Marriage is outdated

[Lifepuzzle]

For discussion/viewpoints really. I think marriage is increasingly becoming an outdated concept. I think the value system that underpins it is, theoretically lovely - commitment to one partner for the rest of your life. But the reality of human nature is that people often outgrow each other, sometimes quickly and sometimes after 30 + years together.

I don’t think there is any shame in parting ways with someone who you’ve had a good run with, you’ve been good friends, you might have had children, but seasons move on and the whole idea of “for life” actually becomes too much pressure for people who have tried their best, had good times, but just………moved on. Yes there is something nice about knowing one person forever, but in reality I’m beginning to wonder if the unrealistic expectation of the forever part just forces people into long term unhappiness eventually.

I think marriage often does work - but for a certain lifespan. It’s a contract, in many ways, but contracts that don’t have a review and renewal date after a certain period of time are dangerous things. People should be given the option of continuing to choose their partner. In a utopian world we like to imagine we all stay together until death do us part, but in reality many people are living under conditions that they wouldn’t choose if the contract came up for renewal.Then, when divorces do happen they are often acrimonious, leaving one or both partners feeling like a failure for calling time.

Marriage isn’t just about romance anyway, it is about nailing down financial security and loyalty for the sake of children and asset-building. Yes romance comes into it at the beginning and no-one enters a marriage thinking it will fail. But it’s an outdated concept that allows no flexibility for re-assessment or understanding of the fluid nature of people as they move from one life stage to another.

We dont own anything so that wasn't a factor regarding why we got married! Hence we have no wills!

Thank you! So many sweeping statements about all women... when the majority of women i know carried on with full time hours or are fine financially apart from their partners, joint tenants on mortgages, named in wills and insurances/pensions etc and so far noone has actually given a good reason why marriage would "protect" women in these situations??

That’s in the usual christian vows but not the civil ceremony and isn’t the case legally. Contract can be ended through divorce.

@Elle771 It’s obvious: in marriage/divorce the money and assets are shared/split, not retained by the individuals. For most heterosexual couples with DC, even if both work full time, the father has more wealth. So marriage is far more financially secure for most women with DC than cohabiting.

Different for the much smaller proportion of women wishing to become mothers with more wealth than their partners, who are confident in remaining healthy enough to work full time for 18 years with DC.

I work full time myself but a large proportion of the Mums at my kids schools either never went back to work or only did very part time.

Certainly post children they haven’t earned enough to build a pension, or put of roof over their children’s heads.

Marriage means if their husbands die (even if they are intestate) those women will automatically inherit the family home, their husbands pension, death in
service benefits and any other assets.

If their husbands divorce them their years of support and childcare etc will be taken into account in a financial settlement.

In either case if they aren’t married then they could be left with no home, no claim on a pension, no death inservice benefits etc.

Now obviously choosing to give up your job or go part time for a man that won’t marry you is a very risk choice (even married it leaves you vulnerable) but as the pages of Mumsnet have shown me over the years lots and lots of women still make it.

@NewBlueNoteBook @Dozer

I agree in situations where the woman earns a lot less or reduces hours etc, or there's a significant disparity in the man's favour then marriage gives some claim financially in case of split BUT I guess my experience and social circle (and colleagues) just doesn't seem to reflect what mumsnet users often say is the norm. The vast majority of people I know (i cant actually think of any exceptions!!) both partners are working full time or near enough, noone is on loads more than the other or at least not to the extent where one would be left bereft particularly...

"Marriage isn’t just about romance anyway, it is about nailing down financial security and loyalty for the sake of children and asset-building."

That is what marriage has always been about. The religious and romantic aspects are much, much later add-ons (and not necessarily worthwhile add-ons either, IMO).

That's a load of nonsense. If you get married in a Church, that doesn't mean you can't get divorced! What place in time are you living in?! The dark ages?!

If you don't know that, I really genuinely cannot help you. PLEASE tell me you are not in a relationship with a man, and you have children with him, and you're not married?

You won’t be saying that when he pops his clogs and you suddenly find yourself paying huge amounts of inheritance tax. X

Most women do NOT have more money than their male partner OR earn more than their male partner. (Despite what some posters on Mumsnet may claim!) And most will certainly will not be earning more when they have children. As I said in my post, women who have children with men they are not married to are incredibly foolish and naive. I stand by that.

@Springtimehere · Today 13:33

I see it (marriage) as only suitable for religious and old fashioned reasons.

No one needs to have the social status of being married.

Oh dear. How embarrassing. Did you type that with a straight face?

.

@BatchCookBabe I married (and divorced) a very wealthy man. I am still in a position where I cannot afford a mortgage. So no, it doesn't always help. Especially if you marry a very shrewd accountant.

I’ll be teaching my daughter to earn her own money and not rely on a man. It doesn’t make any financial sense for me to marry. I would be making myself vulnerable if I married. It’s not the 1950s where children born out of wedlock were left out of inheritance.

Did you give up work or go part time when you had children? You’re very foolish and naive for relying on a man.

Don't perpetuate this old chestnut again. The DIvorce Rate is not a relection of how many marriages end in divorce. This is why people can't work out why they don't know all these divorced couples when people say 50 percent of marriages fail. The DR is the number of divorces in any year divided by number of marriages that year. The reason the DR has gone up is purely down to the reduction in marriages per year. The number of divorces last year at around 80k is the lowest since 1971. But if you have 100 marriages and 20 divorces the DR is 20 percent. If the same number get divorced the next year but only 20 get married then the DR is 100 percent. But saying 100 percent of marriages fail is nonsense. So people that get married are as likely to stay married as previous generations when it was 'shameful' to get divorced. The real societal change is people don't feel they 'have to' get married to have a sexual relationship, or because of pregnancy or for financial security or just plain expectations by others for you to be married.
So marriages is as valued and contemporary for those that chose it as it ever has been, for others it isn't and there is now choice to not be married.
The failure rate is highly skewed to age (post children coming of age) and socio economic situation. As PP said, those with fewer assets are more likely to divorce and it's more likely to be after a shorter time. There is a theory this is down to 'less to lose in lifestyle' from divorce, but it is more likely that lower income brings huge pressures on family life with few options to mitigate the stress that having money brings and escapist adictive behaviours like drink and gambling having proportional bigger impacts. Also, previously married are significantly more likely to divorce in subsequent marriages.

OP, you have to remember marriage is a choice. It isn't obligatory. If you find it out dated, just don't get married.

Having watched my dm in an abusive marriage, I chose not to marry.

I am a medium earning woman. I didn't need a man as a meal ticket or to buy a house, so I couldn't see any benefit in marriage for me. Tying myself legally to another person seemed an unnecessary risk.

I had a long term relationship and my ds, but was able to walk away cleanly when it became clear ex had hidden his level of drinking and had hidden the extent of his financial problems.

Everyone, male and female has the same choice.

I am not sure about all of this. The ONS has some really comprehensive data. Average length of marriage that ends in divorce is around 12 years. The rate of divorce per married person has fallen from a high in the '90s. But is still double that of the 70's prior to the liberalisation of divorce laws.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2023#divorce-and-dissolution-rates

Yes, which is why "outdated" was used, law hasn't changed much but attitudes have; women don't want to be unpaid slaves because that is what was expected 20 years ago.

"Inheritance tax doesn't affect many couples as it stands at the moment, but that might change under Labour. There is absolutely no way to replicate the enormous advantage a married couple have when it comes to leaving their assets to their children without paying any tax."

I agree with you on this - this is the real legal benefit of marriage in my opinion. Maybe the only one. All us single mum's can do is marry our best friends on our deathbeds and be relieved that we can trust them enough to pass it on to our kids. I think a lot of wives I know wouldn't be convinced the father of their kids wouldn't buy himself fancy car and marry a younger woman if they died young! Attitudes work both ways but the law isn't protecting women in any way that holds the husband to account with finances.

Exactly the reason the breadwinner should be wary of getting married.

I don’t think people really grow out of each other, I think most people get to a certain point and are so exhausted and we’re all just trying to keep ourselves moving especially now in col crisis and so we forget how to enjoy each other’s company, keep things to anything even resembling the standards we have dating (we used to go on dates or sit in chatting at night, no tv for example). Then stupid hormones of course, we’re exhausted and want more sleep/ quiet, and to be fair with estrogen declining are less tolerant, they’re getting more testosterone making them less easygoing while assuming sex should be plentiful and apparently also thinking sex is a sign of love etc etc etc. Ok so it sounds like marriage doesn’t work but I think if we all had less pressure more me time etc we could all just be the great couples we once were!

edited to add: I think we forget we used to be there for each other and all the things we used to be. We should have a mot regularly to remind each other we actually are quite a good match!

I disagree.

I am more in favour of Scottish system of divorce (I think that any property or business owned before the marriage is not considered part of divorce?). But as a married couple you have a joint income and you are a team. So assets including housing and pension are totally joint. Otherwise the unpaid work of one isn’t recognised.

I disagree.

I am more in favour of Scottish system of divorce (I think that any property or business owned before the marriage is not considered part of divorce?). But as a married couple you have a joint income and you are a team. So assets including housing and pension are totally joint. Otherwise the unpaid work of one isn’t recognised.

I think some posters are living in a time warp

Yes, which is why "outdated" was used, law hasn't changed much but attitudes have; women don't want to be unpaid slaves because that is what was expected 20 years ago.

I have been married 20 years this year that was 2005 not 1905, no one has ever expected me to be an unpaid slave. We are Thatchers' children, career women raised in an age of equality of female empowerment our contemparies are Victoria Beckham, Kate Winset and Caitlin Moran. I think you are reffering to my grandmother's generation.

I mean divorce is literally there as the process to end a marriage. With the introduction of "no-fault" divorces I'm not sure what else could be needed other then people going into marriage understanding what they are both agreeing to. There are still scores of people on this site every month who aren't married and haven't really understood what that means in terms of their rights and relationships.

I explained what I meant about unpaid labour in my previous post. If you have a relationship where the man thinks of day trips with the kids and organises, looks after his own family and gets all of the presents and healthcare sorted without you having to do it and does his share of the household jobs, life admin etc then bravo. You are in a vanishingly small minority according to all of the data.