Are marriage and commitment still relevant in the modern age?

[MattGuy23]

Hi.

With marriage rates in decline in the Western World, as well as the rise of feminism and secularism, is marriage (or any form of legal commitment) still relevant in the 21st century? Women can now have careers, sex and children without men (at least directly) in their lives. Even men in the 21st century can now adopt or opt for surrogacy etc... Many now do. Therefore, do women and men still really need each other in the modern age? Or, if they do, are much looser, more informal types of relationship now the way to go?

I wouldn't personally say they are totally irrelevant, but I think us under 45s in particular see commitment with more caution these days (particularly men, I have to say!) I've read so many cases on here where people have been married or lived together for 10/20/30 years even and have fallen out of love or their partner has had an affair. For me, adultery is unforgivable in a relationship, but sadly I think 70%+% of both men and women do it as some point in their lives.

My parents and both sets of grandparents were both extremely happily married for 50+ years. In theory, as I grew up in an extremely loving and stable home, I shouldn't be a commitment-phobe. Unusually (especially for a young guy!) at the age of 18-20 I really wanted to get married and I was very naïve about how good relationships are, or could be (probably due to my own experiences growing up). The strange thing is that as I have got older (I am now 36) I am now much more cynical and realise that good relationships, especially nowadays (perhaps ever!), are not the norm. To commit yourself emotionally and financially to another human being seems completely nuts when the mathematical odds of you still being BOTH happy and together in 30-50 years time is vanishingly small. If/when you do split, even regardless of whether there has been an affair or not, both partners often try to take the other to the cleaners and leave them financially diminished or destitute in old age. Let's face it; whether it's your fault or not, you are effectively forced into fighting for your own future financial well-being.

That's not to say that I wouldn't ever commit or marry. It goes without saying that everyone - whether female or male - needs to think very carefully about the financial consequences of marriage and divorce before tying the knot (or signing their house/assets to their partner etc.). It's very important to always make sure you would get a good deal in the likely event that you do end up splitting. There are so many stories on here of people being left financially screwed by their partner, it's heartbreaking. Beyond helping provide for your children (obvs) you owe it to yourself to look after your financial position, particularly as you hit middle/old age.

For that reason, my parents always advised my sister and I that we should only seriously consider commitment when a prospective partner is wealthier than we are. I don't think this is snobbery at all, but simply a way of protecting financial interests in case things start to go haywire (as they mostly do). I'd hate to think of myself as poor in middle or old-aged and I am determined that this will not happen. Apart from that, I have always been quite content up until now to opt for less formalised relationships. Whether that changes, I seriously doubt (unless a wealthier woman comes along and proposes to me!)

Anyway, what do others think? Is commitment now less relevant? Do men and women still need each other for security, or is it best to 'go it alone'? Will we continue to see a gradual decline in people wanting to commit formally to each other in the coming years?

I should add that I am seriously thinking about going it alone re: children. Less messy. No chances of being financially crippled by a partner (though, a wealthier one would be welcome!) Also, you can do your own thing in life without having another person dictating the terms/having half the say etc. etc.

Okay, I'll bite.

Committed relationships are about far more than the pooling of resources, they are about sharing life's adventures whether that is having a weekend barbecue or embarking on starting a family.

It is about creating shared memories of the past and plans for the future. It is about experiencing something and turning to the person next to you and saying to each other 'wow, did you see that?' then years later still having that shared experience.

It is about building things together - a home, a family, a chest of drawers then standing back and taking pride in what you have built then planning the next thing.

It is also about sharing life's burdens whether it is a mortgage, supporting family or feeding the cat.

What you describe, a series of transient relationships, sounds lonely and a bit selfish. I have a close family member who has what you describe. They are now entrenched in their ways, struggle to compromise with anyone about anything. But they are growing older and are now starting to need that support. Who is going to provide it?

If by committed relationship you mean "marriage", I don't think marriage is worth it unless both partners agree its worthwhile for the legal benefits provided versus the risk of divorce. There are plenty of ways to express commitment without the legal entanglement of marriage.

I think it’s a very good thing that marriage is no longer regarded as the social norm. In the past, many people got married because it was the “done thing” and spent 50 years regretting it.
Now that pressure is easing, people can be single parents, single non-parents, live together or however they choose. Marriage is one of several options which is how it should be.
Without all the pressure, people have a better chance of being happy.
And before anyone says marriage is the best environment for raising children, anyone who grew up in an unhappy family knows that isn’t true.

You do seem rather hung up on the money side of things, which would be a red flag for me. You can be the richest man in the graveyard all on your own

It depends on what you see the purpose of marriage being. It's a financial contract to ensure that we bring a new generation of workers into the world and give them the basic support to make it to .
The truth is, most people aren't cut out for a lifelong romantic commitment. Most marriages end in divorce and a lot of those that don't are describable as "happy".
Marriage is generally a losing game for men (because of how these pairings tend to go, demographically). I've heard it described as like giving someone a gun and letting point it at you, because you "know" they'll never pull the trigger.

"What you describe, a series of transient relationships, sounds lonely and a bit selfish. I have a close family member who has what you describe. They are now entrenched in their ways, struggle to compromise with anyone about anything. But they are growing older and are now starting to need that support. Who is going to provide it?"

Fair enough. However, I do think it's somewhat naive to think that a partner will be always there for you in old age (i.e. to be a carer). This may sound cynical but how many under 45s are still going to be there for their partner when they need them in old age and illness etc.? Not many, I am guessing.

I have a wonderful support of close family and friends. As many posters on here have asserted on many occasions, you don't necessarily need to have a partner to provide love and support. Most love and support comes from yourself and the close ones around you. In fact, there is nothing more lonely than being in a bad or mediocre relationship, as many people on Mumsnet can no doubt attest to.

"You do seem rather hung up on the money side of things, which would be a red flag for me. You can be the richest man in the graveyard all on your own".

I'm not especially a money-oriented person, particularly as I have never had much, and I was brought up in a very working class background. I just follow the advice of my parents and many of those on Mumsnet that you should only commit to someone if it makes financial sense to you. No one wants to be vulnerable in the case of separation or divorce. You have to look after yourself. Providing those conditions are met and you are getting out at least as much as your partner (relative to your incomes) then I don't see a problem in commitment per se. That is why many women and men prefer to marry up or at least opt for someone on the same income scale. It makes much more sense in this age of more fragmented relationships and divorce/separation IMO.

Marriage to me won’t die out. Because I don’t think religions will die out. To me marriage is more than money and commitment to me. It is a commitment to a shared life goal. To bring up children and put plans ahead to protect each other if illness arises and the almost certain old age come around. It will hopefully lead to a warm body sleeping next to me and keeping me company in my old age. That is the goal I want, but life has its own plans and I know I can only want it, it will never be a guarantee. It was a massive risk I took and I hope it will be worth it in the end.

Yes, marriage provided me with financial and other rights that I don’t need to think about until I need to. For now I’m going to focus on what is in front of me.

Are marriage and commitment still relevant in the modern age? Yes.

Well I've had a marriage to someone 'wealthier' than me and tried to put things in place to protect finances, but they still screwed me over. It isn't as simple as marrying someone wealthier at all.

I echo @GnomeDePlume it is more than just finances.

But to answer your question I do think marriage and commitment is still relevant today. However I do think people who manage to stay in marriages/relationships for 30+ years without being scathed are very lucky. I've got so many friends who married young, now in their late 40s/early 50s who have split and now onto new relationships/marriages which seem more balanced. I don't know whether this is down to mid-life crises or simply that people evolve, change and often outgrow their husband/wife. I have some very dear friends of mine who are finally getting married after 5 years together and they couldn't be more well suited. Their commitment to each other is solid as they've both been through some shitty marriages prior to this.

Of course the financial side of things does remain important, but that is a whole different discussion and should not define what marriage/commitment is.

Your views and description of marriage in no way represents my marriage.

To commit yourself emotionally and financially to another human being seems completely nuts when the mathematical odds of you still being BOTH happy and together in 30-50 years time is vanishingly small.

Divorce rates are at their lowest for 50 years.

Even men in the 21st century can now adopt or opt for surrogacy etc... Many now do.

Many? Many? Are you sure?

There's perfectly good ons data on all this which doesn't depend on wonky definitions of many and vanishingly small to suit your cynical world view.

Well, being the ripe old age of 48, I'm outside the OP's demographic.

Marriage and commitment are right for some people, and will always be right for some people, and for others, the mere thought will make them break out in hives.

For us, we've been together 28 years now, married 25.

Our relationship has been the foundation stone of our adult lives, it has provided financial and emotional security, not just to us, but to our children.

We're lucky, although like everyone we've had our ups and downs, our very tough times when sometimes we've wondered whether it would be best to cut our losses - although never particularly seriously.

One thing DH and I both say, is that if something happened to the other, we'd be unlikely to bother with another partner. After 28 years, going through uni, jobs, kids, countries, disasters. . . we just couldn't be arsed trying to build up any sort of similar depth of shared experience and mutual understanding with another person! The in-jokes, the stories. . .

I know he's there for me through sick and sin. He knows I'm there for him the same.

In fact today, we've spent in bed together. Hacking a fricking lung out at each other.

"Divorce rates are at their lowest for 50 years."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41669400

It's on the rise again after rising massively from 1960 to the 1990s. That's despite the fact that marriage has become considerably less popular, meaning that those who do marry these days are more likely to skew the divorce stats as they are probably 1) more serious about marriage as they are in the minority, and 2) more likely to be religious, especially from ethnic minorities.

"Many? Many? Are you sure?"

Many in the gay community, for instance. I agree that it's still a small proportion of heterosexual males, but the great thing about the modern age is that neither women or males need to be in a relationship to have children. We are all free to have children without the pressure of relationships and judgement.

I'm not anti-marriage or commitment per se (as stated above) - I am just cautious about the financial implications of marriage/commitment, and would only enter into such arrangements if they were mutually beneficial and wouldn't leave me financially worse off. IMO this only makes me sensible and sane.

Just like to say thanks for all those who have posted happy relationship stories.

Tbh it just sounds like you are someone who prefers being on their own and not being in that deep with people, it's just a matter of disposition, and some people have probably always been like that. I don't particularly like being/living alone and I love having someone I know inside out to share experiences with, and I don't get bored easily of romantic partners and want someone new.

Divorce is no doubt more common because not everyone views it as a religious obligation to stay married, so not many will see the point in sticking around once they are unhappy or bored just to uphold the contract.

Also, as we now live in a society where everyone is allowed to work (women, in particular), less people will be marrying for necessity.

So for those reasons, yes marriage may be less relevant and binding in modern culture, but not because nobody is suited to the commitment or wants it.

The financials are often not black and white.

I've made nowhere near as much as DH - however, his career has prospered the way it has because of the support he's had from me - he'd be the first to acknowledge that. He's had a level of freedom, stability and comfort at home that he wouldn't have had without that support. Nothing like having a 'good corporate wifey'. . .

On the other hand, my financials have suffered. Bugger. But then again, I've had opportunities, experiences and been able to have and give everyone in the family a good life that we wouldn't otherwise have had. . .

Comes down to not having a crystal ball. Everything is a gamble. Getting married. Not getting married.

Just gotta go with your gut, as well as your head, and be prepared to deal with whatever is around the next corner the best you can.

It's hard for me to be too cynical when my parents and grandparents were all very happily married for 50+ years?

I think you can be pro commitment (in theory) but still see to your own financial interests. I think of it as sensible financial planning. No one should make themselves vulnerable to their partner. Was also curious what others thought about commitment in the 21st century too.

"Tbh it just sounds like you are someone who prefers being on their own and not being in that deep with people".

I think this is definitely true in my case. I like people and am always supportive of friends/family/people in general but I am a bit of a loner and love my own space. That's not to say I close myself off to possibilities but I don't feel that deep longing that most people do.

Maybe. Although I'm 32 and I am married, as are the majority of my friends and my husband's. My husband is a year younger and I'd say marriage and particularly having children were very important to him. He said this from very early on in our relationship. Sure, we may not be married forever but it's important to us now and if no one ever did anything on the basis that it may not work out we'd never do anything at all.

Are marriage and commitment still relevant in the modern age? Yes, they are.

Women can now have careers, sex and children without men (at least directly) in their lives. Even men in the 21st century can now adopt or opt for surrogacy etc... Many now do.

Your claim about adoption/surrogacy is untrue. And what you say about the interests of adults ignores the interests of the children involved. Statistically speaking, children do better with two loving parents. Raising children is expensive and very demanding. Sharing the load makes sense and can be immensely rewarding.

You're wrong about the divorce rate too. In fact your OP is riddled with inaccuracies.

A good marriage is one of the best experiences life has to offer. I see it at close quarters. My parents have been married 60+ years, my brothers 30+ and if I hadn't been widowed after 17 years I have no doubt we'd still be together. All three couples are very united. My DSD says she and her DH hope to walk hand in hand on the beach in their 80s like my parents.

I think you have taken your own fears of commitment and extrapolated them to create a theory justifying them. Perhaps accept that your concerns are your concerns rather than a universal issue?

It's good that it's become more socially acceptable not to marry or be in a long-term relationship, because there must always have been people who would prefer not to.
But I still think it will remain what most human beings want to do, regardless of things like the divorce rate or how willing older people are to provide care. The fact that long-term relationships don't always turn out well does not stop most people from wanting to be in one.

I come from a family of long and happy marriages, as does dh. No divorces among any of our extended families (and only one amongst our collective friends). I like time to myself, but it's perfectly possible to have that if you marry the right person and organise your life to allow it.

Yes.

"Your claim about adoption/surrogacy is untrue."

Many gay people already do. Whilst only a very small proportion of men opt for this alone (the vast majority wouldn't want it!) the option is still very much there for those who want it. Same with IVF for women...women simply don't need men like they did 20+ years ago.

"You're wrong about the divorce rate too."

Nope. I linked it to the BBC article with graph on the divorce rate and how it has changed over the years. It rose significantly from 1960 to 2000, fell between 2000-2015 and has increased since 2015 (hence, the title and content of the BBC article).

"Statistically speaking, children do better with two loving parents. Raising children is expensive and very demanding. Sharing the load makes sense and can be immensely rewarding."

This is debatable (i.e. is it more down to class/income/other factors?) but I probably agree with you to a large extent.

"A good marriage is one of the best experiences life has to offer."

I don't doubt this.

"I think you have taken your own fears of commitment and extrapolated them to create a theory justifying them. Perhaps accept that your concerns are your concerns rather than a universal issue?"

Maybe. But I am certainly not anti-marriage etc. It is certainly a good thing if you go into it financially prepared and you make sure that you aren't going to be screwed if things go haywire etc.

One thing about marriage is that whatever life throws at you, you'll always have someone who's "Got your back". Because basically, their fate is entwined with yours, so of course they'll fight for you.

I can't think of any other institution where that's also true. Even the greatest of friends / siblings / relations will have to consider their own position at some point, and parents - well, they die. It's about so much more than just finances, for me.