To want to become a single mother by choice?

[Eversograteful]

I have made up my mind that I 100% do not want to get married. Ever. Even after kids.

My reasons:

• I’m well educated. So don’t need to rely on anyone else for income.
• I have savings and I’m saving up enough to buy a house and get a mortgage which will be 100% mine (then passed on to my kids later).
• I’m planning on living off my savings for maternity leave then returning to work after 6 months to one year.

My other, more emotional reasons for not wanting marriage:

• it’s patriarchal, marriage was designed by men to control woman’s sexuality (my opinion)
• I don’t like the idea of becoming a “Mrs” some else’s last name
• I find the idea of marriage in general sexist especially the part about changing your name
• I find weddings a mixture of boring (for everyone else), cringy (for me) and expensive and I’m not prepared to waste £20,000 on one day when I could be saving up for a house deposit with that
• I don’t like the idea of your entire identity being deleted forever and getting deleted for a man’s identity

I just don’t like anything about marriage, couldn’t care less about being protected and I don’t care about having to work by myself and for myself to build up wealth for my children. Honestly, I’d be quite prepared to become a single mother by choice as I feel it’d almost be easier as

• I could parent the way that I want
• I could sleep how I want and feel rested and relaxed during baby stage without being distracted by my husband and dealing with relationship issues
• I don’t want to deal with relationship problems, I want to parent + focus on my work and paying the bills
• I get to make parenting decisions by myself

Single mothers have spoken about how much easier it is not to consult anyone else and just do things

I don’t have kids of my own (yet) but I’ve been yearning for my own family (children only) since I was sixteen - I even have the names picked out!. Strangely I’ve always been turned off by marriage since I was a child (even though my parents are married). It’s only recently I’ve decided it’s something I definitely do not want.

AIBU for dreaming about having children on my own?

I think you'd be absolutely fucking nuts.

OP You make your own choices, of course, but for heaven's sake don't base them of a lot of half-baked and incorrect assumptions.
Have you read any history - serious history, the result of recent research? Or met anyone with a happy marriage? Sounds as if you haven't.

Christian marriage - the only form available for the majority of people in the UK for more than 1000 years until 1836 - gives three reasons for marriage. None of them is 'patriarchal'. These three are very clearly stated in the standard C of E wedding ceremony; the wording has not essentially changed for many hundreds of years:
(1) to have and to care for children
(2) as " a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication" - this applied to men as well as women. Nothing about "controlling women's sexuality". Men as well as women were meant to be 'continent' (ie to control their own sexual behaviour).
(3) "for the mutual society [= friendship], help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other , both in prosperity and adversity. "

I think that most couples - married or not - would still aim for that today. Friendship, help and comfort are very excellent things to have.

From 1836, men and women could get married in a Registrar's office. Nothing patriarchal about that ceremony, either. Indeed, today, brides and grooms can write their own Registry office vows (ditto for civil partnerships and same-sex marriages). Bride and groom both equally have to promise to take each other as legal spouses, before witnesses, and to declare that there is no legal obstacle to their marrying, but that is all.

As others have said:

There is no need for any fancy wedding celebrations whatsoever.

Where on earth did you get the (daft) idea that a person's identity - male or female - changes when they marry??

Also:
Women have NEVER by law had to change their name on marriage - and, in the past often did not.

Mrs, Ms and Miss are all abbreviations of the same word, 'Mistress' (meaning = respectable adult women.) Married or not, you can use whichever you like - the titles have no legal meaning.

HOWEVER, in the past, the civil laws and social customs of past SOCIETY were "patriarchal" - though this had nothing essentially to do with marriage. Civil laws gave men very, very unequal rights over property and also various rights to control the women in their family (that included children and other dependent females, not only wives. This - alas - included control of women's bodies, as well as of their freedom to act, to work, to study etc.)

Social expectations - from men, from religious and civil institutions and from disapproving other women also controlled women much, much more than men . (For eg, the famous 'double standard' (men could have affairs - though they might be criticised for not being able to contraol their 'animal' instincts; women on the whole could not (though some certainly did. As far back as we can read, literature is full of stories of love and lust and jealously and infidelity....by women as well as men.) )

Once married, women AND men were intended to fulfil the sexual needs of their spouse. Women could - and did - complain about male neglect or indifference. But the lack of reliable contraception made sex very much more problematic and potentially dangerous for women than for men (pregnancy and childbirth could be fatal) , so we can't say that past women's attitudes to sex were the same as they are today (ie fun for it's own sake). Remember Princess Anne saying that having children "was an occupational hazard of being a wife" ? I think most women in past centuries would have felt that. And there is even evidence that some women were pleased and relieved when their husbands took a mistress; it made their own lives less risky.

Above all, there is a vast amount of research and discussion as to what women in the past wanted out of marriage. For many, romantic love was not top of their list. Nor was sex-for-fun. Both might - or might not - be pleasant to have, but marriage was first and foremost a practical arrangement: much more important was a roof over a woman's head, food to eat, a respectable position in the community and some sort of income. Men wanted wives for practical purposes, too: cooking, cleaning, children AND companionship . Plus extra income: many - most - ordinary women worked - often together with their husbands - at various stages in their lives.

Turning to today:

• Why do you assume that a relationship will inevitably have 'issues' (I presume you mean problems)?
• Any partner - married or not, whatever gender identification etc - who forces themself on an unwilling partner is comitting a crime. Do you really, seriously, think that most relationships involve criminal acts? Sadly, there is domestic abuse - too much of it. But it's not the norm.

Two final points. You don't mention 'love', for an adult partner or for your imaginary children. I don't mean romantic love. I mean respect, consideration, thoughtfulness, tenderness, caring, sharing. Children as well as partners/spouses need all that. And I can't imagine how any relationship - including parent-child - can possibly work without loving compromise, from all involved.

@DrSbaitso

The thing is, OP is not focusing on the idea that a single parent can be extremely capable, or that it's an option for women who haven't met someone and may be running out of time. The posts are all about how she doesn't want a partner involved because you have to incorporate a partner in your life and can't always do whatever you want without considering them.

Which is a weird thought process for someone considering parenthood! I know, I know, she's happy to do it for a child. But she seems to have not even a theoretical understanding of how that works. If you don't want to have to consider what someone else likes for dinner, how are you going to handle twice daily school runs, fussy eaters, sleep deprivation, swimming lessons, homework?

My life didn't change much in terms of freedoms when I got with my husband (I was much happier). Motherhood changed it profoundly.

Don’t know why that’s so hard to believe. There’s nothing I wouldn’t be happy to do for my own children. There’s plenty I don’t want to do and wouldn’t be happy doing it for a husband :)

@scottishnames

OP You make your own choices, of course, but for heaven's sake don't base them of a lot of half-baked and incorrect assumptions. Have you read any history - serious history, the result of recent research? Or met anyone with a happy marriage? Sounds as if you haven't.

Christian marriage - the only form available for the majority of people in the UK for more than 1000 years until 1836 - gives three reasons for marriage. None of them is 'patriarchal'. These three are very clearly stated in the standard C of E wedding ceremony; the wording has not essentially changed for many hundreds of years:
(1) to have and to care for children
(2) as " a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication" - this applied to men as well as women. Nothing about "controlling women's sexuality". Men as well as women were meant to be 'continent' (ie to control their own sexual behaviour).
(3) "for the mutual society [= friendship], help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other , both in prosperity and adversity. "

I think that most couples - married or not - would still aim for that today. Friendship, help and comfort are very excellent things to have.

From 1836, men and women could get married in a Registrar's office. Nothing patriarchal about that ceremony, either. Indeed, today, brides and grooms can write their own Registry office vows (ditto for civil partnerships and same-sex marriages). Bride and groom both equally have to promise to take each other as legal spouses, before witnesses, and to declare that there is no legal obstacle to their marrying, but that is all.

As others have said:

There is no need for any fancy wedding celebrations whatsoever.

Where on earth did you get the (daft) idea that a person's identity - male or female - changes when they marry??

Also:
Women have NEVER by law had to change their name on marriage - and, in the past often did not.

Mrs, Ms and Miss are all abbreviations of the same word, 'Mistress' (meaning = respectable adult women.) Married or not, you can use whichever you like - the titles have no legal meaning.

HOWEVER, in the past, the civil laws and social customs of past SOCIETY were "patriarchal" - though this had nothing essentially to do with marriage. Civil laws gave men very, very unequal rights over property and also various rights to control the women in their family (that included children and other dependent females, not only wives. This - alas - included control of women's bodies, as well as of their freedom to act, to work, to study etc.)

Social expectations - from men, from religious and civil institutions and from disapproving other women also controlled women much, much more than men . (For eg, the famous 'double standard' (men could have affairs - though they might be criticised for not being able to contraol their 'animal' instincts; women on the whole could not (though some certainly did. As far back as we can read, literature is full of stories of love and lust and jealously and infidelity....by women as well as men.) )

Once married, women AND men were intended to fulfil the sexual needs of their spouse. Women could - and did - complain about male neglect or indifference. But the lack of reliable contraception made sex very much more problematic and potentially dangerous for women than for men (pregnancy and childbirth could be fatal) , so we can't say that past women's attitudes to sex were the same as they are today (ie fun for it's own sake). Remember Princess Anne saying that having children "was an occupational hazard of being a wife" ? I think most women in past centuries would have felt that. And there is even evidence that some women were pleased and relieved when their husbands took a mistress; it made their own lives less risky.

Above all, there is a vast amount of research and discussion as to what women in the past wanted out of marriage. For many, romantic love was not top of their list. Nor was sex-for-fun. Both might - or might not - be pleasant to have, but marriage was first and foremost a practical arrangement: much more important was a roof over a woman's head, food to eat, a respectable position in the community and some sort of income. Men wanted wives for practical purposes, too: cooking, cleaning, children AND companionship . Plus extra income: many - most - ordinary women worked - often together with their husbands - at various stages in their lives.

Turning to today:

• Why do you assume that a relationship will inevitably have 'issues' (I presume you mean problems)?
• Any partner - married or not, whatever gender identification etc - who forces themself on an unwilling partner is comitting a crime. Do you really, seriously, think that most relationships involve criminal acts? Sadly, there is domestic abuse - too much of it. But it's not the norm.

Two final points. You don't mention 'love', for an adult partner or for your imaginary children. I don't mean romantic love. I mean respect, consideration, thoughtfulness, tenderness, caring, sharing. Children as well as partners/spouses need all that. And I can't imagine how any relationship - including parent-child - can possibly work without loving compromise, from all involved.

Hopefully you realise that Christianity doesn’t mandate marriage and the Church of England isn’t the only church? The bible acknowledges marriage as a man made thing and Paul advises both men and women to avoid marriage because the main point of marriage is pleasing your spouse according to the bible pThe Catholic Church is much, much older than C of E and has different rules towards marriage.

Don’t know why that’s so hard to believe. There’s nothing I wouldn’t be happy to do for my own children. There’s plenty I don’t want to do and wouldn’t be happy doing it for a husband

Me too. I don't do those things for my husband and he doesn't wish them.

Assuming you had a healthy relationship, you wouldn't have to do anything like as much for a husband as you would for a child. So it seems odd that you'd be such a selfless giver for a child, who demands much more and doesn't owe you anything, if you're worried about things like loss of identity.

You just seem to have no concept of what a healthy relationship is.

Your posts are all about what you want, what you don't want, ideas of self, the idea that you could sleep as you wish, everything you've got planned. You think it sounds like a person who's fiercely romantically independent but it sounds like someone who would hit motherhood like a blindfolded train driver hits a brick wall.

@SW1amp

Have you thought about having some therapy to explore where your incredibly visceral views on relationships come from.

It feels like you’ve seen and/or experienced some awful things to have come to the opinions you have.

But the thing that jumps out at me is your absolute refusal to make space for any adults’ views in your life.

Yet you expect to get full and unwavering support from your family in bringing up a child.
You expect to have a successful and well-paid career
You presumably expect to have friends?

You can’t honestly expect every parenting decision you make to be the right one, can you?
But you expect your parents and friends to stand by and watch you make bad decisions without commenting or helping, less that forces you to compromise?

And you honestly think you can have a successful career without repeated compromises for colleagues, bosses, clients?

I think therapy would be helpful to help you realise that compromising is not a sign of failure or weakness, and inviting other viewpoints into your life can actually improve and enhance it

It takes a particularly special type of arrogance to assume you always know best, and that arrogance is not remotely compatible with being a good parent

Yes I need therapy because I don’t want to be in a relationship.

I love how women are required to be in a relationship or else they should sign up for therapy to get a therapist to force them into one.

Paul advises both men and women to avoid marriage

Didn't he advise people to avoid it because marriage populates the earth but virginity fills heaven? Or something. Pretty sure he wasn't advocating free love. He says quite a few things that don't fly in today's world, as many religious figures do. Why would this factor into your decision at all?

@DrSbaitso

Don’t know why that’s so hard to believe. There’s nothing I wouldn’t be happy to do for my own children. There’s plenty I don’t want to do and wouldn’t be happy doing it for a husband

Me too. I don't do those things for my husband and he doesn't wish them.

Assuming you had a healthy relationship, you wouldn't have to do anything like as much for a husband as you would for a child. So it seems odd that you'd be such a selfless giver for a child, who demands much more and doesn't owe you anything, if you're worried about things like loss of identity.

You just seem to have no concept of what a healthy relationship is.

Your posts are all about what you want, what you don't want, ideas of self, the idea that you could sleep as you wish, everything you've got planned. You think it sounds like a person who's fiercely romantically independent but it sounds like someone who would hit motherhood like a blindfolded train driver hits a brick wall.

You seem like you’re trying hard to defend marriage because you feel like my post is a personal judgment on you. That’s why you’re bringing up your husband and defending your marriage to me, even though I don’t know you or your husband.

@Eversograteful you don't need therapy because you don't want a relationship.

You might need it because you feel a relationship will involve non consensual sex or the very least lots of pressure to have a physical relationship you don't want.

@DrSbaitso

Paul advises both men and women to avoid marriage

Didn't he advise people to avoid it because marriage populates the earth but virginity fills heaven? Or something. Pretty sure he wasn't advocating free love. He says quite a few things that don't fly in today's world, as many religious figures do. Why would this factor into your decision at all?

Where in the bible is that written anywhere????

Marriage populates the earth but virginity fills heaven? WHAT?!

NO ONE says that ANYWHERE in the bible.

It wouldn’t even make sense if you’re trying to grow a religion …. On EARTH

Out of interest, what does the bible say about having a baby "artificially" without a father?

You seem like you’re trying hard to defend marriage because you feel like my post is a personal judgment on you. That’s why you’re bringing up your husband and defending your marriage to me, even though I don’t know you or your husband.

You're not seeing this as it is, you're seeing it as you are.

You think my only reason for mentioning my marriage despite everything else that gave it context, is because I'm driven by you and what you think. That I must be so worried you would judge me and find me wanting. What have I said to make you think I believe you're capable of making a worthy judgement? I'm literally here telling you you don't know what you're talking about.

Coupled with all your other posts here, it's an astonishing picture of absolute self absorption, telling itself it's independence.

And that's ok, if you don't have kids. But if your outlook is that others are defined by you - and there's something of this in the way you talk about, well, everything - motherhood WILL hit like the aforementioned train, blindfold and brick wall.

@U8976532

Out of interest, what does the bible say about having a baby "artificially" without a father?

This is how Jesus was born so I’d say the bible obviously supports it. Mary was also unmarried so take that as you will

Ah, apparently it was St Jerome. I get confused, haven't been into this for a while. Paul's the one who said women must be silent and submissive and wouldn't suffer them to teach or have authority over a man. I expect he'd agree, he seems a bit uptight.

@DrSbaitso

You seem like you’re trying hard to defend marriage because you feel like my post is a personal judgment on you. That’s why you’re bringing up your husband and defending your marriage to me, even though I don’t know you or your husband.

You're not seeing this as it is, you're seeing it as you are.

You think my only reason for mentioning my marriage despite everything else that gave it context, is because I'm driven by you and what you think. That I must be so worried you would judge me and find me wanting. What have I said to make you think I believe you're capable of making a worthy judgement? I'm literally here telling you you don't know what you're talking about.

Coupled with all your other posts here, it's an astonishing picture of absolute self absorption, telling itself it's independence.

And that's ok, if you don't have kids. But if your outlook is that others are defined by you - and there's something of this in the way you talk about, well, everything - motherhood WILL hit like the aforementioned train, blindfold and brick wall.

Lol so it’s impossible to be a good mother unless you’re married because according to you, marriage and devoting yourself to your husband gives you the necessary skills in self sacrifice that would allow you to be a good mother? Have I got that right?

If so, you’ve just offended millions of amazing single mothers who are doing a good job and have done the best they can

OP, what would the child be getting out of this?

Serious question. Not just “getting to be born” (they wouldn’t know any different if they weren’t) or “I think I’d be good at it”. You’d be bringing a child into a world where it was missing one parent. Anyone should, I think, be making the decision to reproduce based primarily on the best interests of the child. You’re already starting the child off at a disadvantage so the bar to justify this is higher.

I’ve seen 16 pages of discussion of why you want to do it but nothing on why you think this would be in the child’s best interests.

Op Mary had Joseph. And you aren't Mary and your child is not the future messiah.

@DrSbaitso

Ah, apparently it was St Jerome. I get confused, haven't been into this for a while. Paul's the one who said women must be silent and submissive and wouldn't suffer them to teach or have authority over a man. I expect he'd agree, he seems a bit uptight.

You’re taking Paul’s words out of context on purpose. He was talking to women in one particular church - the passage your are referring to was a letter to a particular church and he meant the women in that particular church should remain silent because, much like you are here those women were purposely misleading people by distorting the message of God to make it say something it never said.

Paul wouldn’t agree with st Jerome (who by the way is not a biblical figure - I don’t even know who he is). Paul (and Jesus) clearly stated that it’s better for both women and men to be unmarried because you can focus on more important things whereas a husband or wife is mainly focused on their own little world and pleasing their spouse.

This is how Jesus was born so I’d say the bible obviously supports it. Mary was also unmarried so take that as you will

Jesus was the son of God, not the product of some fella jizzing in a pot, I'm not sure many Christians will share the view that it's basically the same thing....unless we are now inundated with messiahs.

@Darkpheonix

Op Mary had Joseph. And you aren't Mary and your child is not the future messiah.

Mary and Joseph were not married and Joseph was not the real father of Jesus and he is never referred to as such

(And let's not forget Mary had a husband...)

OP you're fucking nuts haha, so your child will be the son of God? Because unless not I fail to see how Christians will relate to this...

@U8976532

This is how Jesus was born so I’d say the bible obviously supports it. Mary was also unmarried so take that as you will

Jesus was the son of God, not the product of some fella jizzing in a pot, I'm not sure many Christians will share the view that it's basically the same thing....unless we are now inundated with messiahs.

It doesn’t really matter what other Christians think, fact of the matter remains that Jesus was born “artificially”, outside of marriage, to an unmarried woman, without a father on this earth. I’m sure Christians would agree that if God created everything, he also created the technology to artificially impregnate a woman.

Lol so it’s impossible to be a good mother unless you’re married because according to you, marriage and devoting yourself to your husband gives you the necessary skills in self sacrifice that would allow you to be a good mother? Have I got that right?

Of course you haven't, and if you didn't insist on seeing everything as you are, you'd realise that. I've never thought of my marriage as any kind of sacrifice, quite the opposite...I gain. No, I didn't say that because I'm so scared of what you think.

It's not that single parents can't make great parents, don't try that ridiculous strawman. It's that self absorbed people, who think any kind of co-operation is "sacrifice" and that anyone who mentions marriage makes them happy is just scared of their personal disapproval, are ill equipped for the lifetime of actual sacrifice and one sidedness that is being a parent.

@U8976532

(And let's not forget Mary had a husband...)

It’s still debated amongst Christians whether Mary was ever married to Joseph. Many churches, including Catholic one believe Mary was virgin throughout her life. Many churches believe Mary and Joseph never married so it’s not as cut and dry as you think.