to think a lot of men will not marry if they already get everything?

[Pinkshocks]

If he is already getting everything on a plate, a committed partner, a sexual relationship, children, someone to split the bills with, emotional support and a family life, all without making any legal or lifelong commitment, why would he change anything?

I know this does NOT apply to every couple or to ALL men. Some people genuinely do not want to marry and both are happy with that. But if one person wants marriage and the other keeps putting it off year after year, are they really going to change when they are already getting everything they want?

Why would someone buy the ticket when they are already getting the whole show for free?

Because that is the particular scenario I chose to discuss and it is one women post about regularly. A thread does not have to cover every possible variation to make a valid point.

The same dynamic can apply to men who want marriage and women who do not, but that was not the example the thread was about. Discussing one common pattern is not the same as claiming it is exclusive to one sex.

Women in that scenario have posted on this thread.

It isn’t about reducing love to a business deal. It is about recognising that men are less likely to change a situation they are already happy with.

If a woman wants marriage and the man is perfectly content with the relationship, home and family life as they are, why would he suddenly decide to change things?

Love can be real and commitment can be real while men and women still want different outcomes.

Of course, women could change all this overnight by refusing to have children unless married. I know it would never happen, but if ALL women decided, from today, no wedding no children, then the shift would be very interesting to watch

You said that in your experience, most women want to get married.

I’m telling you that in my experience, they don’t.

So we have different experiences. What’s new?

I imagine lots of men would be very pleased that their partners were no longer pressuring them to have children. What else do you think might happen?

That doesn't mean that the underlying basis of your thread or the subsequent comments by you and others haven't been rooted in misogyny. You seem to have a block when it comes to understanding what you're being asked. At any rate I find your answers slippery.

Yes! It would be just like going back in time! Keep your hands on your ha'pennies girls!

Some women don't want to marry.
Why have you just cited men.

Simply calling something misogyny doesn’t make it the case.

My point has consistently been that if a woman wants marriage and a man is already happy with the relationship as it is, he has less reason to change the status quo. I’ve also said repeatedly that the exact same principle applies if a man wants marriage and a woman does not.

You may disagree with the argument which is fine but that is different from proving it is rooted in misogyny. Women have mentioned themselves on this thread they are in this position where their partners won’t marry them.

As for being “slippery”, you clearly don’t like my responses which is fine.

Because I can create threads about any scenario without having to include every gender, those who have no gender, non-binary etc.

Seems like what you want is just to state your point over and over again, and if anyone tries to bring up the ramifications, consequences, implications, analogies, underlying assumptions, inherent biases or any other angle, you say, "No no, that's not what I'm talking about."

Well if you can't see the inherent misogyny in your OP and the absolute reams of it that have spilled out as a result, I'm not sure what else to say!

@PinkEasterbunny "Of course, women could change all this overnight by refusing to have children unless married. I know it would never happen, but if ALL women decided, from today, no wedding no children, then the shift would be very interesting to watch"

I think a lot of men would be thoroughly delighted about it.

I understand that women who are the higher earners and who may have children from a previous relationship may be reluctant to marry as they worry that their new husband may leave and lay claim to their assets. Remaining unmarried gives some protection from this. For now.

Starmer’s leadership opened a consultation on changing the laws regarding inheritance on intestacy and the division of assets during a split - both in divorce and for unmarried couples. I am unsure what the status of this is given we have a change of PM with different priorities.

The consultation focuses on bringing fairness to women who may have given up work to raise children so whose earning power is reduced if she splits from her dp, and to make their financial rights broadly in line with married women going through a divorce. However I assume that equality law would say that men cannot be treated less fairly so cannot be excluded from being able to access these rights too. And the proposals probably can’t apply only to partners with children - women may go part-time to support their partners more at home. Or they may take over caring for step-children when in residence. And there’s always the possibility of children from the relationship predeceasing their parents. No longer alive at the time of the split, but the reason the (usually) woman may not have worked for a number of years.

These needs may be linked to children’s needs. They would include housing, capital, income and pension needs, so far as resources allow. The aim would be to ensure that each person can secure suitable housing and meet living costs.
In assessing those needs, the court could take into account the standard of living during the relationship, as this provides a helpful benchmark. A committed relationship often shapes financial arrangements and future expectations, and that reality should be recognised.

So potentially women who don’t want to risk their assets from claims by lower-waged partners would have to live separately from their dps or make sure they move out before three years (the qualifying period).

Equally, this runs the risk of men who don’t want women claiming against their wealth moving out before 3 years or refusing to live with them. Be interesting to see how, if this makes it into law, a split between a woman who lives with their child and a man who never moved in but happily got the woman pregnant, would pan out. Child support, yes, but can living separately accommodated lives really be considered a relationship?

Consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation-document

Is this thread only for people who agree with you then?

Children.
Have sex, rent together (or live in one person's house while keeping the other person's as a back up), have your 'test drive'.
But don't get pregnant.

Unless of course you are the higher earner. Though as most women earn less than most men, that situation is not the norm.

It went wrong where she got pregnant without being married.

Assuming of course that he is the higher earner, as is statistically likely.
And even if they earn similar amounts, she will be financially impacted by maternity leave unless they pool all income (the number of women I read about on here that used her own savings to fund maternity leave, still paying 50% of all bills whilst she had no income, is truly shocking).
Then she is highly likely to be impacted by not returning to work full time after maternity leave, because childcare is so expensive it 'makes sense' for her to stay at home (never mind that she is wrecking her future earnings potential and not putting money into her pension).
And then even if she does return to work full time, she is the one that has to take annual leave or parental leave on odd days when the kids are sick, because his employer makes it difficult for him (or so he says).
So her employer thinks she is not committed and is not taking the role seriously, so she is overlooked for promotion. So her career stalls.

All this will happen to her whether she is married or not, but at least if they are married he doesn't get to build up assets and savings that he keeps upon splitting up whilst her savings dwindle to nothing and her income is a pittance.

But would that be such a bad thing? In the context of men getting it all without any of the commitment?

Well, marriage is a legal contract for pooling financial resources.
That is its primary purpose in today's society.

(There are some other purposes such as medical next-of-kin, etc.)

More women need to know this

I think a lot of men would be thoroughly delighted about it.

Which, if I have understood you correctly, suggests a lot of men are not that bothered about having children?

I don't think they are.
Or they go along, to keep the peace, without understanding how much hard work it is. Then you get all these posts on MN about how their DH is useless with the kids.
It begs the question "did he actually want them"?

He wanted them, but only to have the status of 'being a father', not to do any actual parenting.
He wants kids, and he wants a woman to raise them for him.

And probably he'll only take an interest when they are old enough to pay football with !

Would it be a bad thing to go back to times where women's value lay in their biological assets and they lacked agency in deciding what to do with their own bodies outside a narrow set of circumstances defined by patriarchal norms?

I'm going with yes.