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.

The law has changed so that anyone can have a civil partnership. You should, imo have to actively choose to enter into a relationship where there is the potential of your assets being given to another person. If me and DH were to split or he were to die, I would not marry again because my assets ( house, pension ) belong to my children. I would not want someone to have a claim on it just because we lived together by default. I wonder how many men who ' don't believe in marriage' have gone into a civil partnership to protect their partner and children in the case of death or divorce?

How did you find this out when he died? Were you not in the will?

i look at some people who did this and know it was the man throwing the girlfriend a crumb. Even men with absolutely no assets! Never any intention of getting married but did it to pretend they planned that commitment to keep the girlfriend from leaving. They thought it showed commitment. It doesnt.

i also think getting to know each other long enough and well enough to the point of planning and getting married takes time and some people just rush relationships and getting pregnant is faster than getting to that stage. Then once you have a family, buying a house is the priority. Weddings come way, way down the list.

This has happened to a friend of mine, her fiance just wanted to 'put a ring on her' , as he was in his 50s and wanted to secure her. Which he did , this engagement was in 2016. He will never marry her as he's v asset rich.

In our situation we both work (I earn more) and we both have assets and savings (me more) so there is 0 incentive to get married.

People on here bleat on and on about « marriage protects women », which operates on the extremely sexist presumption that the man has more money more assets and a better career.

Isn't it more to do with the women taking a break in their career to have children?

If I ever get engaged again, I'll be setting the wedding date at the same time, and planning from then on. None of this "we'll get around to it later" nonsense for me again.

I think some men see marriage as a bigger and riskier commitment than children.

When I asked an acquaintance of mine whether he has any DC, he said no then a minute or two later remembered his two year DS (I was quite shocked!). His ex looks after the DS while he does stints of building work to get cash then goes on holiday in places like Thailand for several months at a time (this happens a couple of times a year). Occasionally, he will play Disney dad and spend a couple of hours with his DS.

This arrangement suits him down to the ground, as he has all of the benefits with pretty much zero commitment or ties. Many men don’t have to pay much through CMS if they break up with their partners and they aren’t forced to spend any more time than they wish to with their DC so are free to move straight on with no/minimal impact on their finances. Engagement means they make all the right noises and can get a de facto wife but with the benefits of being able to run away scot free if a better offer comes along.

I personally would never have accepted it but I think it has become normalised in society, so many women just accept the intention and take their chances without ever getting to the marriage stage.

Someone else I know (also just an acquaintance) has a preference for young Thai women so got together with one, had a DC with her then dumped her and moved onto another one (who is currently acting as ‘stepmother’ to DC1 and actually had another DC with him via IVF despite no wedding ring). My money is not on this one lasting either, so the cycle will continue.

I think if both parties are aware of the consequences of not being married and have acted on it, then its nobody's business really. If I was unmarried, I would do the same. Tenants in common on the house, wills in place benefitting my children, financial independence ( which I have anyway). The problems occur when women are sold a line and can't be bothered to think about the consequences/ wait forever for a wedding etc and make themselves financially dependent, when much of the time, the men has looked into these things, and that's why they dont want to marry. And this is even people without a pot to piss in who are told ' she'll leave you and take half your stuff'. Unmarried parents are 5 times more likely to split than married parents statistically.

It's engaged to be married, so seems pointless being engaged if you don't intend to marry. But its become a sort of standalone status now I guess.

Having children isn't making any commitment to each other at all. People have one night stands that result in pregnancy all the time. It forms a connection between you, which shouldn't be confused with a commitment.

Marriage is making your relationship legally recognised, cemented by making formal vows, so is absolutely a commitment to each other.

I found the whole process of organising a wedding daunting and ridiculously expensive. It seems like everything costs three times as much if it has the word wedding attached to it.

In the end, we just went to the register office with two witnesses. But I can see why people wouldn’t bother at all.

When you're young and starting out, assuming you're of similar backgrounds, it could be perceived as a sexist assumption to make.

However looking at the long-term, if DC are in the couple's plans the woman IS most likely to be disadvantaged as in the vast majority of cases she'll have to take (multiple?) time out to give birth and recover, which may impact her career negatively.

Again, an extremely sexist presumption that you’ll have children and women will « take the hit » as opposed to the man or sharing responsibility. It’s not actually obligatory that happens!

And if I took multiple year long mat leaves I would still be better off! 😂

Again, an extremely sexist presumption that you’ll have children and women will « take the hit » as opposed to the man or sharing responsibility. It’s not actually obligatory that happens!

I think this take the feminist aspect a bit far. The vast majority of mothers do of course 'take the hit' - the man can't have the baby for her, nor does he need time off to recover.

You are in the same situation as many men who don't want to get married for the same reason. If you say to your DP ' I'm jot getting married because I dont want to share my assets with you, so make sure you are financially secure' then two adults are making informed adult decisions. But often the man thinks like that and instead of saying ' Sorry I'm not going to marry you because I don't want to share my assets' they get engaged, put it off and put it off endlessly, the woman believes them and acts to her detriment then when the shit hits the fan is forced to confront reality.

Fine in principle, but men often father children and refuse to marry. Are you happy to see those women screwed over?

Perhaps « I don’t want to share my assets with you » is correct.

It could also be poles apart attitudes to money. For example one partner gets things on credit and spends on « indulgences » whereas the other is committed to saving/ being debt free/ budgeting.

could be loads of financial reasons for it, along with inheritances and kids from previous relationships etc.

But to answer OPs question - why do otherwise conmitted couples not get married. The simple answer is money.

I was in the will. House was in my name but when the hospital gave me his phone there were messages to another woman he had been seeing. He’d been messaging her from the hospital and gave her more information than I had. It had been going on a while I found out. He’d used text messages instead of WhatsApp so it was in his phone bill.
He was retired and was playing around while I was at work. Explained a lot.

I think the main thing is the hassle tbh. As I get older I fancy a wedding less and less. An awful lot of expense, stress and planning. Seems like the money and time could be spent on something more useful. If a couple has children and they are living together then their life has already begun really so they've sort of skipped the marriage step in a way. So then it's finding the motivation to make it formal/official. But they are essentially married anyway. I was engaged at 30 but it didn't work out and now I'm 35 and waiting 🤔🤔not that I'm as bothered about a wedding anymore like I say but I still want to settle down.

Nobody is happy to see anyone screwed over but the answer is very simple. Don’t have children until you get married! Nowadays contraception and even abortion are freely available in the UK. No of course these men shouldn’t be such shits, but women can only control their own behaviour/choices.

Worth noting:

Co owning a house doesn’t stop IHT being due. It legally passes to the partner, but an IHT calculation is undertaken. The property passes to the partner and if the half is over £325k, then the excess is charged at 40%. Joint ownership DOES NOT stop IHT, only marriage.

Only if the asset passes to the child does a further RNRB of £175k apply.

All of those reasons are also valid. The only issue is the lying and pretending it's other reasons, and the other partner ( mainly women) believing the lie and accepting ' marriage is a piece of paper' 'I have a moral objection to marriage' ' children and living together is more of a commitment than marriage ' or 'I want to marry you but I need a better job/car/house/ you deserve the biggest most ecoensive wedding ever andcI cant afford it yet blah blah blah. It's the romanticisation of marriage that has caused this. A few generations ago ( and in some countries and amongst the very wealthy still now) it is a legal contract. Nothing to do with love and everything to do with the joining of families, bringing up children and sharing of assets. It's a more logical decision making process.

If they want a big wedding then it's a lot of money, and they may need it for buying a house & having a baby.

We did a very small registry office ceremony and no reception because we didn't care. But if we had wanted a bigger wedding, it would have had to wait I guess.

It's expensive, I hate organising things with a passion, and I can't seem to reconcile myself to a joyless paper signing wedding. I think about a civil partnership sometimes.

A wedding is a luxury, basically.

@5128gap indeed - the only way to avoid this is to buy as joint tenants…which is antithetical to the objection that many people have on this thread around sharing their assets with another person, as with joint tenants regardless of contribution you own the house equally.

Personally I find the whole thing highly unromantic but I know that’s not a popular MN opinion. I don’t care if people want to get married or not but I do care if one partner does want to and the other one continues to string them along with promises of “soon” and shut up rings. I too only really consider it a “real” engagement if there is a wedding booked. Otherwise it’s a nice piece of jewellery and a verbal declaration that your relationship is serious, which is still important, but not the same.