AIBU to ask why marriage is so easily dismissed as an option?

[HeidiHaughton]

Why do people not want to get married when to all intents and purposes they're behaving like they are?
I can't help but wonder if some of my mother's seemingly old fashioned pieces of advice about marriage have in the long run turned out to be correct, even if I thought she was behind the times when she dished it out.

Redwinestillfine

I don't think its vitriol against marriage and certainly not against making a commitment.

I think the issue is that marriage is less and less appropriate for people these days.

Its primary purpose in terms of society was for men to "secure" women for child-rearing and domestic labour purposes. Then over time it acquired a religious and moral veneer. Nowadays its primarily purpose is to protect women financially because their earning power tends to be diminished by having children.

With more and more women earning equal to if not more than their husbands, and with the religious element of marriage declining, I can see how it seems more out of step with the reality of many people's lives.

I still think in practical terms its a good insurance policy for any woman who is planning to take a break to have and bring up children.

But as someone who is financially independent and has a child it would not make any sense for me. My partner (who is not my child's father) earns less than me and has less in terms of assets. Marrying him would risk handing away my financial freedom and my child's inheritance. And as neither of us is religious there is no other reason to do it.

Overlay that with the frankly rather unpleasant symbolism of a traditional marriage (a woman being "given away" etc) and it all seems pretty jarring with modern life.

I think the way to look at it really is as a financial contract and insurance policy and if it works for you its a very sensible tool. But I think the reverence for it and its centrality to our moral life is out of step with most people's lives today.

Perhaps we need to reimagine marriage for our times.

I think there has been a shift from marriage being something you did when you fell in love. No legal aspects were ever explained to me when I married. It was purely because we were in love.
Now that women are earning the same as men and there is more emphasis on the legal side then people who earn more, own more, have more are thinking twice about whether they need marriage and all the legalities that go with it.
It has got to the stage of weighing up how much a divorce will cost you and could you afford it rather can you afford the big wedding
I certainly wouldn’t have got married if someone had sat down with me and explained the legalities.

I certainly wouldn’t have got married if someone had sat down with me and explained the legalities

I wouldn’t either but I’m glad I did. There have been several occasions in the last 21 years when I’ve been tempted to walk and it’s only been the thought of those vows I made that’s kept me here. Now I’m glad we weathered those storms, they’ve strengthened our bond and I’m really pleased we’re heading into old age together. The prospect is much rosier than facing it alone.

@VinylDetective

I certainly wouldn’t have got married if someone had sat down with me and explained the legalities

I wouldn’t either but I’m glad I did. There have been several occasions in the last 21 years when I’ve been tempted to walk and it’s only been the thought of those vows I made that’s kept me here. Now I’m glad we weathered those storms, they’ve strengthened our bond and I’m really pleased we’re heading into old age together. The prospect is much rosier than facing it alone.

A friend of mine who has been married 30yr told me several years back (when I was 20s and unmarried) that having that ring on your finger really does (in his opinion) change how you view your relationship. That it kinda makes you feel that (barring nuclear issues like infidelity or abuse) you will stay together no matter what.

I never fully got that, never really thought there’d be much difference between being married and being partners, until I got married. And I completely agree with him. It’s a lovely sense of security and stability. We all know it doesn’t stop people walking out or choosing to separate if it’s the better option. But to me, the fact we said those vows in front of our families and friends does mean something. It’s kinda a final formal ‘this is it’, I’ve found my person, we’re together now until the end, as you say in the vows.

I’m sure someone will come along to say that’s terrible, of course you should feel like that about every exclusive committed partnership, and I don’t disagree, you don’t need marriage for commitment. But it’s how I feel anyway and I suspect many others do. It’s lovely seeing the ring on my husband’s finger and mine each day knowing what it represents. I’m so pleased we did it before DS arrived.

I married my the man of my dreams, we married bescuse we were in love and I wanted to be his wife and to spend the rest of my life with him. Being married to the right person is very important and not a decision taken lightly. We had children once we had been married 5 years and financially secure.
Gwtting married is a personal preference. Some of my friends are married and others are not.
I personally wouldn't have had a family with someone who didn't want to spend the rest of their life with me and get married. I also feel because your married you work at it abit harder.

I think it depends on your relationship.

I think if things are going ok it is good but when it goes wrong the ring on your finger becomes a millstone round your neck and the freedom to just walk isn’t their.

Sorry but if "a ring on your finger" changes how you view your relationship then that says more about you than anything. I value my relationship because it is the foundation upon which my partner and I have spent the best part of 30 years, raised children, supported each other through illness, unemployment, family tragedy and bereavements. It is no less important because I didn't have a ring on my finger. Actually I have worn a ring on my wedding finger for the last 20 years because I wanted to. Cue horror from some people about "you can't do that!" "that's unlucky" etc etc.

I have been subject to so much smuggery from married people - one particularly self-satisfied manager at work when I had just started who asked if I was married. When I said no but I was in a long and stable relationship she raised her eyebrows and said "that's all very well but being married just means that you can get through anything together". Funnily enough, I didn't go up to her five years later when her husband of 20 years left her and her 4 DC for a younger woman, whilst my partner and I were still just as committed and happy and ever.

Also bloody hate that Beyonce song which I equate to being livestock - "if you like it then you should have put a ring on it" - talk about women as bloody commodities!!

I've never said anything to any one of my friends and family when they have told me that they are getting married (sometimes for the 3rd time) apart from congratulations. But I have often had the "so when's he going to put a ring on your finger?" or "make an honest woman of you?" FFS its the 21st century. I have been a bridesmaid and a wedding guest many times and have been delighted and very happy to celebrate peoples marriages because it's what they have chosen to do. Why do those who want to marry have to be so patronising to those who have chosen a different path? Its very boring.

if "a ring on your finger" changes how you view your relationship then that says more about you than anything

What it says about me is nothing to do with the ring. I entered a legal contract and made solemnly binding vows in front of my friends and family. That’s the important bit. What it says about me is that I’m prepared to make and keep binding promises.

@VinylDetective - and that's great - I mean that genuinely. Because it was your choice. But the pp who said it seem to think that it was some sort of revelation, which again, for her, it may have been.

The point I was trying to get across is that things have significance for some people and not others. I didn't make vows in front of others, because I chose (or we chose) that it would make no difference to our relationship. Possibly, my DP was influenced by his father making those vows to this 4th wife (til death us do part etc) which he clearly had failed to keep them with the other 3! We attended the wedding and were pleased for them, but even DP (who is very laid back) said he found it hard to take those vows seriously.

As stated by PPs, people are informed by their experiences and influenced by societal pressures (or not). It would be nice if the constant threads on this topic could be some sort of sharing of experiences but appreciating that it's different strokes for different folks. I'm really pleased that Civil Partnerships are now available for different sex couples, and I am also aware that others think they are no different to a marriage. I guess that's their opinion, which is perfectly valid, as is mine.

I'm really not trying to belittle anyone's choices, but am probably a bit jaded by having received so many digs over the years and being asked whether I regret not having "had my one special day", accompanied by a head tilt and rather patronising smile .

I'm divorced and in hindsight would've been better off not getting married because I solely owned the family home prior to meeting xh. However, I didn't pay any of the capital off before we were married, he helped me with personal debt before we even got married, so I feel it's fair he gets half the equity.

I doubt I'll marry again, I certainly won't be having more children.

Despite having 1 child, I own my house, I pay into a decent pension & I earn 3x what my now ex-partner does.
This means when we split, he left, & me and DS still have the same level of security that we always have.
Honestly, If I was ever to marry someone they would need to bring more to the table than me, its all about protecting DS future...

Before decent contraception and women getting equal rights in the workplace, many women would not have sex with men outside marriage because having a child would leave them in a really bad position. So the deal was, men married for sex, women for security for their children. And divorce was there to protect the weaker party and children of the marriage.
Once sex loosened up there was not much incentive for the higher earner, usually the man, to marry. Then some women didn’t marry because they wanted to be able to keep the children in the event of a split. And some men probably married to avoid that. But the law changed, giving unmarried men rights over children (well, children rights to their dads but the effect was the same).
I think the law badly needs an overhaul to protect children born outside marriage from their mothers leaving with very little. Marriage used to provide that protection. Something needs to take it’s place.
And for those of you who think you have it the same because you jointly own the house &c., you don’t. Divorce is expensive but if you need it you get legal aid. You don’t get that for property disputes. If your DP fights you, it will cost half a small house to force him to sell.

@Ohwhatllipick:

I think the law badly needs an overhaul to protect children born outside marriage from their mothers leaving with very little. Marriage used to provide that protection. Something needs to take it’s place.

I fully agree the primary caregiver should receive financial support; are you referring to child maintenance payments (the current system) or a different approach?

I think the law badly needs an overhaul to protect children born outside marriage from their mothers leaving with very little. Marriage used to provide that protection. Something needs to take it’s place.

What, though? Several posters on this thread have said they don't want the legal obligations of marriage. The government shouldn't have the right to force people into a contract they don't want (which is why New Zealand's system sounds very unfair to me). Ultimately, women have a choice in whether or not to have children outside of marriage.

ZoeCM

"Ultimately, women have a choice in whether or not to have children outside of marriage."

Absolutely.

IMO it should be hammered home to all teenage girls that they should not even think about producing a child, in the future, unless they are financially, emotionally, psychologically and physically prepared to raise that child alone.

In today's society despite the advances in 'rights for women' they are too often left 'holding the baby'.

Relationship education is the key here.

@AnitaB888

ZoeCM

"Ultimately, women have a choice in whether or not to have children outside of marriage."

Absolutely.

IMO it should be hammered home to all teenage girls that they should not even think about producing a child, in the future, unless they are financially, emotionally, psychologically and physically prepared to raise that child alone.

In today's society despite the advances in 'rights for women' they are too often left 'holding the baby'.

Relationship education is the key here.

I am in my mid 30s and my mum always said, only have a child if your prepared to be linked to the father for the rest of your life and be prepared to be a single parent. Wise words!

Because I don't want to be fiancially tied to anyone else.

@Candyfloss99

"Because I don't want to be fiancially tied to anyone else."

You can get married and keep separate bank accounts, as I have always done !

[quote AnitaB888]@Candyfloss99

"Because I don't want to be fiancially tied to anyone else."

You can get married and keep separate bank accounts, as I have always done ![/quote]
I have too but that would mean nothing if we divorced, I’d lose out massively. I completely understand women who don’t intend to have children or who have significant assets not wanting to get married.

VinylDetective

"I completely understand women who don’t intend to have children or who have significant assets not wanting to get married."

This.

Marriage is financially very disadvantageous to the main breadwinner in the marriage. Men generally go along with if because they're being pushed to do so by their partner and because they think there are fringe benefits (reliable sex and domestic labour). It's no accident that the whole cultural thing of marriage is interesting to women and not men.

A woman with great financial strength has no such impetus: its easier for a woman to get sex (and she may not want it) and there's little expectation that getting married will support with childcare or domestic work.

For a woman who out-earns her partner or has significant assets marriage is a lose-lose from a purely financial perspective.

Marriage is financially disadvantageous to me. I own a house and have 3 children (not DP's), my partner's children are adults and he has nothing. It is a massive financial risk getting married so I can see why people dont want to do it. I was lucky that my exh was happy to take out what we put in and split what we accumulated together, otherwise I would have lots thousands and thousands.

@VinylDetective,
I'm not too sure I agree with all of your most erudite post.

"For a woman who out-earns her partner or has significant assets marriage is a lose-lose from a purely financial perspective."

As I understand it, any assets held by either party prior to the marriage are not regarded as 'marital assets'. However, I will stand to be corrected on this...

I think you’re right in Scotland. In England everything becomes a marital asset. And, of course, stupid people like me who didn’t know any better sell their house and buy another one with their husband! Good thing I love the bones of the old boy and can’t see divorce on the horizon!

[quote AnitaB888]@VinylDetective,
I'm not too sure I agree with all of your most erudite post.

"For a woman who out-earns her partner or has significant assets marriage is a lose-lose from a purely financial perspective."

As I understand it, any assets held by either party prior to the marriage are not regarded as 'marital assets'. However, I will stand to be corrected on this...[/quote]
That may be true but in most scenarios where a husband and wife acquire property together it will be treated as the marital home.

If you get married and live together (as most married people do) and assuming both partners are contributing to paying for the home, that would be treated as a marital asset from the time of the marriage forwards, surely? So it may have originally been your property but if you marry, your husband will be entitled to a split of the growth in value of the equity from the time of the marriage onwards?

If you maintained separate houses and assets (and savings) you could ring-fence these I guess, but in this case why bother getting married?

@thepeopleversuswork

I can't disagree with your argument.

However if one party had additional assets (other than property) I doubt these would be included?