Do you think there’s a difference between a husband and a partner?

[YaWeeFurryBastard]

Obviously we all know that legally there’s a difference! But do you feel there’s a difference in commitment/ a social difference?

For me, I felt a difference once we mere married and a greater sense of “permanence” and security, but I know others feel no difference at all!

YABU - no difference between the two except the legals
YANBU - a husband is a more committed relationship than a partner

@isthistheendtakeabreath

To me it's indicative of permanence and stability and yes a certain "standing" in life

i find this attitude baffling and incredibly depressing: the idea that you achieve “standing” in life because you are legally yoked to a bloke.

How do we expect women to have an agency over their lives or genuine self esteem when the only validation they can expect comes from the man they are attached to?

Actually this really makes a lot of sense and would completely agree

I am not sure what men that are husbands hitting on you proves, I am married and I have been pursued by men that I know are Partners in live in relationships, I have been 'hit on' going out with friends despite evidently wearing a wedding and engagement ring. I think that is more a 'people' thing than a a married man thing.

Maybe it is an age thing as our friends early 40's, one woman late 30s, jobs in London so not a provinces thing, plus definitely colleagues and siblings we know that are older in their late 40s, 50s everyone is wealthier who is married with assets. Whereas as one younger brother of DH'S late 20s are struggling despite good jobs and a couple of friends who are still renting despite being mid 50s and they are always short of money and one of them often talk about moving out of the area we live in as too expensive. We are definitely all financial literate, in fact one woman is a SAHP but she manages their investment portfolio as she was an accountant in a big firm in the City before, they are very wealthiest and I wouldn't describe her as 'vunerable'.

Actually, DH'S brother is in late 30s, baby on the way and really struggling, he does want to get married though.

I am not sure what men that are husbands hitting on you proves, I am married and I have been pursued by men that I know are Partners in live in relationships, I have been 'hit on' going out with friends despite evidently wearing a wedding and engagement ring. I think that is more a 'people' thing than a a married man thing.

Well yeah, that's my point. Being in a marriage doesn't make someone more or less committed, invested in a relationship, caring or respectful towards their partner, or less likely to cheat or abuse or just be shit. It might have meaning to an individual or it might not, but outside or legalities it ls fundamentally meaningless. Like I said in my original comment, it's about the people in the relationship rather than the name you give it.

I understood this differently.

i see this as, you can have a husband but still not be in a partnership. I refer you to the relationships board.

Totally depends on the nature of the relationship. Eg both these exist
People who are married but still have completely separate money and pay each other for stuff or live in a house owned by one of them.
People who aren't married but have totally shared finances, home, children, committed to each other on a permanent basis.

You seem determined to paint this inaccurate picture of women that get married as vulnerable and victims with no self-esteem as I said it may be an age thing but I know

@ChillysWaterBottle

Well yeah, that's my point. Being in a marriage doesn't make someone more or less committed, invested in a relationship, caring or respectful towards their partner, or less likely to cheat or abuse or just be shit. It might have meaning to an individual or it might not, but outside or legalities it ls fundamentally meaningless. Like I said in my original comment, it's about the people in the relationship rather than the name you give it.

Exactly.

I'm not opposed to marriage (though I wouldn't want to do it personally). I think it's an incredibly useful piece of insurance and for some people it's a necessity.

The problem comes when people see it as some magic talisman which will guarantee emotional and sexual commitment. It doesn't, can't, do this. People who say they "feel different" after marriage may be right in one narrow sense but that's just confirmation bias. It can protect your assets in the event of adversity of various kinds, but it can't protect you against cheating, emotional abandonment, misalignment of interests and pain.

Married status in and of itself tells you nothing about the health or viability of the relationship: it simply tells you a contract has been entered into which makes it harder to separate. There are married couples with terrible relationships who are limping along because they can't afford to separate and non-married partnerships which are the strongest bonds imaginable and the status is not a reliable indicator.

I think in the case of genuinely well-matched couples who have stress-tested their relationships it may enhance a sense of well-being so it may have value over and above the contractual point. The problem comes when people treat it as a kind of universal emotional band-aid which they think will ward off evil.

If you go into it as a practical way of protecting yourself any enhanced emotional support is an upside. If you treat it as some sort of God-given validation of your special romance you are just setting yourself up to fail.

I don't know anyone who fits that description.

I just find it annoying, not upsetting. I really don't care how any one else chooses to define their relationship as it's no business of mine, I just personally don't like the word partner. What's wrong with that? 🤔 It's like how the word 'moist' really bothers some people.

@Goldenbear

You seem determined to paint this inaccurate picture of women that get married as vulnerable and victims with no self-esteem as I said it may be an age thing but I know

I mean... it's hard to see how else to interpret this if someone says they liked the idea of marriage because of the "standing" it gives them.

I'm not saying all women who get married are vulnerable victims with no self-esteem, far from it. I've gone out of my way to say I think there are lots of sensible, practical reasons to get married and for many people it's the right thing to do.

But if a woman says she enjoyed being married because of the "standing" it gave her this by definition suggests they believe their social standing is improved by their connection to a man. I can't see what's controversial about that interpretation? And I don't think that's a good reason to get married, nor a very healthy aspiration for a woman to have. Nor is it great for other women, to be honest. Which is why I care.

I like being married - I did also feel different in a way I can't fully explain, having lived with dp and had a child before getting wed. I think it did feel official and forever, that we had actively chosen each other and not just casually drifted into the relationship.
But I don't understand the 'social standing' thing at all. IMHO people have better social standing when they are single - they are seen and judged as individuals. Getting married does mean that (for women especially) we are often relegated to being 'Tom's wife', as if we aren't individuals in our own right.

Work out how much inheritance tax it could save you and you might change your mind. Are you happy to hand up to £200k over to HMRC unnecessarily when a £100 piece of paper could change that? You wouldn’t even have to tell anyone.

I agree that being married doesn’t guarantee you a happy or lifelong relationship. It also isn’t an indicator if the health of the relationship and there are plenty of married relationships which are terrible and unmarried relationships which are incredibly strong and will outlast many marriages.

That said, I do believe that there is a difference. I said before that marriage involves a conscious decision and is also a public declaration and I think that does make a difference. Lots of people who are living together and even have kids haven’t ever made a commitment to ‘forever’ and that commitment can make a real difference, regardless of whether it actually lasts forever.

People have spoken about marriage being the ‘next step’. It’s also the final step in terms of commitment. There’s no further to go. And again, it might not last, but marriage shows the intent to make that public declaration and to go as far as it’s possible in terms of the law. People who are not married always have that option still in front of them and have chosen not to go there. For people who are married, there is no further to go which is ahead of them.

I think this matters emotionally to many people. This sense if there is no further that you can go and that both parties have opted to go to that furthest point and have not held back from it, can give a tremendous sense of well-being and security. That’s not the same as something which gives a guaranteed lifelong relationship. However, it is a promise to it and a choice to opt into the most extensive commitment option available.

In reality, many unmarried relationships will be stronger and longer lasting than many marriages. But marriage remains an option which hasn’t been selected. So the difference isn’t particularly about the quality or strength of the relationship or whether it endures, but knowing you and the other person chose to go ‘the whole hog’.

You’re missing the point though. Of course there are financial incentives for getting married.

This poster is talking about the non-financial incentives, the “commitment” and these supposed benefits.

Marriage for some is about the transcendence of human love, it is about something greater than the mundane aspects of existence. It is not about the 'collective' and what impact that has on all women's status.

I’m not missing the point at all. The bottom line is that marriage is a legal contract that confers financial benefits which can’t be replicated outside it. The rest is noise.

That poster is in a 30 year relationship during which presumably a fair amount of joint assets has been accrued, it’s common sense to protect those assets as much as possible in a simple, inexpensive way.

@Goldenbear

Marriage for some is about the transcendence of human love, it is about something greater than the mundane aspects of existence. It is not about the 'collective' and what impact that has on all women's status.

The “transcendence of human love” is a modern day figleaf. For most of human history marriage has fundamentally been about money, goods, status and inheritance.

Which at its basic level is what it remains today. The “transcendence of human love” is not a necessity in marriage, nor is marriage a necessity for the transcendence of human love. And critically marriage doesn’t guarantee love. An awful lot of people sleepwalk into awful situations looking for this elusive state.

So looking at it in terms that are anything other than transactional is highly risky.

But if a woman says she enjoyed being married because of the "standing" it gave her this by definition suggests they believe their social standing is improved by their connection to a man. I can't see what's controversial about that interpretation? And I don't think that's a good reason to get married, nor a very healthy aspiration for a woman to have. Nor is it great for other women, to be honest. Which is why I care.

I read that as the official and legal standing it gave their relationship, not her personally. Married as opposed to not being married. It’s unambiguous. Marriage means just that. A partnership can be one of a number of things.

Didn't feel any different personally after marrying DH.

This. So very this! And little girls are STILL being taught that marriage is a valuable life goal and one that gives women status and standing. It's sooo depressing!

I don’t think they are. They’re being taught that it’s sensible to enter a legal contract that confers a degree of financial protection if they intend to have children.

financially literate high-earners with significant assets themselves

@ChillysWaterBottle

Hope they all have plans in place to minimise IHT.

But this is the problem; little girls are not being taught about the legal protections. They are still being fed nonsense about “transcendental love”, with a side order of white dresses, table settings and expensive rings.

Little girls generally have no concept of what marriage means beyond the wedding. Which is why so many of them come so unstuck after the wedding.