Why is it considered ''shameful'' by some to have sex and children out of marriage?

[poshsinglemum]

Thoughts please. I know it is largely religious but why does religion dictate this?

I think marriage is a commitment from the man. I suppose I agree with Riven's standpoint, although I'd never really thought about it in financial terms.

It is much easier for the man to walk away when there are children than it is for the woman. I know that marriages are also relatively easy to get out of these days, but I think if a couple have committed to marriage in the first place, they would most likely also be more committed to making things work if the cracks started to show.

It is interesting that some women see marriage as ownership of woman, given that ime women are often more keen on getting married than men, particularly if they want kids - perhaps the security aspect is always there unconsciously.

I personally don't think there is any shame in being an unmarried mother - although if I'm honest, I guess I do wonder at the dad's commitment if the couple aren't married when there are kids (but I don't judge).

FWIW my dad always said that if I got pregnant without being married, I would be in deep trouble - even when I was engaged and co-habiting. He is not really religious and when questioned, couldn't give a solid reason as to why being married with kids was so important. His main answer was "Because....".

I think a lot of older people who look down on it do so for traditional reasons and couldn't really articulate any specific reason why they view it as wrong - to them, it just is because that's the way it's always been.

It isn't shameful to have children outside of marriage. I just think that it is a better option to have children within marriage.

Reasons:

1. Silly one first, but I like it - everyone in family has same surname - I just think it is nice. When DS was 3, he realised we all had the same surname and he started giving his toys this surname as well .

2. Responsibility and cementing of family structure.

3. If you do get into the affair scenerio, it is statistically true that a married couple with kids are more likely to get through it intact than an unmarried couple with kids.

I am currently witnessing the breakup of an unmarried couple with a 2yo. The man is leaving for OW and he can just walk out the door with no legal process because they are not married. The woman is totally against the breakup but has no protection. Obviously if they were married, they could get divorced, but they would actually have to go through the legal process and I think it would make the man think twice about his crazy actions (OW at work). As it is, he is not tied at all and has gone for no good reason - just a silly flirtation at work.

Just my opinion. I would encourage my own children to get married before having kids. My best friend is about to have a baby with her DP and she's not married. I'd never ever say anything to her about it - am only saying here is it's an anonomous forum!

In response to orangepoo, I think it is the well-meaning but misguided politically-correct culture we now have.
'Partners' now being equal to 'spouses' and it not mattering if people marry. A complete lie.
A lie because being someone's 'partner' has no meaning in law whereas spouse does have meaning.

Yes, I agree marantha.

A friend of mine's had lived with her DP for 20 years and they had a 10yo. The DP had to have some unexpected hospital treatment and my friend was treated as a nobody - her DP's parents were the ones who were asked for consent for medical matters. They got married after that incident!

Riven, a lot of hospitals get around this now by the simple method of actually asking the patient (if possible) who they wish to nominate as next of kin. Very simple and effective.

Dunno, but my stepfather has spent all Christmas harumphing around about my cousin who is pregnant and only engaged rather than married . Not sure anyone else in the family agrees with him though!

"I guess I do wonder at the dad's commitment if the couple aren't married when there are kids (but I don't judge)."

Why

I mean why do you automatically assume it's because of the man that the couple aren't married.

"1) Silly one first, but I like it - everyone in family has same surname - I just think it is nice. When DS was 3, he realised we all had the same surname and he started giving his toys this surname as well"

Not everyone changes their name on marriage. Sweet of your DS though

"3) If you do get into the affair scenerio, it is statistically true that a married couple with kids are more likely to get through it intact than an unmarried couple with kids."

Really? Where are these statistics? Not disbelieving you just curious to see them. On a personal level if I was in a relationship and my dh/dp cheated on me the relationship would be over marriage or no.

I do agree with Marantha, marriage is a social construct rather than a religious one, at least nowadays.

Wrt to Bramshott's post my exes mum refused to sit in the same room as me when I first went to theirs after discovering I was pregnant with ds

In my parents' youth ( the 1930s and 1940s) it was thought that girls who had sex before marriage were tarts. Nice girls didn't.

There was also the very real desire amongst many women to find a husband, and the rather hypocritcal belief that if you weren't a virgin you were 2nd rate marriage material.

My father also used to say that if men could get sex without marriage, why would they bother to marry the girl anyway. In his eyes, and many men now his gae ( 80s), marriage was the price men paid for regular sex.

This was largely to do with the church's teaching, but also the lack of 100% effective contraception, and the inability of women to be financially indepedendent, especially if they became pregnant.

The welfare state did not exist as it does now- and even in 2011 many single women would find it hard to supprt a family without state support.

Before I got married, I lived with my DH for 3 months before the wedding and my parents were very embarrassed about this. Even in the 1980s it was referred to as "living in sin".

It's a very complex issue but basically, but in the past the feeling was that lower class women had sex with men outside marriage as ameans to try to trap them whereas middle class women saved themselves and were taught to value their virginity.

The reasons are a mixture of religion, but also the practical. Even now, you get a much better deal financally if you are marrried then divorce, as opposed to living with a man- especially if he is the major bread winner.

In a way I think the statistics are irrelevant; it does not really matter to me if married couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried ones (although as marriage is always at least started out with intention of staying together whereas cohabiting relationships vary greatly in commitment levels, it would seem more likely that out of 100 married couples and 100 cohabiting couples the married set would have more couples intact at end of 10 years).

What matters is that the married ones have access to some 'compensation'/ legal protection and the cohabiting ones do not.
And why should they? Given that they decided to keep their (default) single adult status?

I think that it is very easy to forget how the welfare state has grown in the past 40 years, and how much people a) take it for granted and b) rely on it.

Without it, most women ( waits for flaming) would not be able to support a family if their partners left.

Be interesting to know how many MNs could provide for their family if they were the sole bread winner and had no state hand outs- such as CB, tax credits, free housing, reduced council tax, and everything else.

My father's mother was widowed before she was 40, so she was single mum to 3 teenagers. There was no welfare state and she had to have 3 p/t jobs to support her family.

They were very poor.

Given that the pill was not around, "sensible" women made sure they had the legal protection of marriage before they had sex and risked being pregnant.

Parental pressure made girls save themselves for marriage to avoid pregnancy.

I am a bit older than the average MN and all these attitudes were prevalent when I was a teen.

Marriage is undoubtably a social construct with a sad history of misogyny. For instance, men were free to rape their wives until very recently - it was perfectly legal.

But it does give the partner who earns less or SAH to look after children greater protection than just living together. Also saves you a bundle in inheritance tax. So definitely worth doing - was a huge thread on this when an MNer's dp died suddenly, all sorts of problems she hadn't anticipated.

I do think women especially should be aware of the disadvantages of having children outside marriage. This trend to give children the father's surname alone is particularly unfortunate - so many people regret it if they later separate (as many people, married and unmarried, do).

I personally think that marriage is important for raising children. It's a public statement of a couple's commitmemt to each other as a unit and it provides security for the children.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people shouldn't have children outside marriage but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. People have children when they aren't stable - financially or in committed relationships and I don't think that's in the best interests of the child. Children need two parents and I think it's tough enough for that to happen in the event of divorce without it being accepted practice at the start of the childrens' lives.

Commitment seems to be missing from a lot of childrens' lives. It's too easy for a parent to walk away from children these days and they shouldn't be able to. If you have a child then you have the responsibility for it for life, as a parent.

My granny used to say that if you're good enough to sleep with, you're good enough to marry. Old fasioned it may be but I think there was a lot of sense in that. I wouldn't personally have a child outside marriage, that's my own rule for myself though, not for others.

Livingwitch

I am not saying I disagree with you but- playing Devil's advocate here- you are going to get a hammering from people who will tell you that 40% of marriages end in divorce so being married offer very litle added scurity to the children.

40% of marriages may end in divorce, but I dare say that the number for cohabiting relationships is higher-or at least the same-but that's no reason not to get married.
The marriage may succeed and even if it does not succeed, there will be recognition that 'work' within the relationship may not be the paid sort and compensation paid to sahp in event of marital breakdown which simply will not happen with cohabitees.
So no flaming from me.

No, I'd say that the rate for cohabitation relationship break up is perhaps 90%.
But this is because cohabiting relationships vary greatly in commitment levels.

I have cohabited twice before now, and certainly had no intention of making my life with either person. I think it's great societal progress that human adults may now cohabit without needing to commit for life.

I don't mind a good flaming, it's freezing here. :)

Going back to the 1950s and earlire, marriage was considered 'for life'. Perhaps that wasn't such a great thing either but couples tended to work things out rather than give up at the first hurdle.

I think that divorce is too easy nowadays - and so is marriage. Some people don't treat it as the serious commitment that it is and was always meant to be.

The same goes for having children - some people just pop them out with nary a thought for them and what they need in terms of having committed parents.

I despise terms like '4 by 4' as coined for Ulrika Johnsson but I wouldn't advocate her views as ones to follow and I'd be disappointed in any of my children following suit.

Jeremy Kyle and his ilk, might be dreadful TV but there is obviously a massive swing towards dysfunctional families (and the creation of them) seeming to become almost the 'norm' and that makes me very sad. It will probably get to the stage where each baby born is DNA tested at birth to ensure that parents at least make the financial commitment and cannot shirk it.

I think commitment is the way forward, particularly where there are children involved.

LyingWitch, there are plenty of feckless married couples in the world, you know. Plenty of married people who don't give a shit about their children or their ability to care for them. I think your sweeping generalisations about marriage are a little rose tinted, quite frankly.

lyingwitch - in those days, women were expected to put up with being beaten by their husbands. And raped - it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife until very recently (some time in the last two decades IIRC). And of course a woman who became pregnant outside marriage had her child automatically taken away as punishment, causing life-long trauma to the vast majority of women and children concerned.

I wouldn't want to go back to those days at all. Society might seem to be a bit messier now but it was always messy - it's just that the mess used to be carefully hidden away, and it was usually a woman who was suffering quietly as a result.

Just wanted to add 'my' experience following on from the shared surnames comments.

My SIL had her first dd with a boyfriend who she had no intention of staying with (alcoholic) and left him before dd was born. She then got together with someone else and they lived together for several years with the (her) firm intention of getting married - engagement ring, venues looked at, dresses considered etc. He unfortunately never committed to a date and eventually she left him (for various reasons). In the time they were together they had a dd together and the two girls have been brought up as sisters (which they are) and dd1 doesn't know that she has a different dad to dd2 - he was around from when she was 6 months old and she's always called him daddy. Both children still see him now as things are pretty amicable and they stay at his fairly regularly.

Anyway to the names thing. Dd1 was legally adopted by dd2's father when things were going well in the relationship and she therefore has his surname, as does dd2 of course. Her mum doesn't as they were never married. Odd situation, though not sure what I'm contributing to the discussion having written this all out!

coldtits your description makes alot of sense to me as I'm from a culture where women are owned by men.

You live at your Dad's house

You then live at your husband's house

You then live with your son

And every now again visit your brothers house

My older relatives certainly still view it as shameful. My gt-aunt used the term 'born a bastard' in my living memory, not derogatorily, but as a statement of fact. My mother knew a couple of women who said they were widowed but were unmarried mothers, this was in the 1970s. Given how many centuries it has been considered shameful, it is remarkable how quickly social mores have changed. And you're right, it's nearly always the women who are castigated, never the men.

I have posted this before, but an unconventional teaching colleague with a teenage dd, nipped out & got married in a free period & was back in time for school dinner. What prompted their marriage was his cousin dying v suddenly & partner having no rights re his funeral &, even worse, his estranged family making a claim on his estate. His partner of 15 yrs (with 3 children) had to pay them off, money that they needed. Colleague could have sorted it with a solicitor but it was cheaper & quicker to nip out & marry. I think if you co-habit, and especially if you have children, you should have a explicitly stated will.