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?

I think there is a strong argument for extending inheritance laws to people like those sisters who were in the news, they had lived together for 50 years IIRC.

That is a separate issue to these cohabitation laws though, as they only apply to "couples". I still don't know how they can prove one way or another what sort of relationship it is though.

What if the sisters had been sleeping together, what then eh?

ImSoNotTelling, having suffered at the hands of society who deemed me to be living as a couple with a male friend when I wasn't, I will NOT pass judgements on how committed a couple are- I know mistakes can be made.

If a couple wish their relationship to be recognised (only "if" some people may really wish their relationships to be private)by the outside world i.e. inland revenue and so on, they have really got to expressly say so in a form of a document.

Otherwise, I don't think it's right to judge how committed they are.

If the sisters had been sleeping together, they'd have been committing a criminal offence (no sarcasm intended).

Perhaps the answer for the non-married in long-term relationships is to consult a solicitor and make a statment that they wished to be a long-term couple (although I DO tend to think well, why not just marry?)

I'd have zero objection to this.

Nevertheless, some statement would have to be made- it's not good enough to go on the couple's word only.

I doubt they would have been prosecuted for it though, given their age and the fact one of them had died.

In which case, if the cohabitation law was in place, would the remaining sister have a claim.

Goodness knows.

Let's be honest, the Burden sisters are so unusual that it can be argued that why should the status quo change to suit them.

Perhaps there could be not marriage but a "couple document" that people can sign if they wish to be financially tied to one person with whom their financial affairs are tied?

(Forget people's "interpersonal relationships", I think the consensus here is that there is no way to determine vague things like love and committment).

Nevertheless, it would have to be agreed by and signed by both parties.

Marantha I have been watching the numerous threads you have started or commented on regarding marriage and cohabitants.

Presumably you know the meaning of the name you have chosen and its not random?

The meaning of Marantha - "Our Lord cometh;" - an expression used by St. Paul at the conclusion of his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xvi. 22). This word has been used in anathematizing persons for great crimes; as much as to say, "May the Lord come quickly to take vengeance of thy crimes."

See www.thefreedictionary.com/Maranatha

So you have repeatedly said in threads that you are not religious but I'm wondering if you have a hidden agenda here?

Perhaps you are not what you seem. In some threads it would be easy to think that you are a man. In another thread you mentioned that you don't have children (so you are on mumsnet because??)

I'm really not interested in knowing but you seem to draw in people on numerous threads on the same issues and stir up some pretty nasty posts and if you are deceiving people (which I fully expect you to deny)then that's very disrespectful to the genuine people on here.

I haven't got a clue what you are talking about-if you must know, it is a contraction of my first and second names.

I am not religious at all.
I'm on mumsnet because it is a site that allows debate, I'm not male.

Hmm

secondcoming don't worry I don't think that about all potentially religious names!

It just seems like an odd coincidence as Marantha's views are rather on a par with the religious right (eg "If a sexual relationship IS to be the deciding factor [as to whether someone is cohabiting], then I am sorry but it really DOES reduce women to the status of prostitutes")

To quote Benjamin Franklin "Where there's marriage without love, there will be love without marriage."

If a man fathers a kid he should pay for it or if he choses to adopt it. Other than that no. Living together and not being the sperm doner shouldn't require him to pay child support.

It is still 2 to tango.

If you get Tango'd pay up.

Yes and women do have it easier with work concessions and that is unfair. But the real unfairness is what happens in the home. Women still do the majority of child raising. If a guy can prove that he is the primary career then he should get the breaks.

nomoresnow What I meant is this:

IMO there is no real difference between two flatmates splitting the bills and a cohabiting couple who happen to be splitting the finances in the SAME way APART from a sexual/emotional relationship.

Now I don't see any call for "flatmate" rights, therefore I can only conclude that it is the sexual/emotional relationship that makes it "right" in the eyes of those who wish to have cohabitee rights that is worthy of "compensation".

Therefore, I can only conclude that those who are in favour of cohabitee rights but who are not for flatmate rights, view sexual favours as something which can possibly be paid for down the line, agree?

luckymummy2010 If you're still here please tell me- what is it exactly about having sex with someone under the same roof that warrants "rights"?

Agree, are you kidding? [wishes there was an emoction for "what bullshit!!"]

But I have no interest in debating with you, I just noticed the extreme (and frankly abusive)line you take in threads and I think you are not genuine or who you say you are. That's all I have to say.

nomoresnow Go on then, convince me otherwise, instead of resorting to insults.
YOU are the one being abusive here with your words ("what bullshit!" YOUR words not mine).

What is THE difference between two flatmates and a cohabiting couple who share their finances in the same way APART from a sexual aspect? There isn't any.

Uh, I haven't said anything about myself APART from the fact I am a non-religious female.

Please articulate why you think otherwise.

If you disagree with me and DON'T think that flatmates should be entitled to compensation when they cease to be flatmates but cohabitees who split up DO, then there is no avoiding the fact that you think that there is something about a sexual relationship that is worthy of compensation in the event of a break-up.

You seem to have forgotten I have read your posts. You thrive on being extreme and drawing people into your "debate". I'm not interested. Your name (and the meaning of that word) says it all. Frankly I think you are a quite worrying person or in need of help.

Reply if you like and try to bait me, I won't respond.

OK, so it's extreme to say that cohabitee rights are not fair because not everybody who is living with a partner wishes to be tied them legally, please, how is this an "extreme" way. I don't understand.

I can't help it if people are "drawn" into the debate (I don't think they are myself, though).

YOU are a worrying person if you think my name is some kind of religious statement.
Seriously, who on earth would think such a thing?! For f**s sake`!

I hadn't EVEN heard of this "Marantha" (note I am "marantha") until you pointed it out.

My first name is Martha and my second, Anthea.

The "meaning" of my name here is that I have taken my first name and merged it with my second- quite how this is strange or worthy of being accused of being a religious nut is beyond me.

nomoresnow, address the debate.

Casting aspersions based on a name (!) and bringing grudges from another thread is childish and frankly silly.

Actually I don't regard my story as sad at all, but for those who just say oh do get married because it will sort everything out, there are many aspects of the legal side of marriage that people are unaware of, and which often only come into play when things fall apart. Of course for most people they get married for love, and the legal side isn't something they think about too much, and of course we all think our relationships will last forever. I think it would be good to have a range of options available, that allow you to declare your love (should you so wish) and on the contractual side to join your finances and legal aspects in different ways. Such arrangements should be available to those who share their lives in other ways (such as siblings who live together - and this is not that exceptional, I know a few adult brothers and sister that share houses, mostly post bereavement). Most often problems are caused not by separation but by death, when for example an adult who has been acting as a parent for many years might suddenly discover that they have no right to continue to care for a child they see as theirs. There is also something about when finances are very unequal, or where attitudes are very different, but couple finances are seen completely as simply divisible by two. Finally the different assumptions by tax and benefits systems are unreasonably different too.

I'm with Marantha!

I have several friends in tricky marital situations who all believe their husband is responsible for the financial well being of the family. None of them and I notice not many posters here, regard a woman as being capable of being financially independent. The assumption is you have children which means it's impossible to have a career/absolves you of any need to. Which is incorrect.

I think the decision to stay at home is a choice (for some/many). With that choice is a consequence and both parties to the decision must accept the consequence.... not regard it as their 'right' in life.

I worked out of necessity. I was very envious of the SAHM who lunched, napped and socialised whilst I juggled childcare and work. Quite a few years on and I have a career, good job, financial independence and like many of my friends am separating. They often tell me how lucky I am (independence and job)

They are all looking to separate, taking as much money from the family 'pot' as possible. None of them are planning to work at a career. One intends that the state should support her.

It's interesting to observe that I will now be working to pay those benefits for them. Their husbands will have worked all their lives and have handed over houses and a % of their monthly pay to said women........ why?

I can work with 3 children, as do many others? Why can't they?

Yes they will have taken a considerable hit to their career by their choice to SAH but it's not permanent. Men get made redundant and don't write themselves off in the job market.

I know at least 3 friends who discuss men in terms of their financial prospects. They are seen purely as a financial acquisition. Women moan about men looking for younger models. There are plenty of women out there who have no shame in regarding men as a financial meal ticket.

Really? I've never met anyone (male or female) who has talked like that (I'm glad to say, it woudl certainly stick in my craw). But then most of the couples I know both work, and in several cases the wife earns more than the husband. Very few would be able to rely on their partner supporting them enough not to work if they broke up, but then few of them are rich enough to do that now for more than a year or two, and then often at a fairly hefty sacrifice for both parents. I don't think that the example referred to in the OP is typical at all (even laying aside the not married, not his biological children aspects) outside of the world of WAGs/stockbrokers, where the trophy wife is hardly unusual either.

nooka I agree that there should be a range of options for people to have. (I get frustrated about the insults that I regard marriage as sacred because I don't).

But, as you say, they'd have to declare it.

That's the key word for me and the underlying principle of all this business- things have to be declared and agreed by both parties.

The problem with granting rights to cohabitees is wrong UNLESS they've declared it in some way.

It's no good AFTER the event to judge the quality of the relationship. After all, if a man has to be dragged to court to support his ex-partner he's hardly likely to admit that the relationship was a serious one, is he?

Nor is it reasonable to assume that a person who dies intestate automatically wanted their live-in partner to inherit.

I realise my comments about flatmates and cohabitees appear cold in the light of day- but you can't compensate someone for PURELY being in a relationship with another adult.

If there is to be merit in cohabitee rights issue, the relationship aspect MUST be not considered. i THINK the dissed cohabitee MUST prove they've lost out financially in some way.

nooka, I agree that marriage (with its bundle of rights and hefty caselaw and legislative prescription) is a one-size-fits-all that will probably only suit conventional married couples.

For more sophisticated, subtle or complicated relationships with caring responsibilities, inequities or long term familial living arrangements, it is always open to the parties to contact a lawyer to draft a contract regularise their relationship and to update that contract regularly. Just as people should update their wills regularly.

If no children are involved, it is really property rights that we are looking at. Contract and property law is eminently well-placed to deal with that. A solicitor is the person to go to.

Not that you are suggesting this, but it is incredibly unrealistic to think that the law can provide a menu of rights to suit every single relationship, that people can access almost by ticking a box out of a series of options.

The law is not a magic bullet. Far from it.