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.

@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.

100 million per cent this. ESPECIALLY the last line/sentence.

I agree that certain posters are taking your posts very personally, and that suggests to me that they aren't happy with their choice in life, not deep down, not really. People who are so fiercely defensive are usually that way because what has been said has hit a raw nerve. It's naive at best to suggest marriage is not the ultimate relationship commitment, and foolish and dangerous at worst.

I don't take it personally if anyone berates or dismisses or mocks marriage, (and plenty of single people and people in unmarried couples in real life have done that, especially when I was a lot younger.) I don't take it personally, because I don't give a shit what they think.

I don't need to care, because I know I have the upper hand.

Unsurprisingly, many couples I used to know (who stayed unmarried) split YEARS ago. The majority of ones who have stayed together are the ones who got married.

Very varied opinions on this thread, if you are unmarried you need to look after your own interests very closely because that “piece of paper” gives you and the children a lot of rights.

If children are involved the best option is marriage, it simplifies everything, if you’re older and children aren’t an issue it’s about security, so make sure you protect your finances, because when the relationship ends you’re on your own.

I agree that certain posters are taking your posts very personally, and that suggests to me that they aren't happy with their choice in life, not deep down, not really.

Possibly, possibly not. I don't know.

But it's very frustrating when someone tries to downplay or eliminate the reality of the commitment that is marriage, because it plays right into the silly narrative that marriage doesn't make a difference. And it does, demonstrably and objectively. That's why you need to take it seriously when deciding whether or not to do it, and your life choices based on whether or not it's being done.

And this idea that it doesn't make a difference is exactly what's fucking so many women over. It's not about that poster's personal relationship, it's not about her. It's about a cultural and societal understanding of what marriage is. It's not always a good commitment. Not everyone should do it.

But it's self-serving, defensive nonsense to insist that you can be JUST AS COMMITTED without it. You can't. That's the point of it. In many cases, it's precisely why you shouldn't do it and that's fine.

But it is a commitment, creating obligations that don't exist without it. And so it is very significant if a man who is at a particular life stage with someone, with certain plans or existing situations, won't make that commitment.

Another excellent post @DrSbaitso ^

I think what people object to is the suggestion that unmarried relationships are less emotionally committed than married people. A poster up thread said they don’t take relationships seriously if people aren’t married which is ridiculous.

Of course marriage makes a difference in the legal position it puts you in, and it is an extra commitment that binds you not just by words but by law and by finances. I don’t dispute that at all. But to suggest an unmarried relationship isn’t serious is a judgement you can’t possibly pass without knowing the people in the relationship. Perhaps they’re unmarried because one of them is a selfish miser who wants to hide their money from their partner and one of them is being screwed over, or perhaps they’ve made a joint decision not to marry. I don’t think you can make an overall value judgement on someone’s relationship on their marital status without knowing individual details.

It's true that marriage doesn't guarantee fidelity or emotional commitment (whatever that is), but nor does not being married.

But if you have a man reaping all the "benefits" of marriage, which usually means children and a woman doing most of the childcare and housework, without protecting her legally when it would be in her best interests and what she wants, then he's unlikely to be very "emotionally committed" either. After all, he's leaving the back door open to run without obligation if he wants to.

It isn't helpful to try to obfuscate this with talk about emotional commitment that can't be legalised. You can be madly in love forever with anyone and have excellent reasons for not marrying. But if you are at a life stage, and in a life setup, whereby marriage would give you security and recognise your non-monetary contribution - and wouldn't, say, compromise the inheritance of earlier children - then it IS telling when a man won't do it. Emotional commitment costs him nothing and won't protect you, but it's the line often fed to these women and it fucks them over.

It's not an insult to happily unmarried couples to point this out, or to note that for couples in this position, a lack of love often IS the reason he won't do it.

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

@TedMullins

I think what people object to is the suggestion that unmarried relationships are less emotionally committed than married people. A poster up thread said they don’t take relationships seriously if people aren’t married which is ridiculous.

Of course marriage makes a difference in the legal position it puts you in, and it is an extra commitment that binds you not just by words but by law and by finances. I don’t dispute that at all. But to suggest an unmarried relationship isn’t serious is a judgement you can’t possibly pass without knowing the people in the relationship. Perhaps they’re unmarried because one of them is a selfish miser who wants to hide their money from their partner and one of them is being screwed over, or perhaps they’ve made a joint decision not to marry. I don’t think you can make an overall value judgement on someone’s relationship on their marital status without knowing individual details.

I think couples can say they’re committed, and genuinely think it and mean it - just as I said to my best friend forever at 15 that we were like sisters and would be best friends forever, and goddamn: I genuinely thought it and meant it. But saying and believing that you are committed to each other isn’t actually a commitment. It doesn’t require or compel anything of you. You can love each other deeply, just as much married or unmarried; but love still isn’t a commitment.

If you accepted a job offer and the employer then said “we’re really committed to you, we think you’re great, we’re not going to give you a contract because we think that the professional relationship between us should speak for itself, we trust you and you trust us, that’s how a good professional relationship should be”, what would you assume? You wouldn’t assume that this was an employer who valued trust and was serious about you; you’d assume this was an employer who didn’t want to make a legal commitment to you.

You might agree to their terms and you could potentially rub along happily for years - but you’d (hopefully) sleep with one eye open and make contingency plans for the day they cut you loose. Which is perfect. And it’s the same thing financially insecure and dependent women should do when they have babies with a man who hasn’t given them a contract.

@DrSbaitso

I don't disagree with you on your position about marriage being the ultimate commitment. I agree that women should be ruthlessly honest with themselves about why he will not marry them.

And I love this:

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

But I'm not sure about this:

It's not an insult to happily unmarried couples to point this out, or to note that for couples in this position, a lack of love often IS the reason he won't do it.

I think this misses some subtleties, particularly with blended families:

I'm in a situation with someone who emotionally I would be happy to marry but I never will. And the reason I won't ever marry him is because it would introduce a level of financial risk for my daughter (who is not his daughter) which I'm not prepared to countenance: essentially it would jeopardise her inheritance.

It's not as straightforward as saying if I really loved him enough I'd be prepared to marry him -- marrying him would have consequences for my daughter. I don't think I have the right to put my emotional wellbeing ahead of my daughter's security.

There are certainly a lot of men who won't get married because they are scared of being weighed down or who are looking over their shoulder all the time for someone better. But there are plenty of older couples where one or both partner has children from a previous relationship whose financial health would be negatively impacted by their parent marrying. There are plenty of men in my situation or similar ones, who may deeply love a partner but who ultimately feel their children's security comes first.

I am in a committed relationship without being married. Being married would leave me and my children financially vulnerable. There's no need for a legal commitment
Here you go! Perfect acceptable statement when it's made by a woman. Now get the men to say it and they are selfish bastard who only care about them, don't care about the protection of their partner and are clearly not committed.

Why is it ok for women to want to protect their assets, and actually called wise, yet men are so negatively criticized for the same view?

Noone should go ahead and have children before make it clear what the intention, not the wish they have as a family. I would have lived to stay at home when my kids were little but it wasn't what we'd agreed, would have put a lot of pressure in my oh and ultimately would have left me vulnerable so I went back to work ft asap.

Making generalities on genders ang roles is utterly pointless. The only thing that matters is that both are on the same wavelengths.

It's ok for a woman to wait to be married to have kids if indeed thats what her partner wants too. If marriage doesn't come forward, go separate ways before children. It's also ok for a man to say he would like kids but not marry. If that's not an option for his partner, they too can both go their own ways.

No one is right or wrong.

I understand that, @thepeopleversuswork. It's precisely because marriage is a commitment that it's not always the best thing to do. I was careful to point out that there are lots of times when it isn't a good idea, and compromising an existing child's inheritance is a classic one. If I became single, I'd never marry again for that reason.

I'm just saying that among the demographic where this is most likely to be an issue - younger couples who plan to have kids or already have them, with the woman taking the brunt of the domestic load and earning less as a result - there really do have to be compelling reasons for the man not to marry if the woman wants it. Because otherwise she's being left wide open while he retains the ability to bolt without protecting her. And I don't think it's helpful to push the idea to those women, in those situations, that this isn't a very strong indicator that he isn't all in and doesn't love you enough. If he'd rather be single than marry you. If he'd rather not financially commit to protect your non-monetary contribution that benefits him.

But it's why I dislike this idea that you can be JUST AS COMMITTED without marriage, because emotional commitment. That's what these women get sold, but emotional commitment won't protect you if it all goes wrong. Things are fine until they aren't. The piece of paper, as a PP said, is the protection for when things go wrong. We all hope they won't, but sometimes they do.

The fact that it isn't always a wise commitment doesn't mean it isn't a commitment. And there are times, many times, when it matters.

Well, usually when a man is being criticised for this, there's a woman who's had his child/ren, with the associated risk to career and finances, and she's almost always doing a disproportionate share of the child and home labour too. Whereas there's no mention of there even being any shared children in the post you quote.

So many different situations to comment but I am not sure why anyone should feel pressured or compelled to marry anyone else just because of children and property. If that was a woman not wanting to get married and everyone was expecting her to get married even though she didn't want to we would all have something to say. There re other aways of protecting ourselves than marriage.

with the woman taking the brunt of the domestic load and earning less as a result - there really do have to be compelling reasons for the man not to marry if the woman wants it
It's much more commonly the other way around, that because the mum has less earning power that the decision is made that she'd take on the most of the domestic load not working or working pt.

Otherwise, this would mean working is never an option for single parents and it clearly is.

How often do we have the scenario of the mum, having a descent earning power gives it up against her will to become a sahm because it's what her oh wants for the family? Very rarely because that would be abuse.

It's much more common that the mum wants to be a sahm or work PT and their part we go along with it because that's what she wants and it makes sense financially because her earning power at that time is low.

The agreement usually becomes an issue when the father expects them to go back to work ft or increase their hours, and mum doesn't want to because the status quo suits her or she does but dad still expects her to do most of the domestic work. All this should be agreed upfront.

Well, usually when a man is being criticised for this, there's a woman who's had his child/ren, with the associated risk to career and finances, and she's almost always doing a disproportionate share of the child and home labour too
That's not the case, men are being criticized the moment they say they don't want to marry but would be keen on kids as it's been shown cleat on this thread.

The whole 'I'm a women of great income potential but I have no choice but to sacrifice it because I'm choosing to have xhildren' is playing martyr. Many many mothers manage both, including single mums.

Having children is in no way automatic professional doom for the woman, thank God for that!

@vivainsomnia

with the woman taking the brunt of the domestic load and earning less as a result - there really do have to be compelling reasons for the man not to marry if the woman wants it It's much more commonly the other way around, that because the mum has less earning power that the decision is made that she'd take on the most of the domestic load not working or working pt.

Otherwise, this would mean working is never an option for single parents and it clearly is.

How often do we have the scenario of the mum, having a descent earning power gives it up against her will to become a sahm because it's what her oh wants for the family? Very rarely because that would be abuse.

It's much more common that the mum wants to be a sahm or work PT and their part we go along with it because that's what she wants and it makes sense financially because her earning power at that time is low.

The agreement usually becomes an issue when the father expects them to go back to work ft or increase their hours, and mum doesn't want to because the status quo suits her or she does but dad still expects her to do most of the domestic work. All this should be agreed upfront.

Regardless of whether any of this is correct or not, the situation we discuss here is not like the one described by thepeopleversuswork. This is the difference. There is no comparison between a relationship where the parties are both the parents of the child/ren and one where they are not.

Why is it ok for women to want to protect their assets, and actually called wise, yet men are so negatively criticized for the same view?

Those men are not honest about it though, are they? If they would say that darling, I won't marry you because I don't want to share my assets, then the woman could make her choices accordingly. I don't really see it happening though, it's all talk about being practically married and committed and it's just a piece of paper and doesn't matter.

@vivainsomnia

Why is it ok for women to want to protect their assets, and actually called wise, yet men are so negatively criticized for the same view?

Because typically child-rearing and the way it is set up benefits men's earning power much more than women because of the childcare and domestic labour which overwhelmingly falls to women, whether working or not.

Women often either stop work or work less when they have children and do the bulk of domestic labour. Even if they continue to work at full pelt they very often still do most of the domestic labour. In nearly all scenarios marriage allows men to turbo charge their ability to earn money while women's earning power suffers.

You can't talk about equality in a vacuum here. Marriage is very rarely an equal set-up. It's insurance to protect the lower-earning partner in a domestic relationship, which in the vast majority of cases is the woman, but even if this isn't the case it almost always leads to the woman doing a disproportionate amount of domestic labour. It's not meant to be an opportunity for a man with a high-earning partner to hedge his bets on her income while he does even less domestic work.

It's perfectly reasonable for women who have been structurally disadvantaged by childbearing for millennia to want to claw back some financial power by avoiding marriage if it suits their needs.

@KatharinaRosalie

Why is it ok for women to want to protect their assets, and actually called wise, yet men are so negatively criticized for the same view?

Those men are not honest about it though, are they? If they would say that darling, I won't marry you because I don't want to share my assets, then the woman could make her choices accordingly. I don't really see it happening though, it's all talk about being practically married and committed and it's just a piece of paper and doesn't matter.

This. I think it’s absolutely fine for people of either sex to want to protect their assets as long as everyone is clear what it means. I’m very open with DP about why I’m a bit nervous of marrying him: I own a house outright and have a great pension, and whilst I’d love to think he and I will be together forever, because I love him, I have to keep in the back of mind that there’s a chance that will not be the case. And in return DP accepts that, whilst he might reassure me that he’d never want to go after my assets if we divorced, somebody’s reassurance can’t always be trusted.

How many of these men who won’t marry the mothers of their children do you think are being that honest with them? How many women would agree to have children with a man if he was saying “I don’t know if I want to marry you because we might divorce and then I’d have to give you half the house”? I’m going to wager very very few - what they are doing is dressing it up as the “I love you babe, I’ll be yours forever, I’d always do right by you, the we don’t need a piece of paper for that” nonsense, which is duplicitous.

@ComtesseDeSpair

I’d go further than that: I think women need to be ruthless in protecting their assets precisely because historically they haven’t had any.

The vast majority of the world’s wealth has always been owned by men and in large part that’s been possible because they have been able to rely on free domestic labour from women. Why on earth shouldn’t women protect such meagre assets as they have been able to acquire?

Regardless of whether any of this is correct or not, the situation we discuss here is not like the one described by thepeopleversuswork. This is the difference. There is no comparison between a relationship where the parties are both the parents of the child/ren and one where they are not
But they would have been in that situation at some point. A point where either she was told he wouldn't marry her but she decided to have kids anyway. Or he said he would marry at some point after the kids, and she decided to go ahead and have the kids knowing he could change his mind.

Those men are not honest about it though, are they?
How do you know? Some are, some are not just like some women are honest about accidents and some pretend to be in the pill, are not, and hope that after the surprise child, her partner will ask for marriage. There is not one scenario fits all.

I’d go further than that: I think women need to be ruthless in protecting their assets precisely because historically they haven’t had any
Now that's a good one. Maybe we can start with 'men should especially be the ones to be chosen to become sahp because historically they gave never been'. Ridicous!

There wouldn't have been any comparison vivain because this isn't a shared child. The situations are totally different.

How do you know? Some are

Well OK I guess some might be. Have not read a single post even on MN where the man has actually admitted they don't want to get married because of this. It's always 'just a paper' and 'yes sure when the time is right'

I think even the most deluded woman knows whether she's married or not. So at the point she decides to start or continue a pregnancy she knows that she is making herself vulnerable. It's a choice and perhaps if we didnt focus girls so much on the romantic side of life and more on the hard financial realities, it would happen less often. Especially if we changed the law to make both parents properly financially responsible for their children.

I think in advancing equality as women we've inadvertently ended up a bit screwed over. With sex and co-habitation before marriage becoming the norm, pregnancy and children outside marriage are an inevitability and many of us find ourselves in the position of wanting children and prioritising that over hoping to get married.

@Porcupineintherough

I think even the most deluded woman knows whether she's married or not. So at the point she decides to start or continue a pregnancy she knows that she is making herself vulnerable. It's a choice and perhaps if we didnt focus girls so much on the romantic side of life and more on the hard financial realities, it would happen less often. Especially if we changed the law to make both parents properly financially responsible for their children.

What’s been an eye opener for me about being on MN is the sheer breadth of views and beliefs it’s allowed me to realise are out there amongst women I’d never come into contact with in my day to day life.

MN has taught me that there are women who believe that common law marriage exists and if you’ve lived together for five years it’s the same as being married; that there are women who get themselves pregnant “accidentally on purpose” because they think it will make the latest boyfriend stick around; that there are women who believe a baby is a bigger commitment for a man than marriage; that there are women who think a mother has an automatic legal right to stay in the family home until her children are 18.

In short, whatever you think you know about how you or the women you know might make decisions and the thought processes they might go through when doing it, probably doesn’t apply to a huge number of other women out there who make decisions based on things they don’t realise aren’t true, or just make poor decisions without really thinking about it at all.

Yes, I totally agree that we need better mechanisms to make both parents accountable for the children they produce. But we also need to get women to understand the impact of their choices and accept that they have agency and must use it.