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?

Why do you think class is so important, and why does that colour your understanding of patriarchal structures to the extent that your language is inherently rooted in misogyny?

You didn't ask me that question. It looks like you've become confused. Slow down, reread and remember what you have asked whom.

Women (and men) should aspire to marry someone that they love and wish to marry (if they wish to marry).... not for what they get out of it ffs

Ah, I see. So you're not talking from personal experience. My apologies for thinking you were so cynical. I just think it's weird to come to some sort of revelation that you are no great catch and then decide to settle for what you can get, but not what you want. Why not just be single? What is the point of coupling up if you are always settling?

Considering how many dads I knew who find it easy to abandon kids then I would say no - having a kid with somebody doesn’t seem to imply a big commitment. It just requires having unprotected sex. (The fact some of these men will have happily create kids willy-nilly but baulk at marriage will show what they view as the bigger commitment…)

As well as being damaging at a group level, I firmly believe this ‘marrying up’ dynamic can be damaging for women on an individual level. Their marriage is not equal from the very start. Their career will be deprioritised. They will inevitably do much more of the childcare and housework. Their lifestyle is dependent on their husband. She can’t really afford to leave him, and if she does, she’s screwed because half a house she can’t afford to keep isn’t much good to her.

Marrying rich is not bettering your life through your own efforts!

I just asked my other half and he responded ‘I don’t have everything on a plate, I just don’t have enough money to buy you a ring yet’….. hmmmmm

That's a poor excuse for 99% of men though, cos they're happy to get a 25k car on finance or with a bank loan, but they won't do it for an engagement ring costing a fraction of that.

It's just their crap 'priorities', and the women in their life rates well below a car in financial 'planning'...

Why do you need a ring?

For the same reason they want a nice car I suppose, because I do?

Everyone 'needs' something, at some point, for some reason, be it a car, a holiday, an engagement/wedding ring or a new sofa.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a nice engagement ring when you've been proposed to fgs.

Nobody needs a ring. It doesn’t do anything or serve any purpose. Buy your own ring if you want one.

A ring demonstrates that you have been proposed to and chosen by a man! Buy your own indeed, what is this feminist nonsense?

An engagement ring serves to symbolize a romantic promise, a public declaration of commitment, and the formal intent to marry.

A ring has also been used to declare a formal agreement (since Roman times).

It's to signify the intention of the couple to be bound in marriage, both legally and spiritually.

So yes, the ring does serve a purpose.

The same could be said of a car. You can walk or take public transport anywhere you need to go. People did so for thousands of years. A car simply isn't 'necessary', but it's something that publicly declares who you are and how successful you are, ergo men simply 'must' have a big flashy car, because of the public 'statement' it sends.

@Whatbloodysummer the ring did serve a purpose at one time..

In times gone by when women had no assets of their own, and had spent their father's money on a dress etc, it was a promise of marriage. If the fiance backed out then the women could sell it and repay her father for the expenses he incurred.

Whether it is relevant now is a moot point.

In those days though, the daughters also came with a Dowry, that Fathers were expected to pay to the Groom?

So the potential selling of the engagement ring wasn't to reimburse the Father for the cost of the dress, especially as it was expected that the ring be returned to the 'groom' as it was often a family heirloom, passed down from generation to generation?

It literally was to make a public 'statement' that a formal agreement had been made for the couple to marry.

It still signifies that today.

You could ask why some women are so readily willing to give men everything they want unless they get married first.

Its probably been discussed before on another thread ...but this conversation makes me think of Simon Cowells partner...didnt she change her name to his?? They've been together for years ...have a child together...and i think are officially engaged ...but no wedding.