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

not true re unmarried fathers. If they are named in the birth certificate, they have parental responsibility

Okay - I'll concede that point. It appears to be the case for children born in 2003 and onwards. Ours were born in 1992 and 1995, so obviously the law has changed in that respect. I just remember I was the only one when ours were at school who had authority to sign any permission forms.

Do stop generalising. You have absolutely no idea about how domesticity and childcare are allotted in my household. And while you're about it, do stop throwing around emotive terms like 'classy' and 'hideous' which - along with the melodramatic catastrophising - are doing nothing to enhance your argument.

Yes mine born just before cut off December 2003. Such a blessing as there is a particular type of man who will take all of his rights but ignore all of his responsibilities. That was my x.

There are two types of co-habiting couples.

Couples where the woman keeps her own income, has her own pension with a decent modern man who is willing/happy to share the childcare and the housework.

That is a totally totally different situation from sahm who's been bullied in to accepting whatever bone she's flung by a man that is happy to construct a family situation that suits HIM first and foremost.

There's no point the women in group one coming along to defend their choices and make the women from group 2 feel even more impotent. It's a totally different set up.

But I get it - am bad person, neglectful mother, inadequate feminist, my babies will STARVE in the GUTTER, OK?

I'm not catastrophising. Nor am I generalising. I didn't say the domesticity and childcare rump going to the woman applied to everyone. But are you certain you aren't smarting at my post because this does actually apply to you? Because you have in fact conceded more of yourself and your career than your partner has?

Actually, F0ssil, there are also other types of co-habiting couples. Those where either partner is either a SAHM or SAHD but finances are simply joint (as it has been in our case). I realise we have been lucky in our relationship, but this would have been the case even if we had been married. Married or not has made not a jot of difference to us.

These points being put forward are not intended to make one group of women make another group feel impotent. It is just how life is, in general. Some people are happy to be married, some are not. A woman can be desperately unhappy within marriage, just as much as in a co-habitee relationship (sometimes more, actually, because marriage can be harder to walk away from, especially as some people appear to view it as more of a commitment)

Polonium - I'm quite certain I'm not "smarting", because your post does not apply to me

You are making wild and ridiculous assumptions, IMV

No, I'm pissed off at your assumption that women automatically cede their careers to their male partners', actually. But if you want to believe I'm protesting too much, just get on with it. I'm sick of being berated.

motherinferior - Have you ever been married?

Eh? No. Since you ask. Are you trying to work out if I'm a bitter divorcee or something? Or languishing wistfully on the shelf?

MI -

MI- admit it. You're just making the best of it because him indoors won't marry you. Every woman wants to be married........

Jesus. Like I said before, polonium, it's like debating marriage with someone who lives in the 1950s

I am not unmarried because of some feminist principle. I am unmarried because I don't want to be married.

I don't do the bulk of the childcare, DP does.

I won't be the one around for school drop offs and pick-ups when we hit that stage, DP will be.

I can't for the life of me work out what point you are actually trying to make. The only impression I get, generalising myself just like you are, is that you have been royally shafted by some guy at some point in your life and seem to believe that most of them are wankers.

I think we can all agree that doctors are intelligent people with worthy careers. Perhaps you should read the 2012 GMC report that highlights the large and increasing number of female GPs opting to work part-time. They overwhelmingly work part time to combine work with family commitments. There are a small number of male doctors who work part time but most do so in order to combine their clinical careers with another paid commitment (i.e. to enhance their careers).

www.gmc-uk.org/The_state_of_medical_education_and_practice_in_the_UK_2012_0912.pdf_49843330.pdf

I agree that everyone's circumstances are different. If you own five properties in Kensington or have a trust fund it isn't going to be a financial disaster if your partner walks out. In fact you'll probably be better off than if you were married and have to share. But everyone should be aware that there are implications if you don't get married. And there are still people who aren't properly aware of this. And just because you have everything sewn up with a solicitor doesn't mean everyone else has.

Thurlow - Gosh. How thoroughly modern your household sounds.

The vast majority of parents at the school gate at pick up and drop off are female. Maybe I live in a 1950s wormhole.

At my children's school I should have said. I have no knowledge what happens elsewhere.

Given your attitude to men, it rather sounds as though you do.

Oh ffs stop sniping at Polonium just because you don't agree with her. She's made some excellent points in this thread.

I still don't know why you asked?

It wasn't the part-time, it was the working for her husband's practice that I found a bit silly. Making him literally the boss.

Thurlow You think I dislike men because I'm advocating that most women would be more secure married to one? How weird.

Polonium, although as Twinklestein appears to think you are making some creditable points (I wouldn't go so far as to say "excellent") your wording sometimes needs some thought. For instance, even in your last post using the words "most women would be more secure married to one [a man]) is automatically putting the woman in a needy and subservient position, as though it would be impossible to get through life without being married to one.

And Twinkle - no-one is sniping. People are merely responding to Polonium's accusatory comments and sweeping generalisations, as far as I can see.

For instance, above: Gosh, how thoroughly modern your household sounds.

That sounds like a snide put-down, to me. Neither an excellent nor creditable point at all.

No, the reason I'm saying that your opinion sounds very 1950s is that you consistently talk about women limiting their career, women giving up work, women giving up their income, women being the one at risk.

Amongst the mums I know, it is only a very, very significant minority who have actually reduced their income, given up work or who would be the one completely at risk if their relationship broke down.

It's a view of relationships that I genuinely don't recognise. It's an opinion of a standard 2.4, wife at home relationship that is increasingly uncommon.

I'm still trying to work out where you stand, polonium, as from your posts I think that is quite important. I get the impression that you have children? But you have also said up thread that you are unmarried?

Evans - OK I should have rephrased that. I wrote it quickly. I should have said I am advocating that most women who are in similar circumstances to those described by the OP (ie cohabiting with children) would be more secure married.