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.

My AIBU is that I don’t understand why women tolerate it

same reason they agree to have children with them if there wasn't going to be an equal contract?

@Phrenologistsfinger

In my case (ttc) Capital Gains Tax, innit. You have a joint allowance when married. If you both own a place, you lose out. Not the case in all these situations ofc.

I'm not following this @Phrenologistsfinger

Are you saying that CGT allowance is shared between married couples in the UK? That's not been my experience.

On the contrary, assets can be transferred between married couples without incurring tax. Transferring assets is one way to take advantage of the CGT allowance for both partners to the marriage.

A few years ago, our company was bought out at a price significantly higher than the trading price for shares This mean a CGT due on the amount over the annual allowance. Anyone who was married, could transfer shares to their partner to take advantage of both allowances.

If things have changed, I'd be glad to know about it. I have googled just now and not found anything to suggest that things have changed.

I am torn here. On the one hand, I agree that it's shit that men won't marry the mothers of their children. Then again, my sympathy only stretches so far, because these women do choose to have a baby with their man before they're married. So I can't vote as I am totally on the fence.

My partner of 13 years died suddenly. I had wanted to marry for years but he always had a reason not to. I am not a 'widow' so no widows pension and also left me and our 2 young kids in a financial mess.
I am so angry with him and also with myself. I should never have allowed myself to be in this position.

@SparrowNestbut I wanted to be married to make a lifelong commitment to each other. Now I’m a SAHM, with a view to going back to work after a few years break, I’m glad for the security of it. Partly, just the emotional security of knowing my husband hasn’t deliberately avoided making a commitment to split assets because he’s thinking in terms of leaving.

in reality marriage is not a life long commitment. Which is a good thing. Its the intention to make a life long commitment. But marriage often fails.

You can make a life long commitment or the intention to be together for life and not be married.

If you believe the decision by men, to not marry, is only ever financially motivated....do you believe women who want to marry are also only financially motivated?

Its good you got married before. If its important then you should.

No one has the right to work part time be financially support by a man or impose marriage or expect on going financial support (other than for the kids) after the relationship ends. Even on divorce, spousal maintenence is extremely rare (in the UK) and usually only for a short time when it is used.

So if the man doesn't want to get married don't through your eggs on their basket.

Women in this position are choosing it. Even if they say 'yeah one day'. They are choosing to crack on regardless. We have to take responsibility for our own decisions.

I am perplexed by this as well. Obviously caveating the discussion to only include women who do believe in marriage, I don’t understand why so many women have decided to agree to take the huge risk of having children without getting married first. It’s not like women don’t have any power. They could simply decline to become mothers without marriage. I am sure someone will come along to point out that weddings are expensive, but expensive weddings are not required for a marriage to take place. If a couple wants to move on to other phases like buying a home and having children, they may just need to skip the big party.

It’s frustrating seeing these women acting like they are passive passengers to a life that is just happening to them. It feels like the feminist lessons we learned from the previous generations have been misunderstood and mistranslated by the generation coming up and they have re-combined the various messages into the worst possible setup for women.

Why marry if your partner earns less, drinks, Is Irresponsible with money and secretly you detest them. Keep your own career and assets. Never rely on a man to provide for you!

I would never marry again unless they were super wealthy 😂

@DrSbaitso

Honestly, I find that generally speaking, men do want to marry if they love the woman. That's why the ultimatum sometimes works. They realise that they will lose her otherwise, and they don't want to, so they commit. And usually, in those cases, find that they like it.

When they won't commit, ie won't marry, it's generally because they don't love her, or don't love her enough. And it's deeply saddening how many of them will string a woman along until she's lost her chance for children, then get with another younger woman for marriage and a family. As horrible as it is, I don't think these guys, as arseholish as they are, do it maliciously and intentionally. They're just happy enough with the situation, never had to make a serious decision about it, and only once they realise that they've lost their chance of kids if they stay with this woman, are they prompted into what they really want, what they're prepared to change for. Much like when they get an ultimatum.

I know it's not ALWAYS the case that a man who won't marry just doesn't love his partner enough, but I think it's true more often than not, especially when the woman does want marriage. And that's not a fault of the woman. She hasn't failed just because this dude doesn't love her. But she should realise that she deserves to be loved properly.

The biological clock complicates everything, of course. I can understand why women accept a degree of shite if it looks to be their only chance of children. I sometimes wonder if menopause is actually nature's way of preventing men from evolving by almost forcing women to reproduce with shitheads, or have no kids at all.

I think much of this is bang-on.

Things might have changed now, but when I was in my 20s and early 30s, I think a lot of young women and men were living together on completely asymmetrical terms: the man was enjoying a nicer home and better companionship that he would have had alone or in some horrible blokey house share, and the woman thought they were on the path to marriage. Lots of those couples broke up around 30, 31, 32, 33 and the woman was broken hearted - effectively divorced; the man had always seen it as a "starter relationship" which is something that a woman who knows she wants children doesn't really quite have as much time for as a man.

Some of these couples had children and I think, weirdly, it is easier for men to allow themselves to be sort of eased into becoming a parent than getting married. They kid themselves it "just happened," even as they knew they didn't love or respect her all that much.

I had children without getting married but not because he wouldn't marry me; I didn't want to marry him, but I didn't really understand why, and I was getting too hold to have children soon, and he really wanted them, and we did. I realised later that my strange feelings about not wanting to marry him were to do with how he treated me and my deep sense that he never really had my back. Had I thought more clearly about it and understood that, I would not have had children with him - and probably not at all. I was glad I didn't marry him - he was the wrong man.

I have noticed this pattern on here too OP. I have seen a few waiting for their partners to propose. I was in the situation of having a baby outside of marriage and it was me who proposed. I’m not sure we’d be getting married otherwise. So in some cases it’s not the men who are holding back on marriage but the women having outdated views. I think as well people avoid difficult conversations. Before our child was born we had a talk about securing our future and rewrote wills, took out life insurance etc. To some people this just makes them uncomfortable.

I’m not someone who ever wants to get married but I understand why a lot of women choose not to have sex before marriage - if someone says they want to be with you forever and have children with you and eventually get married, then why not do the marriage before the kids.

I know accidents happen but I don’t know why women who are desperate to get married don’t say we’re not having children until we get married.

Are we allowed to say that a man who refuses to marry the mother of his children is a shit father who does not even care about his own kids?

Parents are supposed to care about their kids. That does include "what would happen to my kids if I was to die?". Marrying the other parent ensures a straightforward inheritance process which reduces the risk of the kids and surviving parent falling on hard times. It also entitles the surviving parent to additional financial help: www.gov.uk/bereavement-support-payment

Unless a will has been set up and/or life insurance has been taken, a man who refuses to marry the mother of his own children essentially says "These kids mean nothing to me, I don't care what would happen to your lot if I was to die"

I don’t understand why so many women have decided to agree to take the huge risk of having children without getting married first.

Sadly I think many feel this is the actual step necessary to nudge the man into marriage and for some it works. Out of all our friends with babies, 50% were married beforehand, 30% hastily married during pregnancy and 20% remained unmarried after children, although a handful did end up married years later.

Surprisingly, many of the women tolerate it because they are equally if not wealthier than the man. So even though they know they're with a commitment-phobe, at least financial problems don't play a role even if the relationship ended.

For men it seems more like a matter of ease. Divorce is expensive and time-consuming whereas an unmarried split is as simple as packing a bag and leaving. Many are also not keen on the expenses that marriage entails, engagement ring, wedding, honeymoon etc. The loophole of having a small civil ceremony while pregnant seems to work well for men who primarily don't like the expense and faff of a huge wedding.

It’s not the 1950s. Most men are not waiting to provide you with a rose picket fenced cottage and provide for a wife to be a SAHM. Life is full of disappointments and messy relationships. How many people in the past were trapped in unhappy marriages.
People change. Maybe if you are a trophy wife type you can achieve this model of insisting someone marry you and support you having kids. Some of us just have to accept our own inadequacies and take the scraps😂

Are we allowed to say that a man who refuses to marry the mother of his childrenis a shit father who does not even care about his own kids?

You are allowed to say it. But you are also saying women who have kids without getting married, are shit mothers

For me, marriage was purely about the security, public commitment and the legalities. I'd feel exactly the same about DH unmarried, after 30 years, but it means, at retirement age, legal entitlement to spousal pension benefits without quibbling, and better, more flexible options to leave everything we have mutually worked towards to our family. Of course, if you have nothing much to leave to your children and don't bother to make a will, then the most aggressive and acquisitive child will probably scoop the pot.

Men by and large aren't bothered about marriage in my experience and kids even less so especially when spelled out what equal parenting actually involves. Add into the mix that women often choose to take time out of their careers because "I carried it for 9 months" and go part time plus the risk of a man having to subsidize the wife in a divorce and half of all marriages will fail. I can see why marriage is a issue for them. Women can choose when to have children (they have the ultimate choice over continuing a pregnancy) they can make marriage and equally parenting a prerequisite for children but I would suspect the number of willing men would decrease rapidly.

Fundamentally most men don't want to get married unless they have to and I think a lot of women tolerate it because they are young and naive and "in love" and full of romantic ideas about creating a family with someone. Once they are pregnant by someone they think they are in love with its hard to play hardball over marriage and a lot of them tend not to want to push the point until its too late.

I think the post 1960s position on marriage created a toxic double whammy as well: the moral impetus on marriage fell away -- no-one cares any more about "living in sin" so everyone thought it was all fine to crack on with cohabiting and having babies, but a lot of women weren't told that marriage is primarily legal insurance for the non-working partner, as opposed to being something to do with romance or commitment or something you do to have a big party.

I think we need to be doing a better job of teaching our daughters what marriage really is and why and when its important: ie to protect you if you stay at home. So many young women still have warped and inaccurate perspectives on this.

DH and I didn't marry until our eldest was 5 months.

When she was 3 months old, we decided to take out life insurance and write our wills and it was pretty horrifying to realise that if something happened to DH (I was a SAHM) I was pretty much screwed. We married quickly and quietly, then had a massive family party later that summer.

DH's sister never married her DP (he refused) and she got pretty shafted over when they split. He's got a lovely pension and was able to take early retirement at 50 while she's still working and trying to make her way back up the career ladder after a 10 year break raising their DC. She's very very bitter about it all.

You're asking why women shoot themselves in the foot, or why women let men shot them in the foot.

The answer is low self esteem and toxic optimism.

@TeenyQueen

I think the financial aspect of marriage is one thing, but we often forget that marriage bring both parties a lot of legal protections if someone dies or is seriously injured. It also gives you the right to use the same surname, which was actually very important to me, I would hate to have a different name than my children.

I would not have had children with DH unless we were married, if we'd had an unplanned pregnancy I would have expected to get married before the baby was born (I was never fussed about having a big wedding).

Some people say that marriage is just a piece of paper, but it's a pretty important piece of paper legally if something goes wrong.

It is the most important piece of paper you will ever have. When my husband decided to become my exhusband he turned into a person I no longer recognised. I have no doubt that if my children and I had not had the legal protection provided by the marriage certificate he would have simply disappeared into the sunset with the new and exciting 17 year old girlfriend and I would been left in a huge mess. As they say "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst". Having been through a divorce I can honestly say I wouldn't buy a secondhand car with someone I wasn't legally married to. I would certainly never buy a house,have children etc without it

That can be addressed through a will, RobotValkyrie.

My take on it is that fathers who don’t want to marry their partners want to retain maximum possible financial assets in the event of a break up, and decide how to use the money, eg how much maintenance to pay for DC above the minimum. Rather than a court requiring them to share it.

Don’t think it necessarily follows that those men are shit fathers. Unless, post break up, they act in certain ways, eg paying no or only low maintenance.

I don’t much like or respect men who encourage or allow the mother of their DC to do things that benefit the men and (arguably, in the short term) DC but damage her financial position, eg SAH.

@Crazykatie

I would say it’s almost always financial, whatever the stated reason is, a man with property or high income not wanting to have half of his wealth taken. ( or the perception of that). It’s very common in second partnerships, of course it can work both ways, if a woman has property or pensions, I’m sure it will become more common.”

“Ask for financial advice” oh yea, the only answer you will get is don’t get married.

If that is the answer you get then you need a better IFA .

Time and time again on here I read people saying that marriage means you wave goodbye to your finances . There are pre nups and post nups and despite not being legal as written in the law as yet they are in practice .

Depends what is important to you. Marriage was important to me and dh. Discussed in early days where we both thought a relationship should head. Marriage was prioritised for us, we did it on the cheap. I wouldn't have stayed with dh if marriage hadn't been forthcoming within the year and he was of the same mind.

With a big dollop of ignorance of the law.

That can be addressed through a will...

Wills can be changed.

Man leaves partner and children, takes up with someone else or even marries her, changes will.

First woman is screwed.