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

It has a lot to do with commitment. It’s really nothing BUT a legal commitment. I would also argue that if you are the higher earner and your partner is going to be losing out financially by caring for your children, one of the best things you could do to prove your love and care is to give them this legal protection. Mean with money, mean with love. I have never, ever seen an exception. Never, not once.

You are right, though, that it is not obligatory, and nor should it be. Nobody should be forced to enter a legal contract if they don’t want to. As long as you don’t complain that your relationship is not legally recognised when you never chose to legalise it, it’s all good.

Going back to the original question...refusing to marry can be a control issue, but I have less of a problem with it when someone is upfront from the very beginning that it's not on the cards. What's really shitty is dangling a proposal as a carrot in front of someone to make them step in line. That's definitely a control issue, and a clear sign that you should run a mile from this scrote.

how is your OH protected chankly? It's not the same situation if he has financial protection and if he hasn't lost much earning potential/ability to get back to work. Even if that is a free choice, partnership means you look out for each other - I wouldn't want my OH to kill off their earnings prospects, all of us could do with keeping an eye on that as you never know what's around the corner. Individuals are free to, and do, make bad choices, that doesn't mean partners who benefit should go along with it.

"but I have less of a problem with it when someone is upfront from the very beginning that it's not on the cards."

Apparently in this case the man has been honest and never promised marriage.

But she's being dishonest here. '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".'

These aren't the real reasons she wants marriage so badly, she wants it so she will be compensated should they break up. But she's afraid to say so. You're right AynRand, this could have been avoided if the woman holds off on kids unless he is married. But according to your worldview, the only point of marriage is kids. If both parties are serious about not having kids, marriage serves no purpose.

Apparently in this case the man has been honest and never promised marriage.

Great. I still don't think he'd be making a huge sacrifice to guarantee the mother of his children and his beloved life partner her fair share of their assets.

These aren't the real reasons she wants marriage so badly, she wants it so she will be compensated should they break up. But she's afraid to say so.

Well, potato potarto. I see it as him (not) loving and caring for her enough to want to protect her by acknowledging and legalising her fair share of their assets, and making legally sure she doesn't get fucked over. You, who think it is a 'huge sacrifice' for a man to guarantee the mother of his children her fair share of their assets should the worst happen, see it as her wanting compensation.

I supposed we're both right in a way, but I prefer my view.

As I said before, mean with money, mean with love. It's one of the few things for which there really are no exceptions.

Don't have kids, Scott.

Sorry, hit post too soon.

But according to your worldview, the only point of marriage is kids. If both parties are serious about not having kids, marriage serves no purpose.

Well, that's been the focus of the discussion so far, because when kids come along something has to change. Anyone who doesn't recognise this clearly isn't much of a parent.

Of course, though, even aside from kids, there are various tax breaks and protections in the case of death that come with marriage, as any fule kno. I didn't really see the point in banging on about those when they weren't pertinent to the subject at hand, but they exist.