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.

Does this only apply to men? What happens if the man wants to get married and the woman refuses?

It's surely a conversation that should be had before kids are conceived. Obviously accidents happen.

I would hate to have a different name than my children.

I really don't get why women who wanted to get married but whose partner refused, would still give their DC his name.

@Rosebel

Does this only apply to men? What happens if the man wants to get married and the woman refuses?

If marriage is important to him, he walks away! Just as a woman should.

My uncle is a HNWI and has always absolutely refused to get married. He’s had a few long term ladies but always point blank refused marriage as he doesn’t want to share his assets or wealth in any legally binding way. I think he is miserable but he absolutely is adamant he will never do it. The women he has met have all stuck around for a bit & tried to change his mind, then left.

I think your AIBU depends on circumstance- the main ‘transaction’ on the table (for want of a better word) in your op is really having babies. If you are older or have no kids, unless you’re referring to spousal maintenance (which I think is quite rare these days) then the issue for women is the damage that babies do to careers & earnings. Marriage offers some form of security through that period.

It also gives the legal protections, NOK etc which I think are often really overlooked and actually are quite important.

I wouldn’t have had kids without being married. It gives you more choice.. if you take time away from work you still lose out but less so if you have a legal partner. I also think from a kids POV it gives a stable environment. I’m not saying unmarried parents can’t be stable, but statistically less common long term. My view might be a bit old fashioned but I think if kids are on the cards, being married is one of the few things which can make life easier for the woman.. even if your partner is not a high earner, the spousal support in care and in a family sense still counts for something in my book. I think it is far far harder to raise children alone, whilst earning, than to do it as a team of 2. I think most men who refuse to marry the mother of their children are either unsure about the family commitment being asked of them, unsure of their partner, or they are anti marriage due to bad previous experience or examples. xo

@RedCandyApple

Imo most men don’t want to get married, it’s mainly women despite MN harping on about how it benefits men more than women (getting married) most men don’t actually want to, mainly women.

A lot of people these days are that bothered about 'being' married. Women primarily want to 'get' married as the dream wedding is drummed into women from a young age with gender roles, men aren't usually fussed.

Finance wise it's the one who earns the most (traditionally men but less so now) who is likely to be more hesitant because marriage is also a financial contract.

Nobody has to marry anybody if they don't want to! Jesus I've read some tripe on here over the years but this tops it all lol

A lot of women really want babies and marriage and a lot of men (maybe most) don't particularly care whether they have either. In that case, women are negotiating from a disadvantaged.
I think it's that simple really.

Women who don't want to have kids with men who don't marry them have all the options to do that (not having sex with these men, using contraception or abortions) but they don't use them. If you felt the need to put a pejorative label on someone in those instances, surely it would be the women?

@Iamthewombat

A lot of couples move in together once they have been dating a while. Convention dictates that the women has to be passive about marriage and wait and wait some more to be asked

Stuff ‘convention’. The smart thing to do is to tell the man that you won’t be living with anybody unless you are married to them. How has it become ‘convention’ that the man gets to try out potential wives on a sale or return basis? Sod that!

There's no way I'm marrying someone without living with them first. My ex was a nightmare to live with and I'm so glad I didn't marry him first

@AlDanvers

It seems so nasty to be prepared to do that, but not offer your partner the security and commitment they want.

Absolutely disagree with this. As someone who won't get married, you can Absolutely be committed without marriage.

But also if one person wants it and one doesn't why does the one who does get to claim the moral high ground if their partner doesn't?

Why does the one that doesn't want it have to do it because the other does?

I think the problem is that while it's possible to be completely unwilling to marry but still behave well towards your partner, we see a lot of examples on here where that isn't the case.

So there's nothing wrong with a man (or indeed a woman) being clear to their partner that marriage isn't on the table, that they understand the implications of this and they accept that both parties might need to tailor their behaviour accordingly. So far, so reasonable.

However, many threads on here feature a DP doing at least one of: misleading the woman into believing he's willing to marry up to and including a proposal he never intended to honour, not doing his fair share of child and household related work even if he expects everything else to be 50/50 or who is all of a sudden a traditionalist when it comes to picking the baby's surname. It's this cohort who are the problem, not men who behave like reasonable human beings and just happen not to want to get married. I think it's them OP is referring to.

@XingMing His children were adults by the time he left, and he financially supports them all as they choose to either work part time or not at all (which I think is actually doing more harm than good in the long run).

That said, having grown up in an unhappy home, I don’t think parents should stay together ‘for the sake of the kids’ as it can do more harm than good.

Some men seem to use marriage as some sort of power trip over women, ie something that is in their power to grant or not as they see fit. And some women seem to fall for it. It's seems to be based in the old fashioned idea that a man is always a catch, and it's a lucky woman who manages to get a ring on her finger. Weird.

I think the question you need to be asking is why are women having children outside of marriage if it's that important for them to get married first?
If you do have children outside of marriage and expect to get married and don't then you only have your self to blame here no matter what promises your partner has made to you, get married first then have children so that you are financially protected etc

Hmm. In my view, women who consider marriage important should probably do that before having children.

Alternatively, they should maintain their financial independence after having children.

I am a woman and I don't want to marry my partner. It's of bo real benifit to me. I solely own the property we live in.

@Dozer The children were adults by the time he left. He exerted no control over what she spent as he paid his salary into their joint account for nearly a decade after he left (she didn’t want to get a job). Not all men are bastards.

FWIW, I did get married before having children but would have been far better off financially if I had remained single.

Oh and after watching my parents separate and my mum being screwed to the wall, I don't think I'll ever get married. It's not all its cracked up to be.

There's no way I'm marrying someone without living with them first. My ex was a nightmare to live with and I'm so glad I didn't marry him first

Yes, but what we are talking about is women who move in with men hoping for a proposal and waiting, often in vain, for that to happen. It’s not a debate about whether living with a man is a good thing or a bad thing in itself.

Where is the incentive for the man to commit to marriage, if he’s getting everything he wants from the ‘moving in’ arrangement?

If it were a choice between (1) moving in and playing at being a wife whilst hoping for a commitment and (2) moving in after marriage and discovering that my new husband needed a bit of domestic training, I know which I would choose!

I think the men in question care more about money and property than a child and see a child as less of a commitment, even less important as they can walk away and frequently do.

This is going to be unpopular, but I don’t understand why any woman would have children with a man who isn’t willing to commit to a marriage. Yet so many women post on here saying stuff like ‘we’ve been together three months and I’m pregnant and he doesn’t want a relationship omg what do I do’.

Yes, it takes two to tango, but really.

Sunshine it's hard to see is any other way.
Unless they don't trust the women they are with.

@mobear, that is vastly different to abandoning the mother of small children. No problem with that scenario. Children small and needy: very different picture. Adult kids, less so.

@Dozer

Agree that marriage is far better protection than a will! But break up is a far higher risk than death.

I'm not sure this is true. The divorce rate in England being a little over 40%, married couples are more likely to see their relationships end through bereavement than separation. It's harder to find good stats for cohabitants, especially as that covers everything from quite casual relationships to couples who've been together decades and are hugely committed, but I don't think we can say a break up is a far higher risk than death once the relationship is well established.

I didn't meet DH until I was 30 and had 2 awful relationships before we met. I was financially very stable, owned a lovely house with a smallish mortgage and had savings. I would not have married him if he had not been in a similar position. My financial security gave me independence and I would not have given half of it to anyone who brought nothing or something tiny financially.
As it was he had a flat to sell with equity and had some savings- money he'd inherited from his grandad and we were reasonable equal.

Yes, I did fall in love with him but there was no way I would have sacrificed my financial security with a marriage. I'd have lived with him and protected myself. I still have a 'secret' bank account that he doesn't know about, just incase and I save money into it. I reckon if we get to retirement together, it'll be a nice surprise. If we don't, it's mine.