AIBU to be very shocked only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16!

[littlemoominmamma]

3% is nothing!!! It is soooo sad. 1 out of every 3 couples have seperated before the child is 5yrs old

I am now glad that the tories are going to give married couples help.

Yes, very true NoseyNooNoo, if you read the thread first it would only impair your ability to share a truly ill-informed comment with us.

Thanks for your contribution.

"Sometimes I read here (actually a LOT) that no one thinks it's worth the trouble of preserving a marriage: leave and make yourself happy seems to be the motif. Your personal happiness matters above everything."

Yes I read that a lot on here too. But in the vast majority of cases the woman is being subjected to abuse of one type of another. I do not think it is in the interest of women or children for women to stay with abusive men. It is very rare to see people on here seriously suggesting that women with children leave their OHs without very good reason indeed.

ROFL heathen

Oh no, not at all Telling. Are we talking about abuse? If we are talking about abuse then everything changes. I was just talking generally.

Well surely I only need to read the OP's comments - she set the subject. However, I have skim-read and it seems I was right. I don't know why people who are not married have to be quite so sniping towards those people who have chosen to be married and Tory bashing is so dull. I thought I'd left that tired old stuff behind when I left University, as did most of the people doing the Tory bashing.

FWIW, I will vote Conservative but do not agree with a financial incentive to be married. I think the money could be better spent helping young men in particular to understand their responsibilities although I think that would take decades to produce a result, if at all. As a Conservative (I have voted for a number of parties over the years) I don't feel the need to bash other parties.
I am married and not always that happily. I considered seperating from my husband last summer and am really disappointed with my marriage but ultimately my marriage vows (not British vows) focused on marriage being about bringing up children. I opted into this so that's my life - it's certainly not a smug life.

Why is it such a surprise to people that this is the case?

Cohabitees usually have a trial period to see if they wish to commit formally- they then either marry or go their separate ways.

Marriage is still what people normally do when they want to make their official in terms of inheritance and stuff like that simply so that there is zero confusion over the state of the relationship BECAUSE they love each other.

Of course the 3% statistic is true- it doesn't mean that the couple have parted, though, it just means they've converted their relationship to a more formal one.

It's not that cohabiting relationships are better/worse or more/less committed - it's just that marriage provides a one-stop shop for those who want to make their relationship clear in terms of inheritance and s**t like that.

Hello maratha i was wondering if this thread might interest you

upandrunning you said that you see a lot of threads on here where people encourage others to leave their OHs. Those threads are normally situations where there is abuse. Threads where people are unhappy for other reasons usually attract a variety of responses, including many who suggest working at it. The evidence on MN as far as I can see is that people with children take their responsibilities and relationships extremely seriously, and do not act lightly at all.

Well I conform with the statistics. My x wouldn't marry me (I wanted to marry him to start off with, I was nuts).

So if i were still with him, I'd be annoyed not to get the tax breaks because of something that was outside of my control.

I think what will happen if they start giving the tax breaks is that people like my x will get married for the extra money, and then the divorce rates will rise.

OP, thanks for your but I am glad we are not part of a 2.4 family just for the sake of it. Better to be happy and unconventional.

The stats are a load of cock

There are plenty of married couple who have split up but not bothered to get divorced, i bet they didnt include them in their stats

Sorry I admit to not having read the whole thread. (I know this is aMumsnet hanging offence.However when I heard this this morning I thought it's another of those lies,damn lies and statistics things. Surely it has been used to make a point and unless you actually fully research how these stats have been collected I would imagine they would be fatally flawed because you are not comparing like with like.

If you comapared a group of 100 couples who had been together married or otherwise say for two years (and were now married) and had a child with 100 couples who had been together for two years and remained unmarried and had a child and then followed those two groups until the child was 16 it may be more meaningful. However as another poster has said does the unmarried group include all those pregancies which were 1 night stands or, the result of an affair or other situations where the parents weren't really 'a couple' in the first place and therefore doomed to failure (as a couple) in the first place?? If so you are not comparing level playing fields. How does it measure those couples who have a child who then go on to marry?? Are they automatically in the married group?

Too many variables to make too much of these statistics to be honest. I'm sure if you wanted to prove that children born to unmarried couples was preferable you could easily provide statistics to support your case so I take these findings with a pinch of salt.

I am not at all surprised to be honest but that dosn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.

Not ideal. I'd love to be married but men nowadays know they can just get sex as they are not obliged to marry who they shag/knock up. It is easy for them to walk away.

I am more surprised that people are trying to create yet MORE divisions between the jolly weds and the singles. Very smug indeed.

Actually, I don't think that the stats are a load of cock- they make perfect sense.

We have made the mistake in society of talking about marriage and cohabitation as if they're one and the same- they are not.

A lot of people may cohabit with no real thoughts of where the relationship is heading (not a judgement, just an observation- did it myself) and drift into things- including pregnancy.

Unfortunately, this isn't helped by dint of the fact that men and women usually view cohabitation in a very different light- the woman sees the cohabitation as a sign of firm commitment, the man does not (and I dare say vice versa, too) so confusion about what the other wants reigns- is it any wonder they're more likely to split?

With marriage though, both couples are at least aware that they are making a commitment and are doing it freely.

Hello, ImSoNotTelling

i guess we all view it differently. and everyone thinks their way is the right way.

personally i think dressing up as a frilly princess to get my dad to 'give' me to another bloke whilst having it affirmed by someone who also likes dressing up in weird white robes and worshipping a giant invisible being - well odd frankly.

"only 3% of unmarried couples stay together until their child is 16"

The presented statistic merelty states that, of all families that stay together until their child is 16, 3% are unmarried.

So this is another clear example of misrepresentation of statistics to prove a point.

The figures mean nothing unless you also include figures on the total number of children born split between married and unmarried families and some analysis of where co-habiting couples marry while the child grows up.

For example, If less than 3% of children are born into unmarried families then the figures would actually prove precisely the opposite of what the headline states.

James Chapman is either guilty of telling big fat porkies or should be reporting on what Victoria Becham's wearing as statistical analysis is beyond him

This is more Daily Mail shitty reporting

Just a point on these "statistics" - the last census was in 2001. In that time the numbers of cohabiting and married couples has altered significantly according to Government statistics (less marriage, more children born outside of marriage). The census questions in 2001 only included two questions relating to marriage etc - firstly whether the person completing the form is married/divorced/separated/widowed/never married (no mention of cohabitation). In a different part of the form it asks about the relationship between the members of the household. That?s the extent of the questions on cohabitation.

See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/H1.pdf

So far as I am aware there aren?t any significant statistical sources regarding cohabitation. That the writer of the report in Bristol (a small organisation, previously unheard of, dubious statistical approach without a proper peer review) can be quoted in a Tory policy paper is unbelievable! Just seems to be designed to grab headlines in tabloids. I?m pleased to see that its created debate and a healthy bit of scepticism, but concerned that some are taking this completely unsubstantiated figure as fact

Not everyone wants to get married anyway, i didnt/dont, but i wanted children, so i had them, no law says i have to be married to do that

I also dont have to be in a relationship with my childs father for my child to have a loving happy relationship with both his parents

I would like to know why exactly is the OP ? my child isnt, i'm not, my childs father is not.

poshsingle, on men wanting to shag without the ties of marriage, there will always be rats like that.

IMO insisting on marriage before having children with a man is a good way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. If he refuses, the relationship ends if the woman wants children. If he stays and marries, then at the very least he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. That way, women don't waste time with a loser.

Though I accept that is no guarantee of a lasting relationship, at least he has accepted the ground rules in principle.

You don't get that screening opportunity with people who have a baby before discussing long term commitments, barring accidents of course, but there are accidents and there are accidents. Too often, it starts out this way and puts the woman in a terrible backfoot if she decides to give up her job and independence to raise the child of that union without the commitment on paper.

Scary and not for me.

I think it is a shame that the norm today is increasingly to put the cart before the horse.

I agree with cohabitation prior to having children as a good way to roadtest a relationship at close quarters.

Nothing worse than to rush into marriage and children. It could work but it is risky.

i dont believe in marriage, i dont want to get married, who said you have to be married to have a family? God? who is he anyway? he's not someone i've ever met. Why is getting married the norm? maybe 50 years ago yes, but not in this day and age.

We keep doing this thread.

I am a Catholic who cannot remmarry, my marriage ended a few months after it began so it was hardly commitment of the century.

I am totally committed to my dp, far more so than to my marriage. We have been through some very difficult times, he has nursed me through serious illness and has been a fantastic father to my dd. We have discussed our futures and plans. I have considered leaving him at time but came to my senses and recognised that I had a family unit to look after. We went to counselling when things were hard, just as a married couple might do.

Dp would like to get married but wants a big do. I can't get married in a church and although we have made marriage plans I find the thought of having a wedding without the God bit too painful for words.

I would nip to the registry office in my lunch break but that would be about it.

To say that I am not commited to my partner because I have not worn a white frock and thrown a bouquet is rather insulting.

Wastwinsetandpearls well said in response to other posts who seem to have started the whole marriage v cohabiting debate (again...) when in fact this is a thread about the manipulation of dubious stats by the Torys to try to win votes from the "morally outraged" section of society