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?

Given that most men (and of course Im talking generally before I get loads of waffle about this) probably have kids because their partner/wife wants them, im not sure that makes any difference.

Women tend to be the pushers for having kids, they want them, the man goes along with it, if women said they wouldnt have kids unless they were married the birthrate would be even lower.

That is very sad.

Women need to be very clear on what they want. We’re pushing 60 and PIL would have dragged DH to the altar if i’d been pregnant before marriage and he was not willing to marry me. Times change, but if I was 30 years younger and starting out now it would be no DC before marriage as far as i’m concerned.

It is if course legally financially and socially easier to walk away from a child than it is from a marriage.

I do not think that is the same issue being discussed.

If someone genuinely does not want to remarry because they want to protect assets and they are upfront about that from the start, that is completely different.

The problem is when one person wants marriage and the other keeps saying “not yet” for years while happily accepting all the benefits of a spouse. They get the commitment, the home life, the children, the emotional support and often shared finances without offering the commitment the other person wants.

If protecting assets is the concern, there are legal ways to address that, such as a prenuptial agreement or keeping certain assets separate. It is not an all or nothing choice.

The issue is not choosing not to marry. The issue is expecting someone to live as a spouse indefinitely while refusing to become one even though you know marriage matters deeply to them.

There’s a really lovely lady on YouTube, Liana and she has two beautiful children and is doing such a fantastic job raising them her partner is clearly loving and in love with her but is withholding marriage for some reason it’s so utterly bizarre and I can’t watch them without feeling a little sad for her.

If a woman ( or a man) wants to get married and settles for someone who doesn't , that's on them.
Move on and find someone who wants the same things you do ( before having children) .
Increasingly though, women do not want to get married either. Especially when they are the higher earners.
Tbh I hate this whole narrative that if a woman is unmarried, it's because a 'man' won't marry her.
It's really not every woman's mission in life, some of us make our own decisions.

Yes you’ve explained it very clearly OP.

I’m not sure why some people aren’t getting it.

But the post is clearly not about women who have freely decided that they do not want marriage. It is about women who do want marriage, have made that clear, and then spend years hoping a reluctant partner will eventually change his mind.

Saying “that is on them” is too simplistic. People are often promised marriage later, after buying a house, after having children, after finances improve, or after some other milestone. By the time it becomes obvious that the promise is never going to be fulfilled, they may have children, shared finances and years invested in the relationship. Walking away is no longer as simple as “move on.”

Of course women make their own decisions, and many do not want marriage. Nobody is saying every unmarried woman has been rejected. But pretending that some men do not happily accept the benefits of a wife while avoiding the commitment she has repeatedly asked for is equally unrealistic.

The point is not that every woman wants marriage. The point is that women who do want it should be wary of giving someone everything on a plate while accepting endless excuses about commitment.

I think the fact you consider women to be some kind of ticketed show is the more problematic thing here. My husband proposed because he wanted to call me his wife, not to unlock some paywalled bonus features.

If me and DH weren’t married it would change nothing. In almost 20 years I’ve never once used marriage tax allowance or asset transfership.

If someone is refusing to get married to a partner after years and years of being asked, it’s nothing to do with “already getting everything” which is a pathetic way to consider a partner’s contribution to a relationship, and more to do with the fact that they don’t have confidence in the relationship.

I also suspect many of these people insisting on a marriage wouldn’t be satisfied with a £62 quicky at the council.

It is sad but he gets everything without marrying her. Sex, children - he doesn’t need to bother to commit to her.

Genuinely curious, as Mumsnet seems to love marriage - WWYD in my situation? I am much better off financially than DP (I own our home, which I’d bought before getting together with DP, I have a much better pension and more in savings/ investments. He is in negative equity on a property he owns and has little in the way of a pension/ savings). We have a child together. Why would the ‘legal protection’ of marriage make any sense for me in this scenario?

More fool anyone who invests years in a relationship based on words.

Why do you view marriage as a reward for a woman, that she'd only get by withholding sex, money or kids from a man?
Weird.

Oh gosh yes. There are millions of men out there who don't love the mothers of their children.

Absolutely none of this has anything to do with what the OP is talking about.

I’d honestly start your own thread if you’d like to discuss this.

I know more couples who aren’t married than are. In most cases they both have decent professional jobs so are not really financially reliant on each other.

All that will change next year though as IHT rules regarding pensions change and that makes a huge difference.

We’ll get married or have a civil partnership before April 2027 but doubt we’ll tell anyone else we’ve done it. It is purely for IHT reasons as we’ve been together 20 years and have a 5 year old DS so don’t need a marriage to signify commitment.

Yep, "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free" is a very old expression.

Women were sold a pup with "sexual liberation", basically. Give it away (sex, plus cohabitation and wifework and domestic comforts and all the rest), AND work FT and pay half the bills, and you end up working the double shift and also very vulnerable financially.

Cue lots of women shrieking that they love sex too. Yeah, but not as much as men do. (You love children more; you'll put up with pretty much anything to have them and keep them). When men couldn't get it without marrying, they married. And lots more women shrieking that they make money too. Yes, but usually less of it, once the childrearing years are factored in. Any woman who had kids (or buys property with a man, or gets otherwise financially entangled with him) without marriage is a fool, who's thinking more about being a Cool Girl - or just her desperation for kids - than she is about what's actually good for her (and the kids).

Yes, lots of men have kids with women they don't love. Lots of men who don't really want them are bounced into it by women who do. Women want them more, and feel more of a commitment to them once they're born. Men can walk away and be happy; women can't.

Find a man who's worth marrying first, and act like you're married only when you are.

I married my wife because I loved her. I wanted her to know she was the most important person to me. I was happy to share everything I had with her. For better, for worse and all that.

As it turns out, the sickness bit of the vows resulted in death parting us, and I only hope she knew the way I felt about her.

That is deliberately taking the phrase too literally. Nobody is describing women as a ticketed show or as a collection of bonus features. The point is about incentives and unequal expectations within some relationships.

Your husband proposed because he wanted you to be his wife. That is exactly the difference. He valued marriage itself. The discussion is about people who know their partner wants marriage, repeatedly suggest it may happen one day, but continue accepting the full practical and emotional commitment of family life while avoiding the commitment that matters to the other person.

It is also not true that marriage changes nothing simply because you have never used a particular tax allowance. Marriage creates legal rights and responsibilities around inheritance, pensions, property, next of kin status and separation. Many unmarried partners only discover how significant that is when someone dies or the relationship ends.

Lack of confidence in the relationship may well be the reason someone refuses to marry. But that makes it worse, not better, if they are still willing to have children, buy a home and build a life with someone they apparently do not trust enough to marry.

The assumption that women demanding marriage would reject a simple register office ceremony rather undermines the argument. For many, it is the commitment and legal protection they want, not an expensive wedding.

I think this is a really outdated and sexist view. It could be men or women equally who don't want to marry I think.

I know lots of situations where the men want to marry and the women don't. These days, women are far more likely to have successful careers and own property in their own right. It makes perfect sense not to marry in this situation. Why gamble your house and savings for love? Older men in particular seem to want a wife... Older women tend to be quite content living separately, staying dating long term and protecting their assets, especially if they have children.

It's perfectly possible to be in a loving relationship without marriage as well. You can also be commited to someone without marriage. Marriage is pretty meaningless anyway nowadays. It's not a lifelong commitment is it when so many divorce.

The point is that if one partner wants that commitment and the other is already getting everything they want from the relationship without making it, they have little incentive to change the status quo. That is about incentives, not withholding sex, money or children.

You clearly didn’t understand.

Weird.

That only makes the point outdated if it claims all women want marriage and all men avoid it, which it does not. It is about relationships where one person clearly wants marriage and the other keeps delaying it while accepting the benefits of a shared life.

Of course people can choose not to marry, protect their assets and live separately. That is completely different from stringing along a partner who has made it clear that marriage matters to them.

Divorce does not make marriage meaningless. The fact that a commitment can end does not mean it was never a commitment in the first place.

I do take your point OP and I don’t totally disagree but I would add that for me this is an actions speak louder than words thing. If a person, man or woman, is serious about marriage being important to them then really the time to state that clearly and stand by it is before you do anything else because if marriage really is important to you then you wouldn’t choose to buy a house, have children with someone who hasn’t entered into that commitment with you.

I would also say there are some people for whom maybe life just gets in the way. I can see where if we hadn’t gotten married before we had our children we would never have found the time now to sort that out, it was important to us so we did that first, if my husband hadn’t been on the same page about marriage then he wouldn’t have been the one for me and that’s okay, but I don’t think any healthy marriage starts with one person just doing the other a favour by marrying really.

This can apply to anyone, men or women.

But how clear is the person that wants to marry about how much it matters if they to have gone along with a house, a shared life, shared children, before getting that commitment? You prioritise what is important to you, that’s just life, if you’ve done all of those other things first you could just as easily argue that actually marriage clearly wasn’t that important to either of them because they’ve both just gone ahead with doing other things.