To think we would alleviate a lot of misery and some poverty if we phased out marriage in favour of a straight financial contract without a monogamy requirement?

[thepeopleversuswork]

So my view is that its unrealistic to expect people to be monogamous for life.

There will be a small number of people who genuinely remain happily monogamous for decades, yes, but for the overwhelming majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.

It pushes people to remain with someone long after the relationship has passed its sell-by date and often leaves them trapped with someone they no longer love or even like very much because they don't want to upset the children or disentangle finances.

Could we reimagine a kind of financial contract that essentially requires the financially stronger partner (usually, though not always, the man) to guarantee a certain level of financial support to the weaker partner for the duration of the time the children are at home or potentially later potentially renegotiable in the event that financial capacity changes -- but without the absurd requirement for monogamy?

Haven't thought this through in great detail so bear with me but to me the main reason why divorce is often so rancorous and damaging is because of the "cheating" and the recriminations as to how that should impact on the finances (ie you left me for your secretary, I'm going to take you to the cleaners).

If people were free to renegotiate their emotional commitment to one another without having to redraw the boundaries on the financial commitments linked to child-rearing, or vice versa, it would remove a lot of the most emotionally difficult elements of marriage breakdown, and the stigma.

Children would become more comfortable with the idea of their parents as a financial partnership who love and are committed to them but without the expectation that they have to remain together in perpetuity.

I have observed so many times that the thing that damages children in divorce is not so much the separation of their parents in itself, but the behaviour of their parents either in relation to new partners or in relation to money and the division of spoils.

If the financial element were clearer and not tied to sexual fidelity, and the stigma was removed around people dissolving relationships, would that not make it somewhat easier for children to accept this change in a non-damaging way?

Finally, getting rid of marriage would get rid of the loathsome cult of the wedding and all the toxic effect it has on generations of young women.

Anyone with me?

Just don’t get married if you don’t want to. In Australia you don’t need to be married to claim half a house/ income support if there are kids involved

Alabamawhirly1

"So you want to be able to cheat when you get bored, but your husband not be able to withdraw financial support. Or you want your husband to have to provide financial support for life, even if he's emotionally left the marriage and moved on with another woman."

1. I'm not married. I'm in a monogamous relationship with someone currently but do not intend to marry them.
2. I don't want to cheat now and I hope he doesn't either. I hope we never will want to. If one or the other of us does, I would hope we would be honest enough with one another. I certainly wouldn't want to yoke myself financially to him on the basis that I currently hope neither of us will cheat. Which is why we will never get married.
3. I don't expect my current partner or indeed any other man to provide financial support for life. I am in charge of mine and my daughter's finances and this is why I will never marry. What's mine is mine, what's his is his.

Nope thanks. Fidelity is pretty much the only thing I ask of my DH, and he of me. We didn't care about having a big white wedding. We are financially independent. We don't have DC together. The one thing our marriage is based on is our exclusive love for one another. I still think that makes for a valid and healthy marriage.

terrelontane

That sounds like a great basis for a relationship. But you don't have kids.

In my experience in a large amount of cases, the arrival of children makes it much much harder to hold up the romantic bond that sustains people in a loving relationship. The love may remain but often the sexual and romantic bond is weakened by the demands of family life. There are exceptions.

The point of marriage in my view, historically, was to protect women financially from the fact that a lot of men's attention gets distracted after the birth of children. So to some extent its a sensible contract. But increasingly now women have more financial independence and autonomy, in these cases it feels very much like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Well I can't help the fact that I can't have kids.

so in my case should have said: If everything is in joint names (mortgage, bank accounts), equal contributions etc plus joint mutual wills, all pensions name partner for death in service etc.

So all that I am potentially missing as far as I can tell in the Inheritance Tax thing - can't pass our share of the assets if one dies. Plus no widows pension or married persons allowance which tbh are not significant to me compared to private pensions etc (and probably offset by not spending 30-50K on a wedding back in the day like all our friends did (most now divorced))

I have to say that this model probably only works if both people work and earn about the same - I appreciate that that s not always the case and any woman earning significantly less than her unmarried partner probably has to do more to protect themselves? What though?

What about civil partnerships - does that not now fulfil the same purpose as a marriage cert but without the overtones that people such as myself object to?. Does it answer the IHT question as well? I should look into this tbh as I'd be happy to do this with DP now that non same sex couples can do it.

the sexual and romantic bond is weakened by the demands of family life
If thats the case, its because one or both grown adults didn't realise that having children might be hard work. Or that family life can often be a bit boring.
Its not marriage thats the problem here, its the fact the media creates a false narrative that prevents us maturing, and its addictive. We don't stay young and beautiful, we aren't all rich or influential, and real life isn't a spectacle.

TheInebriati it’s true that people often aren’t properly prepared for family life and the fact that to a large degree it is boring and demanding. There are great things about it too. But one thing it certainly isn’t is conducive to romance.

I revert to my earlier point about how toxic the Disney wedding myth is. It paints a laughably unrealistic view if marriage and more or less sets people up to fail in it.

At the very least if we are going to insist on a contract based on monogamy let’s please be honest with our kids about how fundamentally unromantic marriage is.

@thepeopleversuswork I think marriage is very romantic, no baby yet but have been married for 5 years. My parents are still in love after 29 years together.

My DH is amazing, cooks all my meals for me, works very hard at his job, is a very good son. But he says he isn't attractive to most (white) British women (he is white) and all his girlfriend were either first or second generation immigrants. Cos apparently they tend to be more attracted to the most obnoxious showy guy at the pub. Its cool when you are 21 maybe but I really pity their wives.

I do think that it's sad but I am not complaining, it worked out well for me. And I can see where he is coming from, the obnoxious guys I know all have girlfriends and would probably be married sooner or later. It seems to be if you want a wife in the UK, you have to be as obnoxious and showy and loud as possible.

At the very least if we are going to insist on a contract based on monogamy let’s please be honest with our kids about how fundamentally unromantic marriage is.

On this, I certainly agree. A great deal of damage has been and continues to be done when people's conception of marriage doesn't include the fact that it's a legal contract. It isn't a measure of love or commitment as compared to being unmarried, it's not a party, it isn't a namechanging mechanism, it isn't just a piece of paper, it doesn't have to be precluded by a ring or a magical proposal: it's a contract. You can add other things to it if you want, or do most of the things I listed outside of marriage/CP, but none of that changes what it is legally.

Yes I see marriage as a contract that both parties enter into with own terms and that can be ended when both or either want it to.

The freedom to leave is key which is why I find the idea of a permanent financial contract less freeing and unwise. It’s moving in the wrong direction

@thepeopleversuswork and the fact is the numbers. 90% of the women out there would be average or good wives and mothers, but 90% of the men out there shouldn't be trusted to be faithful to a goldfish, let alone a woman and some children. This doesn't mean there aren't nice or good men, its that I am not sure you can trust them to have your back always which is essential in a marriage.

What I would tell my daughter (if I had one) is that she has to go for the 10% of men who are dependable husband material or not bother marrying and having children. And of course that would mean a large majority of women wind up with no husband or a bad husband (which is probably reflected in the divorce rate of 50%, and if you count all the unhappy marriages out there).

I was lucky but I did a lot of sleuthing before deciding to go out with my DH. I don't date anyone I am not going to marry so I knew I had to put in the research and actually know how he was like as a person.

Desiringonlychild that’s great and seems to be working well for you. But with all due respect and without wanting to sound cynical, a five year old marriage without children has yet to be properly put to the test. Your parents marriage also sounds very strong but I suggest it’s an anomaly.

Come back 10 years, two kids later and tell me it’s still romantic.

Desiringonlychild, but again that assumes it’s always possible to “screen” men and only choose the good ones.

I have two issues with this:

A) it’s not failsafe. A man who looks a good bet in his late 20s may not live up to expectations. Sometimes you can’t tell!

B) why should it always be up to the woman to take on the responsibility for the man’s behaviour?

OP - infidelity has an impact on finances. Therefore if you have a financial contract - someone may be cheating on the financial contract if they take money supposed to be spent on family, on booking a hotel room or gifts for the other person.

Maybe the one thing that you cannot do if you aren’t married is automatically inherit a house/money without inheritance tax. Otherwise why not just live together, have children but separate finances? I would argue that maybe the woman would require a ‘bonus’ payment for carrying the child as this entails much higher medical and financial risk (eg time off from job).

@thepeopleversuswork I am having 1 child! Maybe more time for romance!

We were living with his mum for 3 out of the 5 years and it was romantic. Now we bought our own place, its still romantic. My parents lived in a 3 generation family set up with 2 kids and it was still romantic for them.

When I was a kid, my dad trained me to size up men. As a 10 year old, I would meet the boyfriends of my older cousins/acquaintances and I would try to guess whether they would last/turn out to be good husbands. There were trends. I tried to use this in my own love life.

If marriage is hard to leave, then surely we should put more effort to choosing a life partner. We put so much effort to choose our universities, our careers, our children's schools but why do women put so little effort to choosing men? Often women seem to choose based on who they are attracted to and whether the relationship progesses past the first date. careers can be changed, schools can be changed, but its far more punishing to get out of a bad marriage.

I'd favour a fixed term contract, say, five years. Or ten years, where you have the option to renew if you choose, and if not, the contract ends.

I like this idea. With maybe a basic add on where children are involved.

@Desiringonlychild I "screeened" my dh for five years. We've been married over 20 years. It was about 10 years ago I stopped loving him. He's still a good man so I didnt get that bit wrong.

Also, if the cheating person has other children (without the consent of their spouse), then this dilutes their financial contribution to the original family. They have ‘broken’ the contract which negatively impacts the original family.

There are other benefits of monogamy like reduction in risk of STDs (though not 100% elimination of risk if either party had sex before getting together).

Without having money in the picture, many people also wish to be monogamous because of the emotional/non-financial effort they put into a relationship. If the other person was not going to be faithful, then maybe some people wouldn’t put in all the effort.

@thepeopleversuswork you're right, it shouldn't be our job to screen men. But there are very few good men out there! I guess there are always risks associated with relationships. Same with childbearing.

but most people would not be happy being single and childfree. Maybe this would change going forward. But most people I know aspire to be in a relationship and have children.

Couldn't agree more with this OP and I don't understand why some posters are taking it so personally. Nobody cares what you do or what your marriage is like, this is just a general question to which everybody will have an opinion.

Marriage was always about money anyway, it's never changed, no matter how many hearts and flowers people dress it up with (I did too and my marriage is happy) but that's what it is, in essence. A contract.

This contract has all the disadvantages of marriage (no idea how the finances will be enforced thats any better than now) plus the added disadvantage of giving an unfaithful partner a get out clause for infidelity.

but that's what it is, in essence. A contract.

So why change it as op suggests?