Would it bother you never getting married?

[Wineandmorewine]

Hi all,

DP and I have been together for 6 years, we have a DD2 and I am currently 5 months pregnant with our second, have also just bought our own house and due to move into that in November.

Last night we were discussing the upcoming wedding of our best and DP stated that he has decided he never wants to get married and is totally against it! This has come as a bolt out of the blue as it is something which we had always planned to do (have had many conversations about what type of wedding we would like etc) and also something that is very important to me. When I asked why the change of heart he said that he has seen so many go wrong eg. His parents and grandparents and he wouldn't want to put out DC through that.

Whilst I understand his point, I also said that regardless of whether or not we are married, a break up would effect our children either way and that if we are married we will be in a better place legally.
So I'm asking, what would you do? Do I give up on ever getting married and keep things as they are? Do I leave him in pursuit of marriage?? Which seems silly as it's him I want to marry! Do I try and convince him or is it best I leave it and hope he changes his mind?
Has anyone ever been in this situation?
Thanks for any advice

Evans - Gosh, how thoroughly modern your household sounds - good point. I must stop trying to be so deliberately modern. Sigh.

Anyway. I have to go and blue my whites.

Twinkle - thank you for your support. I appreciate it.

motherinferior, it might not be a good thing (it's not) but it does happen. All the time. To married women as well. Women cede their careers all the time. Aren't you aware of that?

They may not all want to but given that women on average still earn less (often for doing the same thing) it ends up being an economic decision for the sake of the family unit.

Women that earn more than other women on average have more power and are more likely to end up in equal relationships.

Would it bother me never getting married?

Yes. I would have said this before I got married and was just co ha biting with now DH. And I say this now, 5 years married. It's lovely being married to my DH. We were only saying last night that we still get a little kick every now and then saying "my husband", "my wife"

I'm not sure that your friends are representative Thurlow, I don't know many women who didn't either take time out, reduce their hours, or give up work completely for a while when they had kids.

I don't know many women who went straight back to work FT directly after having had a baby.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against marriage, if that suits you. All of our wide circle of friends are married, we are the only ones not (and they actually forget that we are not)! But I personally don't like being told I'm being wilfully neglectful or setting myself up for a fall, when I know that this has never been the case (for us).

Horses for courses.

Poor OP's thread has gone off the track, I suppose, to some extent. At the end of the day, Wineandmorewine, if you feel you would be more comfortable being married and it is what you want, then that is what you should insist on before children are born, otherwise you will worry. It is your decision, and yours alone. If your partner digs his heels in, then you have to decide whether you are willing to take a risk on him, but if he refuses to marry and you decide to stick with him, make sure you have certain legal documents in place to protect you and your child(ren). If you don't do that, then you are open to possible hurt and dismay.

I do like these threads, though - a debate to get your teeth into!

I think the majority of posters on this board are educated with qualifications and have a good salary. They have more power within their more equal relationships. The op isn't in that situation so it's apples and oranges to come along saying taht marriage isnt the only way to have financial security after children.

Try bringing a child(ren) in to the world when your earning potential is minimum wage. And if yyou could have earned more when you were younger without a big long career break to mind kids, that's certainly what your earning potential will be when you get back in to the workplace after a big long gap.

I'd have expected a better level of understanding for the situation OP and many other women otu there find themselves in. The fashion is going away from marriage I think. This is less of a problem for educated / successful women, and more of a problem for vulnerable women earning £8 an hour (or a little more).

Entitled men cling on to what's theirs but are happy to have a woman play wife, happy to have children. So they risk nothing but get the persk. Lots of couples out there like this.

I'd say 75% of the other mums I know are either working f/t or, if they have reduced their hours, have negotiated down to 4 days for a short period of time. You have to take into account earning potential as well, and if they could go back to work f/t if needed then I would say they are in the same position really.

One realistic picture is that very few people, mothers or fathers, would be in a position to work f/t if they were left on their own with young children. In RL I suspect it is a minority of men (though I get the impression these relationships are slightly overrepresented on MN) who earn c100K while their wife is able to stay at home with the children.

I'm pretty sure that most part time workers are woman (iirc) - which would indicate that women tend to be the one who reduce their hours when the couple has children - and that does put women at a disadvantage financially unless there is financial protection in place in case of divorce or separation.

I don't think one type of relationship is necessarily better than the other - all relationships are different, and cannot simply be 'judged' (for want of a better word) on whether or not there was a wedding or not. In terms of building a family unit, the best thing (imo) is to build your relationship first and commit to each other emotionally and financially (whether that's through marriage or otherwise) and then bring children into the world against the back drop of relationship that is as stable as possible, with both parties in agreement as to what the relationship 'is'.

So many couples seem to think that a child is the ultimate commitment to each other - it's really not. Committing to each other through marriage, or agreement that it's a permanent thing with financial protection in place, is the ultimate - children tie you to each other, but they certainly don't commit you to each other. Only a mutually agreed and accepted marriage or co-habitation can do that - and it's really, really not a good idea to bring kids into a relationship until you've got that side of things sorted.

The attitude to marriage has changed hugely since our parents/grandparents time. There was a time where nearly everyone got married before they moved in together.

It's moved far far away from that now. Almost to thepoint where men seem to think they are quite entitled to say yes I'll share a home, yes I'll be a father to your children but no I won't marry you. I think that's a strange and selfish attitude. That is my take on it. Others will have a different opinion.

Thurlow - It's early days for you yet. Your children are only little. You haven't had much experience of combining your career with children. And perhaps you've been on paid maternity leave for a good deal of it.

I think age 5 -12 is the worst in terms of difficulty combining a full time job with children. It's really not easy.

Hear hear, SirChen

I agree very much about the commitment, SirC (though marriage is not 'permanent'). Obviously what constitutes commitment is going to be very different for each couple, but in an ideal world couples having a child would be confident they had made that commitment to each other.

One of the difficulties is the statistics on unmarried parents. Imo there are two kinds of unmarried parents, those who fall pregnant perhaps accidentally early in a relationship, and those who have been together a long time, decided not to get married, and then have kids. I think the one scenario blurs the statistics for the other scenario. The reasons why some posters in unmarried couples on MN react very strongly when those statistics are bandied around (myself included) are because they don't always apply to them. Being together 10 years, buying a house, reaching the point where marriage would be natural but making a mutual decision it is not what they want to do, then deciding to have children - that's a very different scenario from some other unmarried couples.

It would be like making the assumption that all married couples had been together 5 years before deciding to get married. That's clearly not the case.

Vivienne - again, I question the wording of your post a little. The man saying "I'll be a father to your children", for instance. Surely they are his children too, and this should have been decided and agreed upon before thought of conception. Also, you are assuming that it is the man who is reluctant to marry - sometimes, in this modern 21st Century, women can actually make that decision.

The statistical chance of the relationship breaking down is irrelevant. The financial security that comes from sharing the wealth in marriage extends beyond the break-down/death of the relationship. So it is permanent in a way. There is no equivalent principle of sharing for cohabiting couples.

Yes that was unfortunate wording. I apologise. And I agree also that some women also don't want to marry. But why not. I think there is a move towards younger women wanting to marry before having children even though they're quite happy to live together beforehand. They want commitment and why shouldn't they have it. That's my opinion.

The reason I said 'permanent' is because I was talking about marriage and long term relationships which assume a permanent intent (largely speaking ), as opposed to a boyfriend/girlfriend type relationship which might/might not last.

I agree re the stats on co-habiting in that they don't differentiate between long term committed co-habitees versus the 'we've been together for a year now it's time to have a baby even though we haven't even thought about a permanent future together, or even got our finances in place'.

What is key is that both partners need to be singing from the same song sheet, and if marriage is important to you then perhaps it's better to do that before thinking about having children - regardless of whether he/she promises it as some point in the future, maybe, possibly. Honesty from the outset is absolutely crucial.

You can put a great deal of legal and financial protection in place which means it is less necessary to get married.

However, one partner can unilaterally remove that protection without consulting or informing the other. You cannot divorce someone without their knowledge.

For this reason I would say that I would always choose marriage. You know exactly where you stand.

AnneEyhtMeyer Quite.

That's not true Anne - not at all. If you jointly own something then the other partner cannot simply unilaterally remove the other's name from a legal document.

The partner can re-write a will, remove them as beneficiary from pension and life policies, stop paying premiums on life policies and insurances.

Wills are individual, not joint. You could write one today leaving everything to your partner and tomorrow write another leaving them nothing. The last one stands.

However, one partner can unilaterally remove that protection without consulting or informing the other. You cannot divorce someone without their knowledge

That sounds quite bizarre, and nothing I've ever heard of!! Do you have any factual evidence to back this up, Anne ?

All of the financial and legal arrangements we have in place have been signed jointly, and need joint signatures for any decision made about them in the future.

I could change my Will and remove DH, and I could remove his name as the beneficiary on my work pension. I wouldn't have to tell him I'd done either of those things.

I think a person could make another will which would usually automatically overwrite the first will. But I always understood that you could not disinherit your wife or husband completely as they have rights in law. Not the same rights as a partner.

You absolutely do not have joint signatures on your wills, Evans. They are individual personal documents.

You have no access to your partner's pension information - also an individual possession. They can change the beneficiary my sending in a new declaration of wishes.

Life policies and insurances - depends how they are written. Most are individual. As a beneficiary you would have no idea if the owner stopped paying the premiums or changed the beneficiary.

I worked in life assurance for years. We'd always get shocked angry people who had no idea they weren't entitled to anything because their partner had not kept their word.