Men who refuse to marry the mothers of their children

[SparrowNest]

You see that so often on here. I don’t mean couples where both parties are happy to marry, but ones where the man refuses despite their partner desperately wanting it, or else strings them along indefinitely.

Is there any reason at all, other than that he doesn’t want to have any duty to provide her with financial security for if they break up? So not only is he already thinking about potentially leaving, he’s happy to fuck over the person he ostensibly currently loves if they do break up.

My AIBU is that I don’t understand why women tolerate it. I suppose the ones being strung along have just been lied to, but having children is actually the bigger commitment in many ways. You’re joined for life. It seems so nasty to be prepared to do that, but not offer your partner the security and commitment they want.

You can be committed to a person without being legally committed.

How?

And how does adding a legal commitment not make the relationship more committed than it was without it?

@DrSbaitso

You can be committed to a person without being legally committed.

How?

And how does adding a legal commitment not make the relationship more committed than it was without it?

So you believe a relationship without marriage can nor be committed?

That marriage is a legal contract only? Nothing else?

@AlDanvers

Do you really believe a relationship isn't committed if there's no marriage?

A lot of people think like this.

The law doesn't take a relationship with a non-married couple as seriously as one with a married couple either.

I have known a number of cases over the years, where a couple have been together 15-20 years, sometimes 25 or more, and one of them dies, and they don't even get a sympathy card from most people, OR a single day off work.

Conversely, I have known a few couples who were only married 5 or 6 years, and together for just 8 or 9 years, and when their spouse died, they had huge collections at work, were given a week off, had bundles of cards and gifts, and had the utmost sympathy from everyone. The non-married people got shag all, even thought they were together 3 times longer...

As I say, like it or not, even in 2021, the vast VAST majority of people will not take a couples relationship very seriously if they are not married. Not even if they have children. They will be taken more seriously if they have children, but still not as seriously as couples who do. The couples with children who are married, get a lot more respect.

I am not saying it's right, but that is how it is. I have to say, I don't take a relationship very seriously if they're not married either. That's just how I feel.

That doesn't mean not getting married is any less committed.

@DrSbaitso

Of course it's less committed. Doesn't mean it's always wrong not to do it, but it's a level of commitment above not doing it. It's a legal commitment, a contract. It must mean something if people refuse to do it.

Exactly! If the people who are daft enough to believe 'it's only a piece of paper' then why NOT get married? After all, it's ONLY a piece of paper.

I also call bullshit on 'men don't want children only women do.' In my social circle, the men have very much wanted children, as much as the woman for sure. Including my own DH. He was ecstatic when I said I was pregnant with our first, and even now, feels extremely proud and privileged and happy that he is a dad. My dad was the same; he absolutely adored me and my brother.

My exh wasn't committed because he kept fucking other women.

Not really someone who is committed to these relationships, is it.

And just to top it off, despite being a very equal parent. He is now nor in touch with any. Despite being the one pushing for kids. Turns out he didn't really want them. Was just expected of him (not by me).

That marriage is a legal contract only? Nothing else?

Of course it is. You don't have to love someone to marry them and you don't invalidate a marriage by falling out of love. It is a legal contract.

I wouldn't advise marrying someone you don't love, and I'd hope one marries because they love, but as cold hard fact, yes, it is nothing but a legal contract. That's why it's so annoying when people say "oh, you can't contract love" as if marriage is a love contract. It isn't. And you don't need love to make it valid.

You can love someone without marrying them, and it may well be the wisest course of action. You may be very emotionally committed, although that's hard to define.

But it's nonsensical to say that legalising your relationship doesn't add an extra layer of commitment. Of course it does. That's precisely why some people won't do it. I'm not saying they're wrong not to, or less in love, but of course they're less committed.

I didn't say it didn't add an extra layer. It doesn't prove that it's more committed.

There different types of commitment.

Both can completely independent of eachother. People get married all the time without actually being committed or invested emotionally invested.

Mn is full of threads by married women where the man is not committed, emotionally, in the relationship. They aren't committed to making it work. They treat their wives poorly (not talking abuse levels though they are there too), they got married but have no interest in investing in their spouse. Many aren't that fussed about the kids either.

And unfortunately many men who 'really want kids' and are really good parents only are when in a relationship with the woman. Splitting often exposes this and the men slowly disappear and priotise themselves at all times.

My point is, going back to the original comment I made in response to someones comment, you can be fully committed to someone without marriage. Marriage may not be the best option.

Emotionally commitment and legal commitment are 2 separate things that can exist together or separately.

My point is, going back to the original comment I made in response to someones comment, you can be fully committed to someone without marriage.

Sorry but I don’t agree with this. Marriage is the ultimate relationship commitment, it’s essentially saying “I bet you half my stuff we’ll be together forever and I believe in this relationship enough to take that risk”.

People generally cite financial issues for not wanting to marry, which is absolutely their choice, but don’t pretend they’re “just as committed” when they quite plainly aren’t, as one of the partners isn’t willing (perhaps sensibly) to risk their finances.

@RosieGuacamosie

My point is, going back to the original comment I made in response to someones comment, you can be fully committed to someone without marriage.

Sorry but I don’t agree with this. Marriage is the ultimate relationship commitment, it’s essentially saying “I bet you half my stuff we’ll be together forever and I believe in this relationship enough to take that risk”.

People generally cite financial issues for not wanting to marry, which is absolutely their choice, but don’t pretend they’re “just as committed” when they quite plainly aren’t, as one of the partners isn’t willing (perhaps sensibly) to risk their finances.

Sorry but no. I don't feel the need to place a bet on my relationship.

And let's not forget those bets are lost 50% of the time. Its not even a sensible bet.

And, usually, both people aren't placing that bet. It's just one person placing the bet. The other stands to gain either way.

Again, marriage isn't the ultimate commitment. Evidence by the large amount of people who get married and don't actually work at the relationship.

Well look, AlDanvers, OK. Marriage isn't an extra commitment if you don't include legal commitments as part of the discussion. That's got to be the most pointless line of reasoning I've ever seen on here, but if it makes you happy. And there are only six colours in the rainbow if you don't include red.

Don't marry if you don't want to. It's not a requirement. In some cases it's better not to.

But don't try to fool people, especially young women who are likely to give up some degree of financial power, that it isn't important or significant as a commitment when you don't specifically exclude it. A man who thinks a woman is good enough for sex, companionship and bearing his children but not good enough for a legal commitment to protect her financially is, more likely than not, showing that he doesn't love her. Or maybe he does, but if he wants to leave the way open for an easy exit no matter the cost to her, it's not the kind of love I'd value.

It is an extra commitment, and it's a degree of protection against those men you mention, who would like to sod off and prioritise themselves when they want. The whole point of marriage is that you cannot prioritise only yourself above all.at no cost.

It's a commitment, and that's exactly why some people won't do it. And that's sometimes wise. But only because it's a commitment, and it's always foolish to make a bad commitment.

Yes. Put simply, they are keeping their options open so they can leave with minimal consequences if someone they prefer comes along.

I agree with your original post @SparrowNest

I'm sure an unmarried partner can be just as committed as a married one, during the relationship. We don't need any 'pieces of paper' when things are good and when everybody does what they are supposed to do.
We need those papers when things are no longer going well and the working partner in a relationship decides that never mind what we discussed, I don't actually want to give you a fair share, if I don't have to.

Marriage isn't a good bet, but statistically it's by far the best bet you can make if you want your relationship to last, if you want to be financially secure, and if you want your children to have an involved relationship with their father, and the best outcomes on nearly all measures.

We want the truth to be something else, we want to pretend that biological realities barely impinge on women, or that women don't really need men to raise children, or that it's not better for children to have a stable home with 2 parents, or that despite all its flaws marriage isn't the best way we've figured out to do this.

Despite all the evidence we're not supposed to say it.

I think we should be saying it.

To help young women, most of whom want children, many of whom will want to take career breaks or work part time to be with their children. And the many who won't.

I think it should be the next feminist revolution: renegotiation of modern marriage.

As a partnership with legal protection where people enter into an agreement about the roles they'll take. You can take any role, no more assumption the women will do the child care, but if they agree she will, she has legal protection as she's agreeing to a vulnerable position.

But this modern open negotiation needs to take place before you sign the deal.

Having a baby then trying to negotiate your role puts you in such a weak position.
And we see that over and over on here.

@DrSbaitso

Well look, AlDanvers, OK. Marriage isn't an extra commitment if you don't include legal commitments as part of the discussion. That's got to be the most pointless line of reasoning I've ever seen on here, but if it makes you happy. And there are only six colours in the rainbow if you don't include red.

Don't marry if you don't want to. It's not a requirement. In some cases it's better not to.

But don't try to fool people, especially young women who are likely to give up some degree of financial power, that it isn't important or significant as a commitment when you don't specifically exclude it. A man who thinks a woman is good enough for sex, companionship and bearing his children but not good enough for a legal commitment to protect her financially is, more likely than not, showing that he doesn't love her. Or maybe he does, but if he wants to leave the way open for an easy exit no matter the cost to her, it's not the kind of love I'd value.

It is an extra commitment, and it's a degree of protection against those men you mention, who would like to sod off and prioritise themselves when they want. The whole point of marriage is that you cannot prioritise only yourself above all.at no cost.

It's a commitment, and that's exactly why some people won't do it. And that's sometimes wise. But only because it's a commitment, and it's always foolish to make a bad commitment.

Where did I say women should go into anything that outa them at risk?

My point was simply that you can be committed and nor married.
Women can even be married and it be their own detriment.
Not all people want kids, so will have no need to take a career hit

And actually, just because a man wants to marry you, doesn't mean your aren't sleep walking into disaster.

You see unmarried relationships as less than. That's fine. I don't. I ruin that lots of different relationship set ups can be equally committed, successful and great partnerships.

There's no one way. We should normalise our children understanding this. But also, they need to understand the benefits and pitfalls of each one. They should assume they will be fine without marriage, but they also should not assume they will be fine with it.

Not all people want kids, so will have no need to take a career hit

This thread is specifically about men not marrying the mother of their children. A childless couple is in a very different position.

@MalagaNights

I don't disagree with the statement that if you want a committed relationship marriage is the best bet. And I certainly agree that women if they want to marry should do this before having children.

But I take issue with this part of what you wrote:

We want the truth to be something else, we want to pretend that biological realities barely impinge on women, or that women don't really need men to raise children, or that it's not better for children to have a stable home with 2 parents, or that despite all its flaws marriage isn't the best way we've figured out to do this.

Your post ignores the fact that for an awful lot of women parenting within a marriage is not the optimal option. As someone who has found single parenthood infinitely preferable on every possible metric, more rewarding, more emotionally fulfilling and even more remunerative, than parenting in a marriage I just know that it isn't always as black and white as you make it. And many homes are far more stable without a man in them. For some women in many contexts marriage is the best option, but you ignore the fact that large numbers of women thrive and raise children well often better outside of marriage than they do in it. And there has to be a strategy for those women.

I think your tactics work really well if your goal is to be a SAHM but you should never have marriage as the cornerstone of your financial life goal. It may be critical life insurance if you plan not to work and it may augment your life if you do. But having a way to support yourself is really the only cast iron protection. It works if you marry and it provides a safety net if you don't.

You see unmarried relationships as less than.

No, you do, hence the pretzel logic, defensivenes and accusations.

I've said several times that marriage doesn't require love, that unmarried people can be completely in love and that marriage isn't the best option for everyone. If I became single, I wouldn't marry again because I'd want to protect my daughter's inheritance.

But marriage IS a legal commitment and it DOES create commitments that don't exist without it. That's precisely why some people don't want to do it, and why some people shouldn't - because in those cases, it would be a bad commitment. Like taking on a mortgage you can't afford. It's a commitment.

Stop taking this so personally. It's not a slight on your relationship. Nobody denies that you're in love and happy. But you're not helping vulnerable younger women by reinforcing this idea that marriage isn't an extra commitment. It is. That's literally the point of it. It's not an attack on you.

@thepeopleversuswork I do totally get that many marriages just don't work and that very often women are far better off out of them and raising the children alone. Honestly I do. I've been in the ltb camp on here many times.

Saying statistically marriage provides the best results isn't the same as saying it always does, or even that it probably will.

But I still think it's the best protection we have for women who are going to take a financial hit from having children. And that is most women.

Not just sahm. Even women who work often don't take promotions because they don't want that level of commitment to work.
I earn more than husband now but for a few years was totally reliant.

We can pretend all being equal women and men should totally share child care from post birth. But all things aren't equal and many women do prefer prioritising being with children over career advancement.

It's not a judgement on people who don't stay married, that's just real messy life, but it's hard to talk about what seems to work more of the time,without some feeling it's a judgement.

I wish we could.

@MalagaNights I totally get this and you're right that in the majority of cases marriage is the best financial insurance policy for a woman who is planning to take any kind of career break. I guess I see this from the perspective of someone who is still shocked by how much better my life has turned out outside a marriage than it was inside it. But I appreciate this is not everyone's experience.

I stand by my comment that absolutely every woman unless her father is Jeff Bezos should have some means of self-support as the primary financial plan though.

@KatharinaRosalie

Not all people want kids, so will have no need to take a career hit

This thread is specifically about men not marrying the mother of their children. A childless couple is in a very different position.

This oart of the xinverstation started because someone posted about that ifbsomeone doesn't want to marry they can't be committed. I simply disagree.

Threads develope and often go into other areas.

Stop taking this so personally. It's not a slight on your relationship. Nobody denies that you're in love and happy. But you're not helping vulnerable younger women by reinforcing this idea that marriage isn't an extra commitment. It is. That's literally the point of it. It's not an attack on you.

You think you opinion matters, far more than it does. I dont feel attacked. I simply stated that you don't have to be married to be committed.

You took exception to that and keep saying that I am encouraging women to not marry. No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true.

I believe that women, need to seriously look at what they want, the position they are in and make a decision from there. The information is all available to them.

And if the person they are with doesn't also want those things, they shouldn't be having children with them.

My daughter would laugh at the suggestion I would encourage women not to marry.

I simply believe that you can be unmarried and more committed to your relationship. And that commitment is not only legal or financial.

There's been quite a few threads lately fro. Women who married the first semi stable man who asked. Then regretted it very very quickly.

As I said. No one should sleep walk into not being married and vulnerable.
No one should sleep walk into marriage either, assuming it's the best thing for them and their circumstances.

Not sure why you find that so controversial

Too much spouting of marriage is just a bit of paper means some women have forgotten the actual legal protection that marriage gives them and it is a very valuable piece of paper.

Of course, some men have never forgotten how expensive this piece of paper can be hence the dragging their feet over marriage. Children are expecting since too but very easy to walk away from them..

Imagine this... a man and a woman have kids, don't marry, it's just a piece of paper they say. They split up later on, woman keeps the kids. Then a man goes on and meets the love of his life, marries her, has more kids.

In the end... which set of kids are entitled to the inheritance?

@CatsArePeople

Imagine this... a man and a woman have kids, don't marry, it's just a piece of paper they say. They split up later on, woman keeps the kids. Then a man goes on and meets the love of his life, marries her, has more kids.

In the end... which set of kids are entitled to the inheritance?

The married v not married aspect is a bit of a red herring here surely? He could have also been married to the first mother when their children were born but without a will (or being in a country where all children must receive some provision) after he and she divorced the outcome would be the same, in that his second wife would inherit and then presumably her children thereafter.

This is more an argument for ensuring you have a will if you have children, regardless of your current marital status or whether or not you were ever married to their other parent: also an important thing to drum into young people.

@CatsArePeople

Imagine this... a man and a woman have kids, don't marry, it's just a piece of paper they say. They split up later on, woman keeps the kids. Then a man goes on and meets the love of his life, marries her, has more kids.

In the end... which set of kids are entitled to the inheritance?

A different subject, and would depend entirely on the terms of the will, only a spouse is guaranteed provision.

In the end... which set of kids are entitled to the inheritance?

Not an expert but internet says both are, does not matter if the children were born outside of marriage.

In England and Wales, when someone dies intestate, leaving a spouse or civil partner and surviving children or other descendants:

the spouse or civil partner inherits the personal effects or chattels of the deceased, the first £270,000 of the estate and half of the remaining estate.
The children inherit the other half of the remaining estate.