Heteromonogamy is really just another way to waste women's time, isn't it?

[solidgoldbrass]

All those books, articles, courses on how to Find The One, Make Him Commit, Keep It Exciting - keeping women occupied with the Perfect Relationship means they don't have time to do anything interesting with their lives.

....all good advice, SAF but actually joining my finances (as you have outlined) with my ex went really badly for me ....I think you can still be liable up by a debt taken out by your husband.

Again the assumption is that the woman will be the lower earner, if she is not, I would go as far as to say there is zero advantage to being married...

Thinking about this thread.....it just makes me that living with your hetromonogomous partner is fraught with risk and cost (personal and financial)...

SAF it depends what you mean by "ceremony". As I recall, you need to notify the council in advance, provide proof of identity, then book a place with a licence and an approved registrar, rock up with a couple of witnesses and say the words. So yes, it needs to be pre-booked in a specific place with 5 attendees and a specific form of words (plus any other fluffy-wuffy stuff you fancy).

No, for many reasons it all has to be done with actual human beings. The point is that it's a public occasion where your secret former spouse can come in and scream IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME YOU BITCH!

And so the registrar can notice little tell tale signs like the bride being a monoglot Latvian and the groom a monoglot Mongolian who don't recognise each other when they arrive at the town hall by bus.

yes, there are good reasons for public proclamation with a state registrar like piece.

all the rest of it - the fluffy wuffy stuff, is just societal more & people's greed/showing off etc.

there's no reason why you couldn't have it all drawn up legally, then publicly witnessed - like drawing up a will etc, which needs to be witnessed, then store it with a solicitor.

however much i have misgivings about 'traditional' marriage, i do think that certains types of relationships need some level of commitment, parenting being the most important. and atm there is only 1 way of doing that, which excludes vast numbers of people who don't want to get married - or aren't allowed to!

Basically, the same rules for marriage has to apply for civil partnerships because gay people cannot be discriminated against. So I should imagine that same rules about giving notice, having witnesses, being questioned by registrar etc apply.

I guess that women rush into cohabiting because they like the idea of living with their man full-time.

I suppose they want to make a go of things with him. Personally-speaking, I think a lot of people would be happier living with other women or alone as it is can be a lot of effort for little reward and it can be soul-destroying if with wrong person. I'm no believer in the cult of monogamy for the sake of it, not a believer at all. Why be unhappy all the bloody time? Life is too short. Splitting-up or getting a divorce isn't a crime.

But, let us be realistic, it's probably no bed of roses for men, either, it is probably as much of a chore for them, too, and you can't use the threads here as ultimate proof of how much harder women work- you are only seeing their side of story after all.
Unless people are out-and-out bitches or bastards, being in an unhappy relationship is stifling and a chore for both members of the couple.

SGB - your co-parenting arrangement sounds like it works for you. Can I ask you about it?

Is it a commitment to having all your children together, or just this one (or did you make the arrangement together on the basis that you both only want one?).

If your co-parent decides to have another family which takes his time, money and attention away from your son would you resent it, or would it be ok as he is a 'free agent'?

• I realise these are personal questions, you don't have to answer, not asking you to justify yourself, or saying that marriage would be better etc... just wondering.

Himalaya: I'm not offended in the least and will answer your questions...
Basically this is kind of how it turned out. We were old drinking buddies (well, had dated each other for a while about 15 years previously, decided we didn't want to be A Couple but didn't dislike each other, stayed friends on the level of going for a drink every now and again or bumping into each other again.) Then we had one night's drinking and had a shag... and that resulted in DS. At first, when I was PG, he offered to marry me, I refused very firmly, then he decided that he didn't want to know and I waved him off, stating that all I would ever ask of him was a photograph of himself. The pregnancy was an accident, I took the unilateral decision to continue it, I reckoned it was up to him whether or not he was involved. About a month before DS was born, his dad rang up to ask how I was (ie was I still pregnant?) then apologised for his behaviour and said he wanted to be a dad and be involved. He 'offered' to be at the birth and I told him no thanks, but that I would be in touch when the baby arrived. It took about a year or so of tiptoeing round one another to reach a decent working coparent relationship but now DS is 6, nearly 7 and has two parents who adore him even though they don't live in the same house.

Other DC... Hmm. TBH it's moderately hypothetical as I was 39 when had DS and I am 46 now and won't be having any more. Over the past few years I have encouraged DS' dad to date other women and 'give DS at least a half-sibling' and there was a point where DS dad suggested to me that we actually try to have another one and get married. I declined on the grounds that I was already well into the 'very risky' zone for having more DC and basically didn't want to marry him. Basic biology allows for DS dad being able to impregnate someone else and if he does so I will be happy (and oh boy will DS be happy to actually have a younger sibling - he adores babies and younger children).
But I do think, actually, the key to why our family works is that both DS dad and I are people who are happiest being single. Neither of us is very keen on couplehood, we are both interested in other things, a whole range of other things, that demand a lot of our time.

Fuck me, that's an essay. Oh well, you did ask.

SGB, Leningrad - thanks for the answers.

I think we need all kinds of different models for good parenthood - which aim for equality and doing the best by the kids. It's always going to be a struggle to make that work because the biology of human reproduction is fundamentally unequal.

Upthread someone said heteromonogamy is just a way of controllining a woman's fertility (and therefore a bad thing). But it seems to me that it's one of the things that any kind of good arrangement should do ( whether marriage, co-parent, donor dad whatever) - that you work out a consensual basis to control both the man and womans fertility - having sex/or not, TTC, using contraception, whether it's ok to go out and have children by someone else etc.... I.e. Its about commitmentment to do the right thing by the child you have together, but also making a deal about other children you might have. controlling fertility is not a bad thing ( it's a v good thing for women) -- as with so much else it's about consent.

Saf: What a lucky escape you had! The man sounds like the sort who would be absolutely appalling to live with: controlling, sulky, selfish and incapable of considerng you a human being - in his eyes you'd always be a 'woman' ie a cross between a domestic appliance and a pet.

cocklodger of the century there saf