Not believing in marriage is a luxury belief

[ironorchids]

Is it me or are there a lot of men these days who disbelieve in marriage for various reasons at the expense of the women they are with who believe in it, want it and have wanted it their whole lives?

Whatever the various reasons they give for disbelieving in it, at the end of the day, it is a luxury belief for someone who will never ever have to worry about or to take on the risk of potentially getting pregnant, having to have months or years off work to recover, feed them from your body, or even risk being left holding the baby as you're the one physically pregnant, if their partner leaves?

Disbelief in marriage is a luxury, and it's usually (not always) when you are free from all that risk and have that luxury that you can afford to believe all the other reasons so many men give (at the expense of the women they're with) for not believing in it.

Inheritance tax. Hopefully you both have long healthy lives ahead of you, but when the first partner dies if you are married there's no Inheritance tax on what you leave to your spouse. If you're not married and leave enough to attract tax, that could take a big chunk out of the estate.

I didn't believe in marriage and was quite happy to never get married. I am very anti religion and couldn't see what the government had to do with my relationship.
However when I met my partner he already had a child (and had been treated badly by his ex, not given PR, before it was automatic for men on the birth certificate, had years of fighting for custody, acutely aware that if she died her very difficult mother would have as much right to custody as him). They had only found out she was pregnant after they split up so after a disastrously year of trying again they split up.
We met about 4 years later. He was happy to stay unmarried but would not have any more children outside of marriage. I knew I wanted to have children with him and so agreed to get married. 20 years this year. I am happy to be married as I love him so much and it means so much to him.

I wish laws would change for long-term partners as it's disgusting. Of course people can cheat the system but they can now. One of my clients has married his male housemate, both retired, both straight, but get each others pensions if die!

Why is one person’s view more important than the other? Neither is wrong or right. They just have different expectations

It's not something to 'believe' in, it's not Santa or the Easter bunny!

It's a legal contract that confers rights & responsibilities on parties.

You and a few previous posters appear to be unaware that “believe in” has more than one meaning.

be of the opinion that something is right or acceptable.

have confidence in a person or a course of action.

Getting married is a choice.

For those who don't want any, having children is a choice.

There are some places on the planet where neither of the above is a choice for women, but that's a much more serious and complex issue.

If a woman is willing to live with a man as his wife, have children with a man, and not be married to that man, what incentive is there for that man to get married?

What else would he gain?

By not marrying in those circumstances the man is financially way better off. No lean on his pension, assets or inheritance.

The bigger question is why some of us make such poor decisions about the men we have children with.

Totally agree, OP. However, just as important is the ‘these are my terms if we’re having children’ chat. I sat my husband down before he even moved in, five years or so before we married, and got his agreement that if we ever had kids we would share the parental leave and I would take exactly the same number of months off as him. Then the child is going to full time nursery, with the costs met from our salaries proportionally. In lots of little ways I’ve made him see that I have no intention of being default parent or sacrificing a jot more than him. I’ll do the first nine months of pregnancy, necessarily, and it’s 50/50 from then.

I don’t know why more women don’t do this. It’s a contract. Somebody needs your labour (literally). Negotiate.

@LadyPeterWimsey oh, I thought it meant a belief that was more prevalent among well off people. That’s how I’ve always interpreted the phrase when I’ve read it in news articles etc.

@LadyPeterWimsey actually on reflection I think that I’m correct in my interpretation of the phrase as used in the U.K. Your examples and your use of “college degree” suggest you are coming et this from an American perspective and even if the phrase was originally American I think it’s meaning has diverged here.

I genuinely believe that being married makes you actually stop and think about if you actually want to be with that person forever. It's very easy to let a relationship grow organically, move in together, have kids etc. I also think this is why many men when actually asked to commit don't want to despite 'being married' unofficially

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g I spent years gently correcting a friend who kept saying she was in a common law marriage, telling her the phrase is meaningless, but she wouldn't listen. Sadly her partner died last year, and their not being married has made a difficult time even harder. Six months down the line one of his pension providers is asking for yet more evidence they were a couple, while she is really struggling without the half of his pension and lump sum that she is entitled to.

I don’t believe in marriage.

Its not for me. I don’t want kids either. I have my own job and home. I don’t need to financially tie myself to someone else for security. We should, as a society, be ensuring that women understand the value of financial independence not finding ways to further entrap them to men.

How many threads on MN are there where the married woman feels trapped in a bad, abusive marriage because she ceded financial independence to her husband?

If a woman wants children, and knows that she will be the one to sacrifice her earning potential, it may be wise to consider getting married before having kids. I don’t deny that, but I think there’s plenty of situations where women would be foolish to get married.

I own my own home. I earn more than my boyfriend. He doesn’t own a home and bar his car, he has no assets. I’d be a fool to get married and that is just a reality. And my home will be going to my nephew when the time comes. That’s my plan. I’m not here to make provision for grown adult men who can do for themselves same as I have done for myself.

I don't know. Looking from the perspective of men, marriage just only adds some uncomfortable loyal responsibility.
If I look at the other threads like the one about women not wanting a baby boy bc they don't want to raise a future @sshole/violator and another one expecting everyone to name their kids after the mothers as it's women who bear pregnancies (as it was the greatest sacrifise ever) so they have " more rights to the child" then I think the only reason there are still men wanting to be married is that they don't read boards like this :D

From all I’ve ever read or heard, the men who ‘don’t believe in marriage’ soon start believing in it once they’ve left their partner of 9 years for someone they actually want to commit to.
‘It’s just a piece of paper’ is the usual excuse until then.

Much as I love DH, we married after many years of living together to formalise our finances. DH is the major earner/pension etc and I could have been hung out to dry had he died and we weren’t married.
His cousins, who are nice people, would have inherited. People aren’t always so nice when it comes to money.
A well written will would have sufficed but we both feel I am better cared for by being married.

In my case, because being married brings absolutely no benefits to either of us. No kids, no intention to have kids, and total value of estate well below IHT threshold.

Mirror wills and POA set up. Zero interest in marriage.

It'll be because the MN demographic skews more privileged and educated.

Even the women on here who are quite against marriage often hold that view with a full understanding of the legal and financial implications. Sometimes that understanding is the reason they don't want to get married.

I know there's been a bit of it this thread, but I'd be surprised if we don't have a lower percentage than average of people who think marriage is just a piece of paper.

I'm not American but Rob Henderson is, although I believe he is doing postgraduate work at Cambridge at the moment. He's the one who I quoted and whose post I linked to and he is the one who is credited with coming up with the concept of the luxury belief.

His point - and I think it stands both here and across the Atlantic - is that a luxury belief is one held by economic and intellectual elites to distinguish themselves from those in lower socio-economic groups. The elites hold these beliefs, but largely do not practice them themselves, or if they do, their many economic and social advantages protect them from the harmful effects of those beliefs.

I agree - in the main, it's immature men enjoying having a live-in maid / cleaner / cook / childcare provider, while they look around for what/whom they really want.

I was very clear with DH that if he wanted to buy a house we were getting married first - I wasn't spending a fortune getting solicitor documents drawn up when we could be married at the registry office for far less money. I also wasn't going to start a protracted, expensive legal argument about who owned what % of the house if we split, that didn't take into account anything like illness or pregnancy / maternity leave.

So many folk say "but having kids is a much bigger commitment to each other" - we know, that's the bloody point! They'll knock you up but won't sign a certificate giving you legal and financial protection? Fuck that!

For a woman with a career, marriage is very much a losing proposition while it's a benefit for a man. Even when the woman works full-time, she's suddenly expected to become the cook, maid and nanny while he doesn't even change his golf schedule!

On the other hand when it comes to divorce, it's the man who's often the loser. Loses his kids, his house, half or more of his assets..... He winds up in his 30's or older having to move back in with elderly parents, crash on friends' sofas, or if that's not an option.... he's sleeping in his car....

But that's the point isn't it, it's a balance that's supposed to break even by retirement age. Why should the boyfriend get to enjoy career progression and time out on his hobbies while the girlfriend is knee-deep in nappies, then walk out and keep all of the assets built on the back of her free labour?

Only if you each own more than £325k worth of assets (not including pension)

Sadly both latched onto another woman almost immediately. The new woman had her own home of course.
Even if they had really loved me I'm sure I would still have ended up doing all the housework and being a widow to their hobbies. I just can't be bothered with it all.
When you are an older woman there is nearly always an ulterior motive to men approaching you.

@blettedmedlar The problem is, your friend is not entitled to anything. She was not married. If her partner had no will, she’s not even entitled to any of his estate. Let alone make decisions for him if he was not capable. People don’t understand the legalities and protections that marriage confers. Yes, it is more complex if you split up but it’s not easy if you have joint assets and dc if you are not married either.

@TizerorFizz He had a will where she was the sole beneficiary and she was named as the sole person who got death benefits from his pension. They owned their house jointly, bought outright. So she was covered as much as she could be despite not being married, but the post death admin has been made so much more difficult and distressing because they weren't married.