To see a lot of couples in this situation

[Whatyoutryingtodo]

I see quite a few couples I know irl who've been together several years, engaged, own a house and have children, but no wedding plans made.
They've often been engaged for several years too but don't have any plans to get married, and say stuff like they'll 'get round to it at some point'.

Just curious as to why this happens quite a lot, not judging as I myself am unmarried and childless due to no interested suitors!

I think people will say that the man has everything he needs so why bother marrying her... Sometimes I wonder why people consider marriage more of a commitment than children? At least with marriage you can divorce, even if it's expensive and stressful, children you're tied for life.

@FreshWinterMorning people say “elope” nowadays but what they mean is book a fancy hotel in the countryside and get married just the two of them, random witnesses and a photographer!

Then half the time they have a party afterwards which imo negates the point of the “elopement”.

My mum’s best friend’s only son is doing this. She’s trying to be positive about it and she isn’t saying anything but she is hurt that a photographer is invited but she isn’t. I’m with her in I don’t really understand why the parents can’t come (there are no family issues)

Sounding very defensive there @grayhairdontcare

You will never convince ME that marriage is outdated and pointless, because it is NOT.

You do you though.

So true!

I do think that for women there are two very important reasons to press for marriage or inisist it is an absolute non negotiable

(1) The way the divorce process works in the UK. It is an absolute scandal that it is not taught in UK schools so girls a full aware of their legal position if they co-habit and have children what will happen to them and their children if they separate. They might go into that situation with their eyes open and have kids with a partner they are not married to /co-habit with but at least they cannot say they were not told.
It is utterly wrong that women are left in such a vulnerable position in the UK once they have had children around the rules about marriage/divorce/co-habitation. I can only conclude it is because ultimately it protects men in terms of their financial wellbeing and their right to see their own children (however much men might argue that is not the case) and so enough men recognise that fact for it to be a vote-winner so the laws are never going to change.
Ultimately if you are a man and you can avoid somehow paying child maintenance in the UK you can in theory have multiple children with multiple women and not pay for them or be actively involved in their upbringing. Quite a lot of men like that and the system is designed to cater for that possible outcome.

(2) Religious reasons if you believe that marriage is sacred and ordained by God.

Apart from the above two

@FreshWinterMorning honestly I'm not I'm just waiting for a valid reason for marriage that doesn't involve religion.
I honestly can't believe anyone thinks anyone else cares if they are married or if they are getting married.
It's so outdated.

@millymog11 why on Earth should it be down to school staff to teach that? Honestly people really do expect schools to do all the parenting and then some now. You cannot reasonably expect school teachers to fling in divorce to the already stretched curriculum. I agree that people need to be more aware in general of the importance of marriage (this thread alone shows up several misconceptions) but it needs to be down to people educating themselves and their families, not schools.

Op isn’t talking about those who don’t want to marry though? Lots of people don’t want to marry for financial or ideological reasons. That’s not the question here.
If you are engaged though you do believe in marriage. He presumably won’t propose if he knows you object or view it as meaningless or you’d say no if he does propose and say you are happy as you are.
Lots of people fall into trap of thinking they are as good as married once engaged and it’s only when shit hits fan or something happens to a friend that realisation hits.
I would prefer a system where everyone had to do the legal paperwork at registry office then have whatever party/religious ceremony you wanted after or nothing. Then it’s clear marriage is a legal contract.
I’ve noticed a few Z list celebs and footballers doing the legal marriage here and party abroad thing so maybe that will catch on as next big thing on social media and people worrying about affording a big wedding can do the legal bit and then if life gets in way it doesn’t matter about party.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

@nmchg it's important. As part of health and social there should be a module.

Mine had half a lesson of phse in yr 10 on it. Obviously she is aware from me. But I do think it should form part of citizenship/phse.

nmchg

"You cannot reasonably expect school teachers to fling in divorce to the already stretched curriculum."

Well maybe beacause

• having children and co habiting with someone you are not married to is an incredibly vulnerable position for a woman and children to be in
• if the above goes wrong the wellbeing (financial,emotional,mental health) not only of the woman but the innocent children can be dramatically altered for the worse for the women and children
• women whose only focus is on having children with anyone at any cost ultimately cost society a lot of money over their/their childrens lifetime and the fathers of those children will not care about that so long as somone (not him) are paying for it.

For the above three reasons can you not see how society should be making schools teach the basic facts of the legal position unmarried women who have children will be in if their relationship breaks down?????

It literally means nothing in the modern world.

Except for all the very real legal and tax ramifications 🙄

"You cannot reasonably expect school teachers to fling in divorce to the already stretched curriculum"

oh

And I missed out the 4th and crucial reason namely that more than 40% (I actually think it is more than 45% but not researched it) of first marriages in the UK end in divorce. I have no idea what the (no doubt far higher) percentage of co-habiting couples with children who end up splitting up are.

How you can dismiss that as just something parents should deal with at home as a throw away topic of conversation when it is likely to affect (as a minimum) almost 50% of all people who get married (and have children) is beyond me.

• having children and co habiting with someone you are not married to is an incredibly vulnerable position for a woman and children to be in

Tbf tho this needs rewording as it assumes a non working mother (rare these days). As you long as you keep your job & work full time, you have far more protection.

There are still IHT etc advantages to life partners marrying.

Eg if a partner owns a house worth more than the inheritance tax free band, they can't leave it to their partner free of iht.

They can leave it to their husband, wife or civil partner free of iht.

" As you long as you keep your job & work full time, you have far more protection."

Absolute bullshit.

If you are not named on the mortgage of the property as a joint owner your income/salary could be sucked into invisible things for years and years leaving your male partner (who you are not married to) with the property his name is on and he has paid the mortgage on (because your job/salary paid for the kids allowing him to pay the mortgage).

If you are with a very high earning spouse and are in a long term marriage with children where you gave up your career you will do far better out of a divorce than if you tried to work yourself. That is how UK divorce courts work.

But even just focussing on the woman in the street, what is not stressed to girls at school is how important it is that their name is on the deeds of the house and of course the men they have kids with are happy for their name not to be on the house deeds.

@Benibidibici it's not rare these days. It's getting more common with the cost of childcare.

@millymog11 has it. My cousin is in this situation as is a neighbour. In cousin’s case (a working ft professional herself), she actually asked if she could put some of her savings into his house that he bought when they were only in the very early stages of dating (now together 7 years) and was unequivocally told no.

A neighbour over the road has just been unceremoniously kicked out of her home by her now ex partner who intentionally set up the finances and house purchase so that it was his alone. Locks are changed and that is that, she is entitled to nothing.

Of course we could have a conversation about how these women need to be more assertive but presumably if it was that easy they would be. There are always “excellent pragmatic financial reasons” why it “doesn’t make sense” to both be named on the mortgage, for the man!

I don't disagree with your points as such but you are making your case on a very specific set of assumptions, and are basing everything on the very traditional model of the nuclear family with children, a male breadwinner and home owner, female home maker and in the event of a split, that the mother is essentially sole care giver to the children.

I would say a lot of those notions are outdated or at least should be. Perhaps we should be navigating those hurdles and changing laws and society so that these roles aren't so engendered, rather than contributing to the idea that women are doomed to be financially vulnerable and must legally tie themselves to a man in order to be safe.

I can spend just a few minutes with Google and find no shortage of papers that show that women’s wages trajectories go down after having children, even if they keep their jobs. If i wasn’t on my phone I would do a proper literature search, but the result wouldn’t change. High earning women are not immune and in fact suffer a particularly pronounced impact.

There is an undeniable child-bearing penalty because women still take on more of the caregiver role, even when couples strive for balance. That is why marriage is so essential for having children. You have to join economically to mitigate the impact of raising a child on a woman financially.

"Of course we could have a conversation about how these women need to be more assertive but presumably if it was that easy they would be. There are always “excellent pragmatic financial reasons” why it “doesn’t make sense” to both be named on the mortgage, for the man!"

What needs to happen is that there is a very specific module in UK schooling where girls before they leave school at 16 are made to work through various permutations and combinations of financial calculations working backward from the hypothetical date they split up with their partner assuming they have two children both aged around 5 (as divorce/separation statistics indicate that if there are kids and the man does not want to stay (giving the woman no choice) he will likely leave when the child is between 3 and 10 years certainly after the first 2 years)

If they are married
If they are not married
If they are joint owners on the property
If only he is the owner of the property on the deeds
If she has given up work
If she has not given up work
If she earns more than him
If she earns less than him

And work it backward from the date she is "out on the street" as per the above.

I think this would focus the girls thoughts much more clearly on the cost to her and her children if she gets pregnant with someone knowing full well what her most likely financial outcome will be if she becomes a single parent. Granted some families and local cultures in the UK are kind of set up for the idea that the girl will at some point be a single mum or will eventually and forever more be a single mum and there are mitigating factors which make that

OK/acceptable/even appealing to the girl that she goes ahead anyway (eg very strong extended family networks which help with childcare and/or the type of work the man she is with might do).

But you don't have to teach it in that cultural slant way, you can literally teach it as a maths exercise.

And finally:

(1) Yes I do think this module of lessons should be single sex girls only because as I have stated in a previous post, whatever men say the current system is ultimately in their favour if they "work it" like they are increasingly encouraged to do online by ensuring the housing/property they all live in including his children is in his sole name and she is not on the deeds, so there is no point in boys being present in those lessons; and

(2) if the above lessons were actually enough to make girls think really carefully about money/how to afford a baby or child as single parent before they got pregnant it might change the dating market significantly away from the incel culture in the style of Andrew Tate as girls would actively avoid boys like that who ultimately put them and their children in such a vulnerable position (i quote him as an influencer example only and don't want to go down the rabbit hole of Andrew Tate himself here).

Cost and the conflation between a marriage and a wedding.

Cost of life in general and struggling to pay for things was always part of life for previous generations so weddings were cheap and cheerful.

Now people want a wedding event that often costs at least as much as a decent secondhand car so postpone it. Then they trickle into the SAHM/dad earning set up and then the man doesnt want to share "his" money because he doesnt see them entering it on an equal footing and he has more to lose.

We did cheap and cheerful to get the paperwork in order. Now there is no way we would spend family money on our wedding because the fancy wedding doesnt benefit the kids.

In short, pre kids it's easier to justify the money, post kids, not so much. Priorities change.

If you are not named on the mortgage of the property as a joint owner your income/salary could be sucked into invisible things for years and years leaving your male partner (who you are not married to) with the property his name is on and he has paid the mortgage on (because your job/salary paid for the kids allowing him to pay the mortgage).

Ok so my assumption was that if you are working full time you pay your share of the mortgage, whether married or not.

But anyway i agree - marriage is a far better protection, regardless of whether there are kids, in any situation where one earns less & there are shared assets

@millymog11 you seem determined to force your view. Your choice of course.
But how is this a teacher's responsibility? So which subject would this be taught in and where are you finding the space for it? And what are you thinking should be dropped out of the current curriculum to find the space for it? Because no matter how confidently you push your opinion and no matter how much fact it may be based on, the reality is still that there simply isn't space. But of course teachers are there to do everything...

"Then they trickle into the SAHM/dad earning set up and then the man doesnt want to share "his" money because he doesnt see them entering it on an equal footing and he has more to lose."

This ^ is it.

Being totally cynical it can all be summed up by this. In the vast vast majority of cases where there are going to be children between a couple, the absolute peak of intersex power the woman has in the dynamic between a man and a woman (and when I say "power" I mean stability and financial security in terms of actual assuredness that the man is "with her" for the purpose of the child) is the moment before the child is conceived. So if you want to get married why would a man want to do that more after you are pregnant? So many men resist marriage as it is.

After the child is conceived the viability of the union both emotionally and financially / long term stability all depends on the character of the man as the cost of going through pregnancy and childbirth is not really appreciated if that house/equity/salary/ is going up and up and there are single girls out there who you have not yet pregnated.