Is refusing to get married a control thing

[Kannet]

So this is not about me but a close family member. She had been with her Dp for fifteen years,two kids mortgage and so on. He knows that she is desperate to be married, she wants the same name as her kids (no idea why they don't have her name anyway). She also wants the status of wife, she feels people look down on her as she is "just girlfriend".

She has talked about it with her Dp and is even happy to just go off on their own and not have a "wedding". He just says right out no. No reason just "don't want to".

I honestly think he likes having this control over her. He holds all the cards so to speak.

They also have separate money and she works very part time so financially she is vulnerable. I just don't know what advice to give her anymore

This is the same scenario we have, only I’m female and I’m the one who won’t marry.

Interesting to read how selfish and controlling I am.

Of course in reality I’m really not as I suspect nor are lots of the others we are condemning.

ChanklyBore

I've seen plenty of threads on here where financially independent women were advised not to marry their less well off partners...

chanklybore - are you having free childcare from your partner and not sharing assets? If you're not, then it's not the same situation is it?

Don't forget, ChanklyBore, you must also somehow be a 'mysoginist' into the bargain!

Firstly, she needs to stop making this all about him. No one forced her to sleep walk into this position and the sooner she starts taking responsibility for her choices, hopefully the sooner she will start making better ones.

What is the point of wanting to get married to someone who doesn't? She gambled and it hasn't paid off.

Don't feel sad for her. This is what happens when you give your power away.

He sounds sensible. He doesn't want to get married so hasn't and stands to lose a lot if he does and it goes pear shaped.

I'd not advise a women not to get married to a man in these circumstances. The sex is irrelevant.

Why would she want to marry a man who doesn't want to marry her? Why should he have to do something he doesn't want because she thinks he should.

If this was a deal breaker she should have left prior to children etc.

He holds all the cards so to speak.

But to some extent at least, doesn't he hold all the cards because she has handed them over to him?

Why, why, why do people do this? Why have children and buy a house with someone and be together for years when they won't even consider something as fundamental as marriage? How many more stories of people (usually women) left high and dry after their partner to whom they're not married leaves do people need to hear before they get the message?

I've never understood why someone would get a mortgage and have children with someone, but not marry them.

Ah, I tell a lie. I've always understood it. And it's shite.

Well, interesting! I genuinely thought that this would immediately go "Getting married is just a piece of paper, it means nothing. Love is all'-

But instead I'm hearing of loads of us who feel that you should secure your future if you're going to, as most women do, sacrifice their career to be the main child-carer/ domestic harmoniser.

We need to get away from this whole idea of 'common-law', the assumption that just by being with someone protects you.

It doesn't.

@BoxsetsandPopcorn

^I'd not advise a women not to get married to a man in these circumstances.

A woman. Since when did we lose the right to be individuals? We are not only women when it's more than one. So either it's 'I'd not advise women' or 'I'd not advise a woman'

FFS. I restrain myself from SPAG posts (unless it's an obvious troll) but the number of people these days who don't seem to be able to distinguish one woman from several women is truly shocking. How hard can it be to realise that these are two different words?

And of course, in the true sense of making SPAG posts, there are several in my own

But to reiterate:

women - more than one woman
woman - one woman

You know women who get married usually insist on it. Like insuring commitment before moving in together and having kids. It's up to the woman to make it clear and insist on it and be able to walk away. The circumstances 15years together and two children and still not marrying her is humiliating, she should leave.

Given the divorce rate I think he's wise not to want to get married. Even if they have been together so long, marriage is no guarantee of a lifelong commitment. But of course she should take whatever steps she can herself to ensure her security should they break up.

This thread is a parody of gender relations in 2018.

Every if, but and what if is covered somewhere.

Don't be the pathetic idiot hoping the user man will marry you instead of letting you have sex with him, bear his children, do all the childcare, be his unpaid cleaner/ cook / housekeeper and then leave you and the kids for a younger model.

Also don't marry a man who is solely a dozen doner and leaves you to earn the money and pay for wrap around childcare while he plays Xbox.

Neither are good. They are also not the same.

People are being incredibly disingenuous pretending that giving up your job to do childcare because you and your partner mutually decided that's best for the family unit is the same as staying home and doung nothing in a parasitic role.

The only thing clear hear is that both adults should have been transparent and honest from the start and had enough self respect to insist on their basic standards being met or the relationship ending.

That hasn't happened.

Even if they have been together so long, marriage is no guarantee of a lifelong commitment.

Well, it sort of is in the sense that if the relationship breaks up, the lower earning partner (who's almost always the woman, who has almost always taken the financial hit for child raising) is protected. I understand that most divorces are clean break these days, so there'll come a point when finances are no longer joined in any way, but the point stands.

You don't get married to prove you'll stay together forever - you do that just by staying together forever. You get married to protect the partner who's going to get totally shafted otherwise in a breakup because their contribution wasn't financial (fuck off with your bullshit, Boxsets). If you really do love someone and appreciate them sacrificing long term earning potential and pension pots to raise your kids, I cannot understand why you'd begrudge them protection if it all goes to shit.

Gentlemen, if you don't want to marry a woman to financially protect her, fine. Go part time, take the same share of child raising and domestic duty as she does and the same earning sacrifice. You're all about the equality and women being independent, right?

*autocorrect:

A sperm donor not a dozen doner,,!

Scott

Regardless of whether or not a couple with children are married, surely both parents have a legal responsibility for the financial support and childcare required to bring up the children they had together?

I have advised my daughter to ensure she has a career and is able to support herself and any future children. If both parents work, the father has responsibility to help with the childcare and any costs incurred should be shared.

If any man expects free childcare and domestic work from his partner, then he can also expect to provide some financial support in the event that the relationship ends prematurely. Marriage is not a guarantee of this, but even if not married, it isn't necessarily right to expect to walk away.

"Regardless of whether or not a couple with children are married, surely both parents have a legal responsibility for the financial support and childcare required to bring up the children they had together?"

I agree, but marriage seems like its not working as its supposed to. Its supposed to be a lifeline commitment. Even if you don't take the traditional vows, that's still the underlying intent. But I think this is just unrealistic, given how often people grow apart, fall out of love, turn out to be abusive, etc. Perhaps if marriage could be redesigned as an expressly temporary relationship? I don't know. It just seems broken to me. Even as a means of divying up assets after the relationship ends it seems imperfect.

It sounds like a typical case of her being desperate to be married for financial protection and him not wanting to because he knows her reasons for marrying him is to be protected financially and he might be suspicious that she's already planning her exit. That's the problem here, the protection of marriage only really matter after separation.

You don't know what their relationship is like in closed doors. Maybe they agreed to marry but maybe they also agreed that she would go back to work full-time and she has now changed her mind about work.

It sounds like they are both controlling with their own agenda as to their reason to want to marry/not want to marry. Maybe the trust and commitment is gone and the relationship is on its last leg anyway.

Its supposed to be a lifeline commitment.

Assuming you mean 'lifelong', since it can indeed be a lifeline...no, it's supposed to be a financial protection, almost always for the woman who has made the financial sacrifice, for as long as the relationship lasts, and especially if it ends. The traditional vows may say something about 'till death do us part', but you can legally marry without that.

I think you know this and that's why you're on a forum full of women, trying to tell them not to do it.

I meant lifelong. So the primary purpose of marriage is so if/when the relationships ends, the woman can be compensated for whatever sacrifices she made without her having to go to court and sue him. So whenever a woman wants a man to marry her, she basically just wants marriage so she can be more easily compensated when they break up. All that stuff about "love you forever" "publicly confirm our love" etc. is just fluff to disguise the real reason and try and convince him to marry against his best interests (because, lets face it, men aren't going to make potentially expensive legal commitments like marriage purely because "its the right thing to do"). This is why I believe marriage in its current form needs some radical redesigning.

Why, why, why do people do this? Why have children and buy a house with someone and be together for years when they won't even consider something as fundamental as marriage

I guess it is because the man offered promises of marriage or commitment and the woman felt secure enough to have children, she may have assumed it was a partnership and believed him.

This has been happening for generations, from the middle ages a man's promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in "breach" of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.
It has always been known that women, due are vulnerable eeconomically due to pregnancy and child rearing.

We are still a journey away from equality so the risk to women is high if not married.

Op, does she talk to you about this?

" the woman can be compensated for whatever sacrifices she made without her having to go to court and sue him. "

Of course divorce often does entail the wife suing the ex-husband, my mistake. But my point still stands, why do men marry - so assets will be ore easily split up when the relationship ends, or because they believe it will result in lifelong binding love? This is so much confusion about the actual purpose of marriage. If it is to be a temporary arrangement for fair and equitable splitting of assets once it ends, then get rid of the romantic fluff surrounding it and redesign it as such.