Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

Would it bother you never getting married?

279 replies

Wineandmorewine · 28/08/2014 12:07

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 Smile

OP posts:
F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:40

Hakluyt, As I said, I wouldn't (now) but does that view help the OP as she is now, with one of his children now and one on the way?

She can leave him, and I wouldn't say no no no don't do that! It's something to consider imo. Leaving my selfish x was the best decision I ever made. Now I have my own house and job. But I think it's more complicated for the OP as she loves him.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:43

Things have gone full circle for me now as although I own my own house now I can't imagine getting married now. I contributed to my x's nest, feathered it buying groceries, paying council tax etc.... then I was a sahm. I left with nothing. My savings used up. Nothing to show for the 7 years I spent feathering HIS nest. I'm not sure I could ever trust a man enough now to get married. I'd be afraid of losing my HOME again.

But that's my story and my story and various ideals such as 'why would you marry a man you can't discuss wills with' don't give the OP financial security.

So I am going to remind her of her power. Give the child your name OP.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 18:03

Her DP is as entitled NOT to want to get married as OP is to want to get married

Disagree. That would be true if he a) hadn't promised for years to marry her & b) hadn't used her womb to bring 3 children into the world. I don't think it's fair or just to back out now.

motherinferior · 28/08/2014 18:20

Ooh, did I use DP's Potent Sperm to bring two children into the world without marrying him?

I take the point about the OP's partner changing his mind. But the fact she has given birth to his children doesn't oblige him to step up to the altar.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 18:25

No, but what advice are you giving the OP?!

Just accept her lack of financial security with a sad shrug? Or leave him? Berate herself for her foolishness for having got in to the situation in the first place.

She already has 1 (basically two) children with him. Maybe it will turn out that she leaves him over this. Maybe not. She shouldn't have to remind him that it's a privilege to have your child take your sur name and that he's not legally entitled to that, OP would be allowing it.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 18:26

I agree twinklestein, it's beyond shitty.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 18:26

Did he risk his life to give the sperm? Two of my friends nearly died in childbirth - one has had 4 operations since and is still in pain.

I rather think he is obliged in the circumstances, morally.

Clearly he has no legal obligation. But if he's committed to the OP, and is not simply covering his best interests in the event of a split, what's the problem?

NYCHIC · 28/08/2014 18:34

Goodness me what strange views. No one is obliged to get married if they don't want to. And why would you want to blackmail someone into marrying you? Madness

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 19:55

Goodness me, how inappropriate to miss the point so completely.

The OP now has to decide what to do next with HER life, and she came here to ask for advice and instead got a theoretical debate.

She's five months pregnant with HIS child. 'Blackmailing' him to marry her is a misogynist thing to say. He happily got her pregnant.

Seriously. What practical suggestions have you got for her.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 19:56

No-one is obliged to get married if they've never said they would and they have no kids.

Obligation simply means an ethical commitment. If you love someone, you've committed to them, you've always promised marriage, you've made use of their womb, not to follow through is pretty fucking shitty.

The OP is not obliged to stay with her partner, despite having 3 kids with him, but if she buggered off with someone else, she would break her commitment to him, no? I'd doubt he'd be best pleased.

Who said anything about blackmail?

aprilanne · 28/08/2014 20:17

it sounds a bit strange whether married or not .as you say a break up .would be stressfull .technically a lot easier ..i would feel offended to be honest .and yes personally i like being married .it gives you security legally /emotianally .i would not have felt comfortable .living together for ever .i must admit .our eldest child was born out of wedlock .and i hated the fact that technically he was illegamite.,i would be asking questions now rather than later .

motherinferior · 28/08/2014 20:31

He said he'd marry her - so yes, that is a commitment. Changing his mind is odd. But that is the only commitment. The fact they have children doesn't mean he has to marry her.

Btw if my partner said I had to marry him or he'd leave me I would consider that blackmail, yes. I might feel forced to consent but would be v resentful.

motherinferior · 28/08/2014 20:33

You do know that statistically childbirth is pretty damn safe, don't you? This melodrama about 'making use of her womb' spectacularly missed the point. The OP may have wanted kids too. People frequently do.

Hakluyt · 28/08/2014 20:40

" must admit .our eldest child was born out of wedlock .and i hated the fact that technically he was illegamite.,i would be asking questions now rather than later ."

AND there we go. Back to the 50s.

Hakluyt · 28/08/2014 20:42

Just checking- people do realise that women have a choice about whether they get pregnant or not, don't they?

My partner did not "get me pregnant", even though we weren't married.

motherinferior · 28/08/2014 20:46

Look: we realise you'd like to get married, and that you feel understandably upset that your partner has changed his mind about something that matters to you. But this idea it's just women who want to get married and 'deserve' marriage through virtue of childbearing is a bit off-beam.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 20:50

You're not that likely to die in childbirth, but quite a lot of women have problems giving birth. I came out blue with the cord round my neck, two of my friends haemorrhaged really badly, I don't know many women who had no problems at all during or since. My sister needs hitching up after 3 kids. Not to mention stretch marks, sagged breasts, stomachs that never go flat again...

aprilanne · 28/08/2014 20:53

1990 actually not the 50,s just my personal opinion .

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 20:58

The fact they have children doesn't mean he has to marry her.

There's no law that says he has to. But having children with someone is a commitment: both to them and the children. If you promise marriage in that context - ie to protect them legally and financially - & you don't see it through then you're breaking your commitment.

How many women on here have kids with a man, go part time or stay at home to look after them, and in the event of a split discover to their horror that they have no legal or financial protection at all.

MrsSchadenfreude · 28/08/2014 21:01

If it's marriage that is so important to you, rather than a watertight legal agreement that protects your rights if you split, wouldn't you have been better off doing things the old fashioned way, and getting married before you have children, rather than hoping that it will happen one day? Or at least, at an early stage of the relationship, having the conversation about how important it is to you.

I've done both - I had a legal agreement in place with my ex DP, which meant that when we split, everything got sorted out with a minimum of fuss (but we didn't have children). And now I am married with kids.

Viviennemary · 28/08/2014 21:06

It's up to individuals whether they marry or not. But every single woman should be aware of all the implications if they don't marry. And I'm not sure they are.

Hakluyt · 28/08/2014 21:07

"How many women on here have kids with a man, go part time or stay at home to look after them, and in the event of a split discover to their horror that they have no legal or financial protection at all."

It is perfectly possible to have legal and financial protection without being married.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 21:11

But this idea it's just women who want to get married and 'deserve' marriage through virtue of childbearing is a bit off-beam

Who said it's just women who want to get married..?

You've rather missed the point - it's not that women 'deserve' marriage through childbearing, simply they deserve marriage if that's what they want. And any decent man should want his partner and children to have the legal and financial protection that marriage brings.

Why should any woman put themselves in such a vulnerable position with no protection?

If more women were more aware of the legal and financial disadvantages of being unmarried, were less preoccupied with being the cool girlfriend, were less afraid to rock the boat, and more confident to ask for their dues or their desires - fewer women would end up massively disadvantaged by a split.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 21:14

It is perfectly possible to have legal and financial protection without being married

How do you propose to get round inheritance tax?

SirChenjin · 28/08/2014 21:19

In answer to your OP - yes, it would have bothered me if DH hadn't wanted to get married, but was happy to just live with me and have children with me. At the very least we would have had watertight legal protection put in place....but I would have questioned why he wanted to do all of those things without actually marrying me.