Why don't more of us women 'demand' marriage from our 'man'?

[faraday]

Should I say Flame Alert! Stand well Clear! Touch Paper Lit!

But seriously, as an older person (46!!) it still- well, surprises me how many of us perhaps talk ourselves around in knots into believing the actual commitment of marriage isn't for us but it's actually a smoke screen for fear that if we DEMAND our 'DP' marries us he may run away?

What do we think?

I have always thought that bigted.You come into this world alone and you go into the relationship an 'individual'.All this talk of pensions etc does seem v one way.Be responsible for your own finances and know how you will support yourself if you splity.Yes he should support the children house them clothe feed etc but in conjunction with his wife.

If you apply the analogy that marriage used to be a bad deal for women until some bits were changed by law, the same could be said of other things- such as the right to vote, and hence the system of democracy.

Until relatively recently, women weren't eligbile to vote- so do the anti- marriage brigade that believe that Parliament and democracy are wrong,- and therefore you don't vote- simply becasue women were denied the vote in the past?

I think what a lot of you are forgtting is that yes, there were elements of marriage that were very much weighted against women, BUT for many women it was a goal- you only have to read Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice especially) or Hardy to discover why- because without marriage women were forced to stay in the family home, or work as governesses, or maids. Women had no real employment and marriage was the only way they could have any independence.

Now inthe 21st C women are more independent, and marriage for economic reasons is no longer a necessity- but overall men earn more than women and for many women they want the financial security of marriage as opposed to just being a "partner" with fewer rights.

I know that men are increasingly wary of marriage because they stand to lose a lot in the event of a divorce-the law has now favoured women so strongly in divorce that men are being left with few assests.

I know that high earning men of my son's generation ( early 20s) are now keen to have pre-nuptual agreements if they are ever possible, as they would give hem some protection in the event of divorce.

Having said all of that, most people marry for love. As I am a bit older than most MNs here, I think it is easy for the younger mums to be unaware of the stigma that was attached to "living in sin" as little as 20-30 years ago- and to the term "bastard" applied to children born out of wedlock. Certainly, my own parents were very embarrassed that I lived with my DH for 3 months before we married- it simply wasn't done in their generation.

howtotellmum - Actually it's also only recently that non-landowning men got to vote (Representation of the People Act 1918). Women got the right to vote just years later (Representation of the People Act 1928). Until universal suffrage our voting system wasn't democratic.

Also, isn't there a government consultation document currently doing the rounds that explores the possbility of giving cohabitees equal rights to married couples?

howtotellmum - Are you honestly saying there was a stigma attached to living in sin 20 years ago - in 1989? That's rubbish.

swedes- yes, I am. May seem odd to you, but we obviously move in different circles. You cannot tell me that my own experiences are "rubbish". I lived with my now DH in 1984- my parents were shocked as were their friends- it was all hush-hush and explained away as a very temporary situation before the wedding.

swedes- voting- I don't get your point about democracy as you seem to be saying exactly the same as I am, with a bit of additional info about men having to be land owners.

My point was- and you don't seem to understand this- because the law was different in the past, it doesn't mean that we have to opt-out of the current situation, when the laws have been changed.

This is what some anti-marriage people have been saying ie marriage was very unfair to women before, therefore even though the law has been changed we still don't beleive in it, as it used to be unfair.

Just a quickly written reply Qally as on my way out. The word 'unlawful' came from s1(1) Sexual Offences Act 1976. The question was indeed whether 'unlawful' meant 'outside of marriage'. The question on the word 'unlawful' was not whether a long standing interpretation of the word 'unlawful' was wrong but whether Hale's general proposition applied to the 1976 Act.

You are quite right that there were those who argued that it was retrospective judicial legislation and there is a credible argument in that direction which is why the case tends to be used for 1st yrs to ask whether judge made law contravenes the rule of law. There was, however, a credible argument the other way too (that that prevailed in the HL and the ECHR). The fact that it went to the HL shows, I suppose, that there was a decent argument on each side.

The case did indeed go to the ECHR but it was not decided on the grounds that you mention. Instead it was decided on the basis that the law was already developing in the way that the HL decided. There were two cases. CR v UK and SW v UK. The ECHR held that there was always doubt on the law, the cases were developing exceptions where possible and the HL decision was an entirely foreseeable development so no retrospective crime.

I agree that the fact that this was ever in doubt was terrible (and even that there were times when perhaps a majority of people would have thought Hale was correct) but my central point is that the law did not routinely hold such men innocent, it was always got around and doubted by judges and eventually any doubt was abolished by those judges. The story is not conclusive proof that marriage was always a cover for men to sexually abuse women.

OK - that ended up being very long and I am now late!

howtotellmum - Even in 2009 there are small-minded people, but that doesn't make a stigma. Co-habiting was socially accepted in the 80s. But clearly not by everyone.

I don't think people on this thread are generally anti-marriage, they are just anti-being expected or compelled to marry. I think people should be free not to marry in the same way they are free to marry.

I take exception to you calling my family small minded. They have their faults, as do all parents, but it's not your place to say that about them thanks.

Catz/Qally - that was really interesting what you said about the historical development of the law.

The Australian 'de facto' marraige is a good idea. If it were introduced in the UK it would give everyone proper legal protection in any kind of relationship.

Marriage could then become what I think it truely should be - a personal solemn vow of fidelity and lifelong commitment.

Just thinking a bit more about why people got married historically. Certainly in my Grandparent's day, a big marriage driver in the 1940/50s was so that couples could enjoy a (consenting) full sexual relatonship before contraception was widely available but without having to worry about pregnancy outside marriage. We do not have that driver now - whch is perhaps one of the main reasons why marriage has become less prevalent.

Thanks swede you have said everything I wanted to!I only clicked on this thread as I was cringeing at the words 'demand' and 'our man'.

PMSL at the 'older generation' argument. I'm 46 and my parents have never turned a hair at people who live together without being married. They're in their mid 70s now. Actually, my Indian mother lived with my father in the 1950s in Bombay, when it definitely Wasn't Done.

I'm sure marriage is a lovely institution. I just don't care to live in an institution.

MI_ my parents are considerably older than yours and i am older than you.

Bigted, Love doesn't equate to marriage. I didn't say that. I implied that a marriage comes from love, or at least it should.

Also, it was I who said about protecting inheritance. Not you. Are we not listening again?

The reason why (the hell) the man would still want to get married, is because he is in love. Love is blind. There's your answer in black and white. It can't be much clearer than that.

A lot of people on here need to live in some kind of institution You know who you are.

MI - well said! I too don't care to live in an institiution. I know the law has changed etc etc but marriage to me is an anathema. If others wish to do it then fine, go ahead, but, for me, it symbolises all sorts of things I don't agree with (too long and boring to go into here), and I get particularly by the constant insinutation that because you live together and aren't married that you simply aren't committed to each other.

Well I have submitted several demands to my boyfriend for marriage. We have the commitment but he hates the idea of a formal ceremony (however much I scale it down to the barest bones).

I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with my reasons but they are, in no particular order:

I hate referring to him as 'my partner'. It sounds like we are in a business venture together.
We are having a baby - I want us all to have the same name.
We used donor sperm (for medical reasons) and although he is legally the child's father, I like the idea of marriage sealing this.
We want to adopt a child and it looks better if you're married.
To me, it still means more security than not being married. What mumblechum says above reinforces this.
And I want a ring.

There are other fuzzier, more emotional, reasons.

It does annoy me that I have to badger him into this (there have been tears and recriminations - he has now said he will give me a time scale within which we will get married which is pretty lame and is making me quite resentful.

On the subject of forcing someone to marry you and whether we should all be free to marry or not as we please.

My boyfriend wants to be with me - so there will have to be a meeting of minds somewhere along the line that is a compromise rather than a sacrifice. He's quite free not to get married, but he'll have to not marry someone else.

Maki you sound a bit desperate.He sounds committeed to you and despite tantrums and tears he still doesn't want to get married.Why should he? Can't you be happy as you are?BTW your stats on adoption are not correct as we looked into it and went to a big meeting where we could meet people who had adopted.the traditional married couple were in the minority.2 gay couples and several single women.You sound like you have a lot with your partner already

But Noddy, if I feel like this, then why should I lie?

It is a deep, cherished desire of mine for us to have the barest, most minimalist ceremony during which he promises to stay with me for our remaining years.

I do understand what you say about adoption, but already it won't be easy for us as we will already have one child and want to adopt an older child, probably with special needs. I have a friend who is on 2 adoption boards in Scotland and she says that although not a prerequisite for 'most' authorities (although certainly for many private agencies) it would help. It will also help us if we have to live abroad for this.

I don't think you should lie.You really want this and he doesn't.Considering all the other commitments you have together why does he not want to do this?It is a legal ceremony with implications now and in the future.he obviously doesn't want to enter into that.My partner wanted to get married but I didn't and he had to respect that.Would you really give up all you have?

Ah, thanks for that, Catz. (It's the best part of a decade since I graduated; marital rape exemption is a hazy memory...)

I don't see marriage as a patriarchal institution at all - I like the fact that it makes us (from a legal point of view) family. And I felt like that long before we had children.

What I really don't understand is the de facto marriage/common law marriage idea. What that really means is that the couple themselves have no say at all in when they become married. The law decides for them by setting a specific length of relationship. DH and I were together (and living together) for years before we were ready for marriage. We would have split up if doing that had had legal implications, as we simply weren't ready for them. If you want the legal protection of marriage, then get married, and if you don't, then don't.

Re-reading, what I mean is that I don't think that marriage now is a patriarchal instution. Of course, it's history is appalling from a woman's point of view. My marriage is what I make it, however.

Noddy "he obviously doesn't want to enter into that"

Yes, exactly, and if that's masking any lack of commitment to me and our baby then I'd rather know now than later.

I wouldn't give up what we have. We love each other and we're having a baby. I think it comes down to how much I want it and how much he doesn't want it.

Frankly I find his objections a bit dumb. He thinks we'll become 'that conventional couple' instead of the free spirits we are dotting around the world and living in exotic places. And not wanting a ceremony? I would happily settle for the most minimalist ceremony. I'm not asking for (or hankering after) feathered white horses and baskets of doves.

I wrote a thread about this and someone gave him a lovely virtual upbraiding that put him in a che guevara t-shirt. I pulled it out during one of our discussions on the matter. I kind of think it hit home.