Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

295 replies

YaWeeFurryBastard · 27/03/2023 07:47

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

OP posts:
Blossomtoes · 28/03/2023 18:11

grayhairdontcare · 28/03/2023 17:56

My children are financially secure and will be fine.
200k is not a large enough amount of money for me to even consider marriage.

It might be to your children.

grayhairdontcare · 28/03/2023 18:16

@Blossomtoes it's really dose not matter to them.
They are on the property ladder.
They are both in good jobs.
They are both financially independent women.
They will be happy if they get left anything.
They won't be unhappy if they dont.

DistantSkye · 28/03/2023 18:18

We had bought a house and had a baby before getting married. I can't honestly say that the bit of paper made a blind bit of difference to how I felt about him when we'd already made such big commitments.
I like the word partner as well. For me it sums up the egality of our relationship

MeinKraft · 28/03/2023 18:19

Husbands are harder to get rid of?

Phoebo · 28/03/2023 18:26

No, although there is something that you've both decided to get married and actually when times get tough it probably has some bearing on thinking about leaving. I know I definitely felt different being able to say husband and wife, it's weird because it feels more special but in itself I don't think there's any difference

Thepeopleversuswork · 28/03/2023 18:29

@KimberleyClark

But doesn’t this prove that marriage isa bigger commitment than marriage? By marrying someone you are making it harder to leave, by not marrying you make it easier?

You could argue that at the point of making the commitment the commitment is stronger (although I would debate that that's why most people get married.)

But over the lifetime of a relationship I would argue the opposite: it's definitely harder to leave a marriage than a cohabiting relationship and the bar is higher so that makes some people more reluctant. But that says nothing about the intrinsic level of emotional commitment in the relationship, only that it's been set up with a load of financial and contractual baggage that locks the couple together. A bit like a long-term employee who a company can't fire because they are expensive to lay off or a long-term procurement contract with a sub-optimal catering firm.

Let's be honest: there are of course marriages which are founded on a bedrock of total emotional commitment but there are plenty which are built around people who have too much contractual, financial and child-related infrastructure in their lives and can't face unwinding it. Because most people, after a certain age, are lazy and set in their ways and don't like change. I would argue that a a decent chunk of marriages (if not the majority) are sustained on a sense of passive inertia and not having the energy to rock the boat. It's not a bad way to live per se but it's not especially noble and it certainly doesn't confer any moral advantage to the couple.

A long term cohabitation agreement can have that too, of course. But it's easier to cut loose. And continuing to show up year in year out when you don't have to arguably is more committed.

Goldenbear · 28/03/2023 18:31

GneissWork · 28/03/2023 17:11

Because this post proves that married people have a smugness about how committed and special being married is. Those who are unmarried aren’t just unmarried through misfortune; sitting around waiting for someone to marry them. Most of those who are long term (10+ years, for talking sake) cohabiting couples who I know feel that cohabitation rather than marriage is a positive factor to relationship strength - as in, I could leave my partner tomorrow and never look back, but I choose not to - however if we were married, there would be way more hoops to leap through to divorce.

That's actually not true as many people in partnerships are simply unable to move on due to accomodation and financial hardship. More wealthier people get married now than people in poorer economic circumstances as people who have little money do not want to be burdened financially with someone else to look after. Equally, you will not get as much universal credit as a married couple which has resulted in fewer people marrying that don't have much.

FinallyHere · 28/03/2023 18:36

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

To me, this is laughable.

It's no sort of achievement to get someone to marry you. Just look at the kind of people who married each other.

It is advantageous for the financially weaker partner, which is important if that applies to you, especially if you decide to have DC together.

With no DC in common, the only benefit of being married is the opportunity to transfer assets between the parties to the marriage tax free, though that does become important if your spouse's estate is above the tax free allowance for inheritance tax.

A friend who had not married only discovered this when her partner died tragically early but after their joint property had risen sharply in value.

He had left her everything so she found herself having to pay inheritance tax in order to stay living in the property they had owned jointly.

WombatChocolate · 28/03/2023 18:43

I don’t think long term relationships are necessarily any less committed or serious and sometimes moreso than marriages. Likewise, marriage or being unmarried is no indication of happiness or love. Many marriages may start with people vowing to be together for life, but in reality that doesn’t happen….although the intention was there at the time of marriage.

I think that the long term relationship without marriage can be as satisfying for both people, but where there is an issue, is when one person within it would like to be married. The reality is that this is frequent and often it’s the woman who wants to be married. For them, however long term and committed their relationship is, they feel they are missing a crucial element they would like. I think it’s valid to feel like that. Not everyone does clearly, but some do. They aren’t fools for feeling like that. Likewise, lots of people who are married felt they wanted marriage and it was important to them. They weren’t fools either, nor purely in it for a party or for some idealised idea of love or that marriage meant no relationship would break up.

I think it’s true that sometimes people stay in unhappy relationships longer than they should, because they are married. However, I also think that in most cases, anyone shouldn’t rush to exit such a relationship, and sometimes staying and keeping trying means things turn round…but if they don’t, leaving is still always an option. I’m not saying those who are unmarried leave at the drop of a hat, but it probably is easier in most cases. and perhaps it’s more likely that one partner doesn’t feel the sense of a lifelong commitment until much later in relationships where there isn’t marriage and no actual choice has to be made.

Marraige is so deeply embedded in society, and has been the norm for centuries with long term unmarried relationships only being common for 2 generations. Yes, it was part of the patriarchy, but many people still want to do it today and feel it isn’t just a piece of paper and does make a difference. No-one has to do it. The reality is that when people haven’t done it, they could have and have chosen not to. That’s fine. But simply the fact that it’s an option will make some people who don’t know a couple wonder about the nature of the relationship. Who cares you may well say. But I think people do care. It rankles people in long term relationships that others outside might not take their relationship as seriously as a married one. But how does someone outside know whether the ‘partner’ is one of 5 weeks or 50 years? That’s the issue I think - ‘partner’ is used by people to talk about their new bf they met last week and by people who have been together 50 years. People don’t necessarily want to be married but they want their long term relationship recognised and acknowledged. That happens when people know you well anyway…but it’s everyone else, that doesn’t know it. And I think people at the same time don’t want to be married, but also don’t want to be seen in 2nd class relationships and feel that’s how it’s viewed. Whilst marriage exists, it’s difficult to see how distinctions won’t be drawn between the 2. That’s not to say people should marry or shouldn’t. It’s the time we live in.

GneissWork · 28/03/2023 18:47

Goldenbear · 28/03/2023 18:31

That's actually not true as many people in partnerships are simply unable to move on due to accomodation and financial hardship. More wealthier people get married now than people in poorer economic circumstances as people who have little money do not want to be burdened financially with someone else to look after. Equally, you will not get as much universal credit as a married couple which has resulted in fewer people marrying that don't have much.

More wealthy people get married because there is an assumption that married = wedding, and poorer people can’t afford a wedding. And there is no need to protect assets when there are no assets.

And your point about getting less UC when married is complete nonsense, which shows how much “research” you put into this.

Dacadactyl · 28/03/2023 18:50

"Partner" means absolutely nothing to me. I hate the term.

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 28/03/2023 18:51

GneissWork · 28/03/2023 17:14

Not really - this post is full of smug shackled married people talking about how it’s oh so special to be married; it somehow “changed” and “improved” their relationship; as if us loose, immoral, stupid unmarried people are somehow just too uncouth to understand.

Yes, really.

I posted saying that it's never married people who feel they have to post saying they're as committed as an unmarried couple, it's always vice versa. Right on cue, you posted in response about how committed you are. You were evidence. Married people don't have to do that, because there aren't any societal standards about unmarried partnerships that they feel they need to explain or show that they meet,

There was nothing whatsoever in my post about marriage being more special either, indeed I said people often have very good reasons not to do it, so the rest is just some stuff you made up.

It's interesting that people interpret the simple statement of something we can all observe to be true as a statement about the value of marriage itself. It could just as well have been made by someone who was bemoaning it.

ImAvingOops · 28/03/2023 18:51

The more I think about this, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that everything comes down to money. If you are rich, you can untangle yourself from any relationship, married or not, pretty easily. Maybe this is why very rich people often do it 3 or more times and most normal people don't! If you aren't rich, then chances are you can't walk away at any time, even if not married because there are mortgages etc to consider.
In reality once you are financially enmeshed or need the other person to help look after the kids, no one is as free as they'd like to think!

Blossomtoes · 28/03/2023 18:51

More wealthy people get married because there is an assumption that married = wedding, and poorer people can’t afford a wedding.

More wealthy people get married later in life for tax planning purposes. I know more than one couple who has rushed off to the registry office when one of them has received a terminal cancer diagnosis.

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 28/03/2023 18:53

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 28/03/2023 18:51

Yes, really.

I posted saying that it's never married people who feel they have to post saying they're as committed as an unmarried couple, it's always vice versa. Right on cue, you posted in response about how committed you are. You were evidence. Married people don't have to do that, because there aren't any societal standards about unmarried partnerships that they feel they need to explain or show that they meet,

There was nothing whatsoever in my post about marriage being more special either, indeed I said people often have very good reasons not to do it, so the rest is just some stuff you made up.

It's interesting that people interpret the simple statement of something we can all observe to be true as a statement about the value of marriage itself. It could just as well have been made by someone who was bemoaning it.

Sorry, I've just realised @GneissWork isn't the person who proved my point, that was a different poster. However, the rest continues to apply.

TranielPratspliff · 28/03/2023 18:59

I was with my ex husband for 10 years as partner, and 10 years married. I psychologically preferred being married, though ex husband was the driving force behind it. The main thing it meant for me, though, was that I wasn't financially screwed after 10 years of being a SAHM, which I would have been if we hadn't been married. I was able to continue being a SAHM, which is what I wanted to do, without him paying any CM or spousal support.

I would never marry again, though, as I wouldn't want anyone else to have any legal claim on my assets (other than my DC, obviously).

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 28/03/2023 19:07

I would never marry again, though, as I wouldn't want anyone else to have any legal claim on my assets (other than my DC, obviously).

I think I'd feel the same in that situation.

Goldenbear · 28/03/2023 21:52

GneissWork · 28/03/2023 18:47

More wealthy people get married because there is an assumption that married = wedding, and poorer people can’t afford a wedding. And there is no need to protect assets when there are no assets.

And your point about getting less UC when married is complete nonsense, which shows how much “research” you put into this.

It is not 'complete nonsense' it is fact that welfare benefits are based on household income which doesn't exactly incentivise people to be open about being together let alone marriage!

GneissWork · 28/03/2023 22:05

Goldenbear · 28/03/2023 21:52

It is not 'complete nonsense' it is fact that welfare benefits are based on household income which doesn't exactly incentivise people to be open about being together let alone marriage!

They are based on household income.

We are specifically comparing cohabiting couples to married couples.

Therefore, there is no difference to benefits allocation with regards to cohabiting or married couples. No cohabiting couple is going to withhold marriage to get more UC; because the application for UC doesn’t even ask if you are married IIRC.

Lizzt2007 · 29/03/2023 09:25

Goldenbear · 28/03/2023 21:52

It is not 'complete nonsense' it is fact that welfare benefits are based on household income which doesn't exactly incentivise people to be open about being together let alone marriage!

But that's nothing to do with the difference between cohabiting and being married, that's purely the honesty of the claimant.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page