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.

@canttellyouwhereorwhatido 's idea of making them liable for the child to the tune of half their assets would go a long way towards mitigating that.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia Agreed. But even marriage doesn't ensure that. Mine certainly didn't.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia I agree; that would be an unthinkably difficult scenario. There is, however, no guarantee that marriage would solve that problem. What if my husband was injured and unable to work? I would have to give up work to support both of them. What then?
To be clear, I disagree with the principle of marriage, not being in a relationship..

Exactly. One size doesn't fit all, including marriage.

Because not every woman has a long maternity leave or is the lower earner or drops to part time/becomes a SAHM so they can be the default parent.

My friends daughter just had a baby
lives with her partner
they bought the house together so both on the deeds / mortgage
but she is the one who is financially taking the hit of maternity leave and going back to teaching I think part time but she said if they have another baby she won’t go back to work for a few years

her partner would marry her tomorrow
but she wants a big white 30k wedding
I told her that they will probably split up before she get her “princess day “
and she is crazy if she wants to spend 29500 on a big party

but she wants a big day and says it’s important and she has dropped hints to my friend and her partners parents that they should chip in and contribute 😂

my friend is like no chance - you decided to have a baby before getting married so why should I pay for your wedding

@Cornflakelover My DD earns enough to pay for her own wedding. Suggest that if she wants everything paid for! Also explain the benefits of marriage should anything go wrong with the partnership.

I also think women don’t always get the best advice in a divorce and don’t play hardball. Men do.

If he owns and runs a company employing 100 people, but doesn’t have any senior employees that could run the company in his absence/ if he reduced his hours, then I’d suggest he isn’t a very good business owner

Condoms are only 88% effective - I have had several split in my lifetime but been sensible enough to take the morning after pill, not everyone does.

I see it simply as a legal contract which protects the financially more vulnerable party to it. It also carries important benefits as conferring next of kin status. DS has been with his partner for 20 years, but they chose not to get married. If anything were to happen to him, she will have no say in what happens. We could even stop her visiting if we were so inclined.

Had civil partnerships been available to hetero couples when DP and I got married, we'd have gone for one of those.

Men don't have to have PIV. They won't die without it. They don't have to risk fatherhood.

Men do this all the time! Even if they are sure they don't want children yet, the only option they have is condoms (88% effective) if they wish to preserve their fertility. They have to trust women to take the pill on top of that - 99% effective if taken correctly but they have to trust the woman that they've done it. Men who don't want kids with a one night stand deserve as many options as women have, there would definitely be fewer unwanted accidents.

You could say that to women wanting abortions, but we don't, because it's not the 1950s anymore.

That’s a bit scaremongering and not true about spouses with children from a previous marriage. If you don’t make a will, the surviving spouse will inherit the lion’s share. However, you can make a will leaving everything to your children. What you need to remember is that marriage invalidates wills made prior to getting married.

Men can use their own bodies to avoid parenthood. Women can use their own bodies to avoid parenthood. Biology means that women have more options for this; evertheless, both sexes have the right to use their own bodies to prevent parenthood.

Men who don't want kids with a one night stand deserve as many options as women have, there would definitely be fewer unwanted accidents.

Yes, they do. I have personally donated to fund Vasalgel research because I agree with you so much.

1. It is not women's fault that the male-dominated medical establishment does not prioritise male contraceptive research.
2. It is not the resulting child's fault either.
3. Lack of male options doesn't justify coercing women into abortions.

Lack of male options doesn't mean women should be coerced into abortions, I agree, but men who were clear with the women upfront that they didn't want children, shouldn't be used as an 18-year meal ticket either. I know so many friends who confided they "forgot, herhee" their pill once they starting dating a high-earning man. Men having less control over their reproductive choices and financial consequences doesn't lead to happy relationships - both parties having an upfront conversation about marriage, and accepting that the other doesn't want that long term legal commitment, should be the catalyst for finding someone else to marry if you're unhappy about it.

I agree, but men who were clear with the women upfront that they didn't want children, shouldn't be used as an 18-year meal ticket either. I know so many friends who confided they "forgot, herhee" their pill once they starting dating a high-earning man.

1. The man is not a "meal ticket" for the woman, he is paying maintenance towards his innocent child.
2. No child should be deprived of paternal support because of the mother's immoral acts.
3. Even if she is meticulous about using her contraceptives, they can fail. A sensible man uses condoms if he doesn't want children, regardless of the woman's claimed or actual contraceptive use.

both parties having an upfront conversation about marriage, and accepting that the other doesn't want that long term legal commitment, should be the catalyst for finding someone else to marry

I'm on another thread where a woman is complaining that her FWB didn't interpret her invitation to "takeaway and movie" as meaning "sex". Some people have a long way to go on the "upfront conversation" front.

Depressingly I suspect a male contareceptive would lead to a rise in abortions for young girls believing their 16 year old boyfriends are on the pill because they told them that and an increase in couples seeking IVF as some men would rather string uncomfortable relationship along and waste fertile years for women by pretending they want babies that they dont.

young girls believing their 16 year old boyfriends are on the pill because they told them that

The first rule of human relationships is "trust no one". Particularly when they don't lose anything themselves. I would strongly recommend that women continue to insist on contraception that they control or can at least see in use, regardless of any claims by the man involved.

If a woman wants a baby, it's up to the woman whether they get strung along or not, they can end the relationship if the man is dithering. The solution isn't to withhold choice from men - it's up to everyone to take responsibility for their own contraception, rather than rely on others.

So many women on MN seem to think that men should be forced to 'grow up' and become parents and marry - personally, marriage was important to me but I was clear to DH that it was his choice. I was also clear that our relationship wouldn't continue long term without that commitment.

So much can be resolved by confident, clear communication, but we indoctrinate women and girls that they're more valued if they receive a fairytale surprise proposal - so lots of women hang around for years waiting for one that was never going to come.

The first rule of human relationships is "trust no one".

Marriage involves putting your trust in the law to protect your and your children's future. Having children out of wedlock means trusting him.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia Certainly do not trust the law to protect you or your children upon divorce.

It's rather more reliable than trusting his pinky swear, don't you think?

I know which I’d rather trust.

You just have to read about the thread with many women admitting they marry despite not being attracted to their husband but have picked them for their security and reliability, ie. Their money.

They want the kids and they want to only work pt or not at all. They enjoy the life when they can have their chosen lifetime until they realise sharing your life with a dependable someone you are not attracted to is not enough.

They want their freedom and as much money as they can and claim that they deserve it because they sacrificed everything for their husband when ultimately, they chose him to be able to choose that lifestyle in the first place.

I both told my kids not to marry until they find an equal. I raised them with the attitude that there are not kale or female tasks and roles. All should be shared equally and if a partner demands what suits them more than my kids, including marriage, don't agree to it.