Never getting married...how do I get over the upset?

[WeddingUpset]

My 'D'P has basically announced we will never be married. On paper the reasoning is sound (it's a big expense that could be put to other things), but it still makes me feel desperately sad.

How do I get over these feelings? I'm currently sat here quietly sobbing, I just need advice on how to stop feeling this way

scottishmummy, not sure what you think the OP can do without her partner's consent - she could maybe secretly cream off some of the household money into a private slush fund? Otherwise, the reality is that people who have children have to negotiate with their partners for access to time, money, "retraining" etc - or, if they are married, and their partner is a git who won't negotiate reasonably, they divorce the git and set up alone with a reasonably share of resources accrued to date. You seem to be implying that people can't be downtrodden without somehow inviting it and deserving it. It's a dangerous approach to take because it is unrealistic about the ways in which people's lives are woven together and the reality of being with a git. And is the very very next thing to victim-blaming.

OP, a just in case fund isn't going to take you very far. Get a job for yourself and don't talk to him about marriage anymore. He's had it all his own way so far and now you need to make sure that you are secure.

She doesn't need permission to Look at local college prospectus,or try get a job
Dont twist my posts to suit your premise.op said dp ok with money never denied her finances
So on basis of being unwaged many courses cheap.read op posts dp never denied her monies

OP you are so very vulnerable here.

Why don't you live in the house he owns?

I wouldn't be so sure that he is ignorant of the legal aspect of your relationship, it sounds like he has everything he wants and has protected himself 100%. He could leave you tomorrow and only need to give you maintenance for the DCs. You wouldn't get a penny of support from him, or any of the value of his house.

What would his reaction be if you were to get a job do you think?

Curry,you've made some shocking assumptions to support your pov,needing dp consent
Has op actually said she beholden to him needing consent for her actions?no she has not
Op thread is she wants marry him,not seek permission to undertake activities outside home

Scottishmummy, I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. If the partner is earning the money and doling it out the OP is in a vulnerable position. It's not a reflection on her ability to 'undertake activities outside the home'

Keep up,to redress imbalance I recommend op look into studying(online),job or voluntary
So let's be clear you think unwaged,with male parter doling out money is vulnerable?
Applying that logic housewives are vulnerable upon waged partner doling out monies.only change is folk recommend she marry her p in case he hops off do she has security

Scottishmummy, I am not suggesting that the OP isn't allowed out of the house. I am pointing out that once you have children, your time is a severely limited resource and you may not have any for personal projects without the support of your partner. You can only do things while someone else is looking after the children - either your partner does childcare (work patterns allowing, assuming willingness) or between you, you find the money for paid childcare (which has to be a joint decision with family money - assuming it is remotely affordable), or you can maybe make some arrangement in kind with another family to swap childcare, but this will still take resources (the person's time and labour) out of the family pot and must be negotiated and agreed.
My dp and I have very equal arrangements but with small children there is very little slack of any kind, and I know - as does he - that anything I do outside the necessities of daily life is basically going to mean it puts work of some sort on him. I don't have spare time, if I want to do anything I take some time I would have used for something else and put it to another use, and he basically covers for me. We agree to this, we do it by arrangement. If other people live differently and have 30 or 40 idle hours a week kicking about that they could use to get a job or do a course, I want to know how they do it.

I think scottishmummy is just being pointlessly contrarian. I think her "point" is that if the OP were financially independent, marriage would not matter to her. This is untrue and / or irrelevant, because one of the things that matters to OP is a public declaration of commitment; also, no matter how much she may earn or have the capacity to earn for herself, the financial arrangements of her domestic partnership should reflect the work that she has put into it, which as a sahp is considerable, and her current arrangements do not reflect that in the event of a split.
My point was more subtle but I think relevant: that the every-man-for-himself, bootstraps "solution" offered by scottishmummy takes no account of the realities of partnerships with children, where everything is always at the expense of something else - the op cannot just invent new resources and unilaterally decide to keep them - she is using her resources for her family and can only make changes about the use of those resources as agreed.

Sorry but without getting into the details of everyone's individual situations, it is possible to actually be against marriage per se, and it's not just because you "haven't met the person you want to marry", are looking elsewhere, need to "grow up", etc.

I think these comments are ignorant and presumptuous. Some people genuinely dislike marriage as an institution and/or weddings as events. I find the whole idea of standing up in public to show off that someone wants to marry you quite tasteless and attention-seeking. (Before anyone says 'sour grapes', I've been proposed to by three men, all of whom I was in LTR with. One of those relationships lasted 11 years but I didn't change my mind.)

I can't speak for the OP's partner, nor can anyone else who doesn't know him, but people are allowed to hold different views without necessarily being cheaters, financial abusers, flakey, dishonest, childish or the other accusations being flung around on this thread.

And if he is opposed on ideological grounds, then that is his right. But he ought to then be prepared to sort out some legal protection for the OP, given that he is refusing the thing which would give it to her as a matter of right and he should have made it clear to her before she moved to live with him, had dc etc.

From the sounds of it though, he isn't objecting on ideological grounds and seems to have organised his affairs to give himself the best possible outcome in the event of a split, while leaving the OP up shit creek.

For me, this would all hinge on his willingness to draw up a contract promising financial support if he decided he wanted out, and giving you a share of his property, in recognition of your contribution to this partnership, plus wills and naming you as his nok on insurance etc.

Yes she should definitely be entitled to all of the legal protection if she wants it.

However, I was replying to the great majority of posts on this thread which say outright that anyone who says they are ideologically opposed to marriage is "really" just using that a smokescreen for their unwillingness to commit to a particular individual, or their inherent untrustworthiness.

I've seen enough unmarried couples with total trust, commitment and fidelity, and enough marriages riddled with lies, deceit and cheating - I find the association of marriage with "true commitment" pretty laughable.

I agree she should protect herself financially, especially if she doesn't trust her partner to treat her decently in the event they split up. (I have no legal protection but do have faith in my partner (who is also my DD's father) to do the right thing financially if we split up.)

I also think that most (not all) weddings are less "a public declaration of commitment" and more a public declaration of "look how gorgeous I am with my hair done and my £3000 dress and my colour-coordinated bridesmaids, now let's have a day of speeches about me and how great I am"

When more than half of marriages end in divorce, it's not really a great statement of anything.

Yes what karma said. Fine to oppose marriage on ideological grounds, but a) this doesn't sound like that and b) he should be prepared to put equivalent protection in place, which he has not suggested doing.

eccentrica, I agree with most of what you say, but trusting a partner to do the right thing by you (if you are a sahm) is dodgy.

People lie and people break promises. The things that people promise,they truly mean when they are in love with you, but it's amazing how quickly that all changes if they happen to fall out of love with you. For every decent partner who would do the right thing by his ex, there are hundreds of others who won't.

It's impossible to know which type you have until it all goes pear shaped.

eccentrica, I agree that it is fine to oppose marriage on ideological grounds, and in fact I think I do (although I am coming round to the idea now that dp and I look like we might buy a place, I think it might be the most tax efficient situation if one of us were to go under a bus - does anyone know if that is right?). However the op doesn't and actively wants to get married, and so, apart from her material security, which is obv itself very important, she wants the wedding, and she is being made to feel stupid about that, which I think is mean and unfair; and while as a feminist I have grave misgivings about marriage and fluffy weddings, as a feminist I also have very grave misgivings about everything that women want and feel emotionally attached to being treated as automatically stupid and trivial and foolish.

karma that's true. It could all go pear-shaped for me as it could for OP.

curryeater my DP and I just bought a flat together. We own it jointly; this means that both of us own the entire flat. In practice, this means if either one of us died, the other one would automatically be the owner of the entire property - it's not a question of 'inheriting' the other's 'half', as each of you already owns the whole property, so there's no tax issue. (genuinely) HTH

It was easier in our case as we each contributed 50% towards purchase price, but even if you contribute different amounts you can draw up a separate deed which lays that out.

Also speaking as a feminist, I understand what you're saying but equally, just because some women want a thing, that doesn't automatically make it worthwhile and serious and important, any more than it makes it stupid, trivial and foolish.

I take financial security, love, commitment and having children very seriously; however, I don't feel obliged to respect the desire to dress up as a princess for a day any more seriously than I did when we were seven (and it was always the girl with the longest, blondest hair...)

Let me spell it out,posters repeatedly assert op vulnerable,dependent upon her dp
If she worked,retrained to earn money,contribute to pension,not be wholly dependent upon dp
Instead a fair few on here recommend marriage to get security/money as opposed to work

and er why is it you need to spell it out exactly sm? Is it because we is thick?

I have to agree that you have a point sm, it is not so much about protecting yourself with a marriage certificate but about ensuring that you keep at yhe same level as your partner financially speaking and as financially independant from your partner as you can. But in practice this is difficult as many men and women seem to asume (perhaps because that's what they have grown up with as a role model) that the woman's career takes second place to the husband's.

But we cannot put to the side how likely it is for the dad to fess up and leave the wife with the lion's share of raising the kids, which obviously will have her career options reduced in order to bring up one or several children.

I have to say that I totally agree with whoever said that being a SAHM is a luxury you can't afford if you are not married. Having said that, I am totally convinced ghat should br extended to married couples too.

I have taken many stupid decisions in my life, but the only one I'll regret until the end of my life will be being a SAHM. 3 years if baking cakes and going to the park do not makd up for the difficult financial position I have put myself in to support the career of a husband/father who is no longer with us. But even if he were, it is not fair to let one partner to provide all the money to keep the family... As long as the guy takes a 50/50 approach with regards to raising the children and doing house chores.

Another thought on the legal side. Marriage can be used to timeline a relationship. It determines when the legal commitment starts and also if/when it ends.

Many of the legal commitments of a marriage can also be made separately with a (fairly expensive) visit to a solicitor. However, many of these can be undone unilaterally. This means that one partner can decide to change the commitment without consulting the other partner.

You can only legally be married to one person at a time. Sounds obvious but it does mean that while married to one person you arent married to someone else.

why am i being explicit in spelling out because someone asked what was my point

In an ideal world, we would all be financially independent, childcare and responsibility for earning money would be split 50/50 and no one would be disadvantaged by the nature of their relationships or the choice to sah with their dc for a period of time. Opportunities, career wise, would be equal to those that men enjoy. However, we don't live in an ideal world and we have to play the hand we're dealt. The OP may well, in the future, return to work and therefore have no financial risks in maintaining the status quo. But that's not where she is now. At the moment she is a vulnerable sahm, who has moved home for the advantage of her partner and she needs immediate protection. Marriage would offer her that. And imo, her partner, if he loves her would want to minimise her risk.

Even if she was completely financially solvent, it still wouldn't remove her desire for this level of commitment from her partner. That's an emotional thing and doesn't hinge on need for physical security.