Men - a meal ticket for life?

[marantha]

Reading the amount of abuse the poster Washwithcare has received here over the past few days for suggesting that her husband does not offer more money to his ex-partner (not NOT married, no contract signed) and her (not biologically HIS) children it strikes me that feminism doesn't really exist- or only exists when it suits women.
Women are still baby machines that try to get as much money off a man as they can, when the chips are down.
AIBU?

No reasonable "judge" is going to accept a woman standing up and saying "he asked me to give up my job even though we are childless, so I did and he supported me financially. Now we are over. I want even more cash".

They'd be laughed out of court and effectively told to p**s off (obviously in more polite words).

luckymummy - sorry, I shoudl have said, you are not the only person I'm being accused of being...

Guardian is ok too... at least you're not a Mail or Mirror reader...

You see the bottom line is that cohabitee rights are a classic example of the liberal/left ideology of more legislation solving social ills.

If a man is enough of a bastard NOT to reasonably support his ex-partner if they split, he is not going to be turned into a nice guy by these laws.
In fact, he will probably ditch his cohabitee before the "rules" apply.

He may not even live with his partner in the first place.

The law of unintended consequences will mean that many men will be put off by even making a go of a long-lasting relationship.

Society will divide into the married and the living together apart people in relationships.

Nobody is going to be willing to be married (which of course is what cohabitee rights are about- marriage by default) if they don't want to be and will fight against it.

Someone who has worked hard to buy a home is not going to chance losing it for a few years cohabitation.

So that I am not accused of sexism here, I believe that no woman has worked their ass off to buy a home is going to chance losing her home, either.

Not unless she is absolutely sure of the relationship, anyway, in which case she'd probably MARRY the guy!

It's an interesting debate. I do know a chap who's been positively crippled by having been left too much money too young. Refused ever to marry in case he gets divorced and has to part with some of the loot. Funny old world. Maybe it pays not to think too much about money?

"living together apart" what the f* does that mean? Except to show that you think people who don't marry are in second class relationships.

And if people don't actually live together, they are not cohabitants (doh!!!!)

But really, things are much more interesting and intelligent without your Daily Mail views Marantha - from your other threads/posts it looks like you have a real personal issue re marriage which may relate to your own circumstances (who knows? or cares?). I suggest counselling...

luckymummy2010 There are a growing number of people who are now involved in living apart together relationships- it is a growing social trend.

My point is this: cohabitees, at this moment in time, have no legal ties to one another, right? A lot of them do not wish it for one reason or another- for example, they have been through an unhappy divorce and just want to live as a couple with no legal ties.
Some of them do not wish to hand over their property in the event of a break-up.

Please, please, please, tell me how this is a "Daily Mail" opinion?

I'm sick of this trading insults business, luckymummy2010, for what it is worth, it is time I "came clean" here for the reason why I am so anti-people being deemed as married when they are not.
I hope you will see that my views are not based on any "marriage" is superior c*ap.

Many years ago, having just graduated, I shared a flat with a male friend who was in employment, I was between jobs and was in the unfortunate position of having to claim what is now known as jobseekers allowance.

I told the dhss that my friend and myself were only mates, but because we shared meals, went out together and so on, we were deemed to be, "Living as married" and I was told he'd have to support me!
I protested at this, as you can imagine, and became very anti others deeming people to be in a relationship when they are not.

Luckily, I found a job and the matter resolved itself.

I will ask you: am I such a Daily Mail bigot in your eyes now?

Quattro, in luckymummy's brave new world of cohabitee rights, that chap had better not live with anyone either otherwise he could very well lose the lot as well even if he never expressly signed on any paper.

My point is this: luckymummy2010, because of my experience, I am against others outside a reltionship/friendship making assumptions about that relationship/friendship because sometimes they can get it wrong-as they did with me.

It has nothing to do with Daily Mail views at all.

I repeat: I do not value your relationship with your partner as in any way shape or form as "Inferior" to marriage.

luckymummy, you are the one casting the aspersions about marriage being 'superior' and cohabitees being 'second class relationships'.

If there is anyone with a serious chip on her shoulder about marriage, it is you.

I cannot imagine anything more cut-and-dried than marriage being about a legal bundle of rights designed to balance the interests of 2 people who have decided to live together and often raise a family, in relation to property, children, maintenance, support and custody on split.

No value judgments there.

As a person who has had significant assets since a young age, I would be horrified to learn that I could lose it if I accidentally got pregnant by a man I was living with. Good reason to turf him out before any rights start accruing to him.

I cannot imagine anything more draconian and paternalistic than a legal system that purports to significantly affect clear property rights without a owner agreeing to do so. There is also nothing more unfair than a legal system which is unclear as to when it applies (if it affixes on a set of fluid cohabiting circumstances that varies over time from person to person) so that people cannot plan their affairs accordingly.

Far from being for the protection of children and 'vulnerable' women, it actually gives them a false sense of security and makes their legal position more vulnerable than if the woman plumped for marriage at the outset.

Couples also frequently use co-habiting to roadtest whether their relationship is strong enough for a more permanent one. Imposing involuntary cohabitee rights and obligations would put an end to this and force the premature end or the cementing of relationships that would have been better off had both parties cut losses earlier and moved on.

blueshoes I agree with you here.

I would never cast aspersions on the state of the relationships of others unless they had specifically expressed via marriage or some other document/s- but really, doesn't marriage just do all this "expressing" for people?

My experience has taught me that it is unfair to do so as others can get it wrong.

At least if a couple are married, I can safely say that they INTENDED to be together for life and a couple. Why? Because they explicitly expressed this desire.

Excellent post blueshoes.

Last night I had a dream where Maranatha was in a nightclub dancing on a table singing 'If you like it then you shouldda put a ring on it'

I need to cut down my MN-ing.

The other aspect of the wholedebate is the large number of people,esp.woemn, who do think they get 'common law wofe'right.

So I will reiterate my stance:make it easier and cheaper to assign rights wothout marriage, pop something in the Bounty packs covering non judgementally what different groups get based on their legal stance- and include details of where to gocentrally for a contract that assigns rights that are lower level than marriage but higher than none.

Must be signed by both.

Mighteven be tick box- next of kin, etc etc. But standard, easily accessible, pref. without touching a solicitors office as people are scared of that, and certainly no more costly than marriage licence.

Peachy I agree with you here because:

a, Although I believe that marriage IS fundamentally a legal thing (after all- you DON'T have to be religious to marry, you DON'T have to be in love to marry (although 99% are)or, indeed, marry to be in love, you also don't have to intend to have children to marry, either), a lot of people do not reach this conclusion.

So it may be a good idea to either:
A, Stress that marriage is a legal thing.
B, Introduce civil partnerships for heterosexuals.

I gotta be honest though, given that marriage is ultimately a legal thing (how can it be otherwise?) it does surprise me that a lawyer wouldn't take advantage of it if they wished to be in a long-term, committed relationship.

Surely a quick trip in one's lunch break to the register office would give all the rights required.

It is all too easy to accuse those who are anti-cohabitee rights as "daily mail" bigots who believe in marriage as the height of relationships.

It is true that a lot of them are Daily Mail bigots BUT there is also the libertarian argument that people should not be held to contracts they have not expressly made- I'm on the side of the libertarians NOT the Daily Mail.

[yawn] still banging on about the same points that ignore the complexities of relationships? Flat mates issue is a red herring, nothing to do with cohabitants in a long term relationship. Maybe some are enirely clear sighted and rational in relationships but others are influenced by many other factors and don't always make the right choices - that's why contract law doesn't apply to spouses/civil partners and family law is separate.

BlueShoes "As a person who has had significant assets since a young age..." - how nice for you, clearly you have lots of empathy for those who do not find themselves in position (see Burns v Burns)...

But never mind, I did try to make this a more informed discussion (Law Commssion, statistics, case law), but obviously failed and frankly I am bugging myself by allowing myself to be baited by misinformed "libertarians"(sic).

I will take my leave, I'd like to say its been a pleasure, but...

Less fair when no children involved. My dad has been working his arse off trying to provide an inheritance for me and my sister. He got married and lived with a woman for 2 years (no children involved) and she is now filing for a fully paid up house. Even I don't have my own house, and chances of having one now are probably none. My dad isn't loaded, he has just had to borrow some money off me (and I'm on benefits!) to save one of the properties!

How are anti-cohabitee rights linked to Daily Mail bigots? Not sure I see the connection tbh.

Perhaps Torys (and Telegraph readers) are more pro-marriage. But that is about it.

blueshoes ask luckymummy2010 I am accused of being a daily mail bigot because I am anti-cohabitee rights. I don't get it either, surely the Mail would welcome people being married whether they like it or not?

luckymummy2010 you seem to care about cohabitees, that doesn't make you a bad person -far from it- however, you must appreciate that allowing people OUTSIDE the relationship/friendship to pass judgements when no declaration of committment has been made by the couple CAN often result in injustices.

Can't you see this?
For example, cannot you see how I was screwed because others passed judgement on my situation with a male friend i.e. a cohabitation that did not exist?

I am willing to at least TRY to talk about this further, if you're fed up, well I'm sorry about that.

whethergirl that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

And although the lawyers say that peope in that situation wouldn't have a claim, the person trying to clam could still take it to court and everyone would have to spend £££ to sort it all out. Very handy for the lawyers. Plus if people couldn't afford to contest it i guess they'd just have to hand the money over?

Given the stat of 2 million cohabiting people and 1.25 million children, that means a vast number of people being caught in this for no real reason.

I like Peachy's bounty pack & off the peg ideas.

Also v rude to say that someone who happens to have some money automatically has no empathy. blueshoes has plenty of empathy, I'm sure, she just thinks this is a bloody stuupid idea. As do I.

The Burns vs Burns case (where the couple cohabited for nearly 20 years) is highly unusual.

Most cohabitations last 2 years before ending or being converted to marriage.

Only 4% last for 10 years or more.

I'd like to see less automatic rights on marriage really, or more transparency about them perhaps as well as easily understood alternatives. Getting married does not necessarily offer protection. When I thought I was going to divorce my dh I discovered that I'd have to give him half of everything, whether or not he had made any contribution. Which given that we both worked had a 50:50 split on childcare he had been unfaithful and wanted to split, had wasted a huge amount of our money and run up debts seemed a bit unfair really. It would have been just as unfair if I had been the man too. Marriage is not the same as other contracts, as divorce rights are on a no blame basis, so you can break the "contract" on the one hand (for richer for poorer, in sickness and health, forsaking all others etc) but still get the payout on the other. No other contract works on that basis, nor should it.

I thought that some of the argument for rights for co-habitants was also about those who live together but cannot marry. Like brothers and sisters for example, where the tax impact means that the survivor (and this is not just about one partner leaving through choice, but also when one of them dies) may well lose their home because of the taxman take.

nooka Your story is sad and shows me that there is even LESS reason to give cohabitees rights not more-why extend an already unfair system on those who have not even asked for it by marrying?

It's OK for luckymummy2010 to say that these "rights" would be fairer, but I think they would only cause more confusion and injustice.

There is also a problem of defining "cohabitee" - if the inheritance tax law that applies to married people ALSO applies to those in live-in relationships why shouldn't those-like the elderly sisters who shared everyday expenses- ALSO be granted inheritance tax breaks?

After all, the only difference between them and those in live-in relationships is that they didn't have a sexual relationship.

If a sexual relationship IS to be the deciding factor, then I am sorry but it really DOES reduce women to the status of prostitutes i.e. living with a man for a few years then fleecing him for his money (OR a man fleecing a woman of HER money).