To think marriage is less about romance now and more about financial security?

[PlainMintReader]

People dress it up as “true love” but underneath it all, isn’t marriage today mostly about stability, mortgages, and financial safety nets?

Hi 3 random words AI user bot!

AI urgggh.

Get a grip, it’s literally a Mumsnet auto-generated username.

It was always about financial stability to some extent, especially if you planned to have children

It’s always been about that.

IMO seems people are moving in and staying together for financial savings. But are getting married for romance (or for kids) later.

Get a grip, it’s literally a Mumsnet auto-generated username. and content

It's the most efficient and cheap way to protect your rights as the lowest earner/asset holder. It would cost mega bucks and probably not be enforceable to have similar protection drawn up by a solicitor. So yes, for me, it's about a contract but I wouldn't have married someone I didn't love. My silver wedding anniversary is approaching and it's a long haul if your husband isn't a good team mate

Marriage has always been about stability tbh.

I think the idea everyone’s wildly in love for the entire length of their marriage is a fantasy of literature really.

Romance is what triggers people to get together, but the longer term piece… more about stability and demonstration of commitment.

How is that new? More people should probably remember it, though.

It always was. Marriages were negotiated among families on the basis of inheritance and financial considerations. The romantic love ideal is relatively recent. Good old fashioned lust and money have held sway for most of human history!

My impression from MN is that making sure men get their dick wet at all costs is the glue that marriages are made of. So no.

If anything marriage is less about financial security than it used to be, since in the West we now expect love and romance to be a substantial part of it.

It’s always been about financial security. One of the reasons marriages fail is that some people think a marriage can thrive on love alone. Financial incompatibility will soon have you in a solicitor’s office, if you can actually afford one to handle your divorce.

I married my DH prior to children and I was/am financially independent.

I definitely married for love, and still love him dearly 23 years later.

I didn’t marry him for his money because he didn’t have any at the start. I married him for his great hair and height genes. Now he has the money it’s either stick with me or I’ll take half, very romantic I know.

it was always about that for the lower earner. It was to avoid being left penniless and with children to feed although it didn't always work.

Since more women have been higher earners, the popularity of marriage has fallen. Society is still adapting to that change.

Are you married?

It was never about romance. It was always about controlling women.

Yes, romance is OK for teenagers and at the start of relationships, but won't endure a life time unless you're really lucky - "romance" is short term for most people. For a long term relationship, you need mutual respect, financial stability, and actually being "friends" with your chosen partner.

Fewer people are marrying than in generations before.

If the people who are marrying might tend to be in the more traditional, ‘conservative’, social groups then they are also the sort of people who might be more aware of factors like financial protection - you can very quickly become a bit vulnerable when you have children.

But I don’t believe that marriage these days is not about romance or true love. Two things can be true, can’t they: You can marry a wonderful person, the love of your life, AND be sensible and wise about the realities of your financial world. In fact I think these things go together naturally. Marriage is a serious, life-long commitment to each other - the basis for creating and raising your family - and it’s also a legal financial contract. It’s absolutely right to have your eyes wide open - DON’T ignore ANY red flags!. To be sensible and pragmatic as well as enjoying your lovely relationship. I’d say it’s stupid - reckless and foolish - not to, actually.

I’m a great believer in the institution of marriage and so are my adult kids - but it’s the biggest and most important decision you’ll ever make in your life so you must choose really wisely and do your due diligence.

It has always been about money. The romance part is fairly new. People had to get married to have sex so lust played a part.

It's a legal contract.

I didn’t even consider financial security when I got married. But we were young, recent graduates and in love. We already owned a house together. Neither of us had any money but we both had decent earning potential. Many years, and a divorce later, I’d never get married again.
Its far too stressful to divorce and of no financial benefit to me to have to share what I’ve worked hard for with someone else.

Have you never read a Jane Austen book, or seen a tv/film adaptation?