years ago. No fighting, no money squabbles. Lots of respect, love, friendship and shared parenting, (and of course some problems and disagreements! It was over 30 years FFS) - but we have different views of how we want to spend the next decades - and we want to go our separate ways.

I resent people saying that "If he loved you he would marry you" as if A) I am a commodity to be "chosen" or not, and B) That is something I would want!

Children is a much bigger commitment than a marriage. I would never consider having children before getting married, and surely not if the man wasn't committed enough to get married first!

I don't care how other people organise their life, but these are my priorities and I wouldn't compromise on that.

Talking about financial independence is pointless now we have kids, we have to support them one way or another.

I have high respect for women who feel secure in their own self to not feel under pressure to be married to their partner for the purpose of security.

it's not about security for many of us, doing fine financially on our own, it's about commitment and respect. Either you are committed enough to have a family together, or you are not.

To me, marriage is a something to be done before children. It is you and your spouse agreeing together, after a period of thought, that no matter what shit life throws at you, you will be together til one of you dies. Children may be brought into it during your time together, (you will raise them together, see them off into the world together, and hopefully watch them flourish in the world after you’ve seen them off) but the marriage is a union of a two that was the foundation beforehand and will still be there afterwards; it’s the thing you come back to once the intense child-rearing is done, if you choose/are able to have children.

Consequently it comes with responsibilities and rights and privileges.

You are making an active choice to sign up to something that by definition ties up all the important bits to another person. That’s why getting divorced can be such a ballache.

I would not choose to have children with a man who did not want to get married, regardless of wealth. Because he fundamentally would vis life differently to me.

I would - if neither of us had children - consider living long term with a man who didn’t want to marry, but it’s unlikely. Because, for me, marriage isn’t about children. Marriage is about choosing to say, “yes, it’s you. This isn’t perfect, life isn’t perfect, but whatever comes along it’s us together”.

Would you be willing to accept to be the partner of a wealthy man if they don't want to marry?

I wasn't willing to have a child with any 'partner', never mind wealth. If DH weren't on the same page about marriage, there would have been no children with him and we'd have gone out separate ways. We used two forms of contraception each and every time (implant plus condoms) before TTC and only TTC after marriage. If marriage is a dealbreaker or a boundary to you then you have to walk the walk and marry before children come on the scene. It's always foolish to become financially dependent on an another adult to whom you are not married.

As for 'I got pregnant and then it all went from there,' well, the one thing you cannot do is stop working or cut your hours to enable one partner to carry on as if nothing's changed or then stick around and have another child without marriage. A lot of people say they sleepwalked into the situation but it's a choice to quit work FT and supporting yourself. The 'we cannot afford childcare so I quit' - if you're unmarried, you can't afford to quit!

There are posters on here who have DC with SN/complex health needs to the extent that it wasn't possible for both parents to hold down jobs, and they had to give preference to the higher earner's because food and roof. Such a wide generalisation is never going to be helpful

It doesn't stop to amaze me how everytime we speak of what impacts the majority of women on mn, someone has to bring up 'but what about those with disabilities'.

Families with children suffering from disabilities are, thankfully, a minority. Of those who do suffer from disabilties, still a percentage of mothers are able to continue to work. So those who genuinely cannot double so are a small number of mothers. Why discuss the need for security of marriage in reference to families that form a small minority? Of course my point doesn't apply to exceptions, it applies to the number of mothers with non disabled children who are still fully reliant on their partner to support them financially.

I don’t think the wealth matters but it’s the financial dependence so I’d never have children with someone, stop working and live in their house which doesn’t have my name on it as it’d be very hard to leave however when DP (now DH) and I had our DD we were renting, earned the same and contributed the same to our outgoings so I didn’t feel I was in a vulnerable position.
We’re now married with a house and I’m going to be taking quite a cut in my salary to go part time so I’m glad we’re married but then if we split I know I’d need to increase my working hours and I accept that.

It doesn't stop to amaze me how everytime we speak of what impacts the majority of women on mn, someone has to bring up 'but what about those with disabilities'.

Families with children suffering from disabilities are, thankfully, a minority. Of those who do suffer from disabilties, still a percentage of mothers are able to continue to work. So those who genuinely cannot double so are a small number of mothers. Why discuss the need for security of marriage in reference to families that form a small minority? Of course my point doesn't apply to exceptions, it applies to the number of mothers with non disabled children who are still fully reliant on their partner to support them financially.

You said no woman is forced: you chose to speak in absolutes. So of course, that invites the response that you're wrong because actually, some are. If your point doesn't apply to exceptions, then you don't make a sweeping statement that doesn't allow for any exceptions. It really is pretty simple.

I think you should marry to protect yourself, but if you think about it hard enough then the reason to marry is often the man possibly treating you like shit - enough to make you not want a relationship in the first place!

I'd not want to take a career hit to look after kids if I was unmarried, puts you in such a vulnerable position. Marriage essentially ties joint assets together, and if one partner is doing more domestic work and so sacrificing lifetime earning, marriage provides a safety net.
I know one unmarried couple where both parents are committed to equal domestic/career division and that works well. I know of others where the father has continued to build a career and the mother has taken on all child care, and I worry for these women. Their pensions will be tiny, and it's too easy for the high earner to disappear leaving them with nothing.

I am a high earner in a long hours, high stress job. Dp is not - he earns a twentieth of what I do. We don't have kids together (we both have from previous relationships). He works from home but not full time and because of that does all the chores, all the cooking and all the shopping. He contributes in every way other than financial and I foot all of our costs (he lives in my house etc.). I have only 1 dc left at home.

Dp has no protection in this situation and I'm actually aware at some point he may ask to marry me and I have been thinking long and hard about this. Dp has many more dependants than me (none of his 4 dc ever lived with us as they were all over 18 when we met) and he brought nothing financial into the relationship (no assets though he does have a small pension). As it stands now, if I died, dp would be out on the street as all my assets go to my dc.

I've actually asked Dp if he would like a document drawn up so he could stay in the house for nothing till he sorted something out if I died and he doesn't want to talk about it.

But I have to say, if the roles were reversed, I would really want some protection!

I also got screwed over by my ex on my divorce (who earned the same as me but spent everything he had so when we split up, I had assets I had paid for and he had nothing so he got half of those assets!)