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.

Absolutely agree with you, swallowedafly, I really find the idea that those in an ongoing sexual relationship should become the property or the financial responsibility of each other abhorrent, but I do sort of see that if a couple stood in front of witnesses and said 'till death do us part' they are sort of agreeing to be each other's responsibility.
I have my objections to this idea (for all sorts of reasons) but part of me does think: 'well, you did marry and say you would be responsible for one another'.
Cohabiting couples don't do this- it is wrong for others to assume on their behalf that they have.

Apply same rules to cohabiting couples that married people have? No thanks.

Yes, she said. I can still comment on her 'thought experiment' surely?

LeninGrad, I support all good parenting models, but call me old-fashioned, I think children deserve regular contact with both their parents, and male role models, ideally the father, are important too. That thought experiment seemed to write the fathers out of the picture, because it would suit the putative woman's needs.

Agree Wamster, I am horrified by moves to automatically give to cohabiting couples the legal rights/responsibilities that married couples have taken a considered, public decision to sign up to.

.

This is really making me think.

I have always been a proponent of cohabiting families having the same rights as married couples as in my experience it is ALWAYS the female partner that loses out when (if) the relationship ends.

I think that the problem often is that women end up living in a HM relationship with a man presuming that the same rights will be afforded to them as if they were married OR hoping that they will eventually get married. Of course there are many women out there who willingly chooses not to get married because they do not want the same legal status as a married woman but IME many do (and because they have been brainwashed by the HM cult) hang on to a relationship without being afforded it.

Does that make sense?

why are people assuming that co-habiting would automatically give the same rights? we're talking about a conscious decision that requires legal documentation (which is what marriage is), but being more flexible about what constitutes a 'family' rather than having one model as the only option.

marriage, in its current form, is just a social construct, which (amongst other things) supports a capitalist, patriarchal society.

how marriages took place, what was understood by them, how they could be ended, have all changed across history & countries/societies. it is not an inflexible rule of the universe (like gravity), but something that people have made up & changed to suit their needs at the time.

so it seems a very good idea to discuss how it could evolve. much better than just going with the flow & hope it all works out for the best.

so, frozen, if it was possible to draw up, say, a 20 year contract, which outlined who would contribute what, and then how the union would be divided up, hopefully, less people would hang on in there, desperate to provide for the kids, but with no legal rights as they didn't get married.

if someone refused to sign a contract, no matter how basic, before you moved in/had kids, then it would be incredibly stupid to carry on with them anyway. there could even be a minimum 5-year contract that happens whether you like it or not on becoming a parent.

that wouldn't help a woman who didn't know who the father was, but it may make people think about the responsibility of having a kid, if they knew that for 5 years, they HAD to contribute something - financial, emotional etc, even if it had been a drunken one night stand that led to the birth of a child.

I'm quite certain that there won't be a sudden, dramatic change to marriage, but there are changes taking place & in 50 years I am sure it will be quite a different type of arrangement.

That does make sense MBJ, but all rights (and I am still not 100% what they actually are) afforded by marriage, presume that the woman is the lower earner. Why is this generally the case, because in the main, women will take the career hit to look after their families...an activity not valued as it should be within society...

So, when we talk about women really wanting to be married....once we remove the grand romantic narrative society spins...what exactly is so appealing about being married? To provide domestic service to your husband and children?

Once again, I am not saying ban marriage or hetromonogomy, but I just find there are a lot of assumptions about marriage/hetromonogomy being a better set up for women, which are rarely challenged.

I think that they just don't think about it and because the relationship is important to them, lasted many years, often bore children and they lived together as if they were married, with the woman often taking the career break etc. It just seems to them as if it should. When I have pointed out to my co-habiting friends that the law does not view their relationship in the same light, they are often surprised. They see marriage as 'just a piece of paper'

However, I do agree with (was it sAf or snowmama?) whoever said that marriage is set up to benefit men more than women. (That doesn't meant that it can be a mutually beneficial situation - mine certainly is) But in the whole women tend to lose out especially when things go wrong.

Xposted kicks...but interesting contract idea....

And agreed about co-habiting....I have cohabitated with a couple of men, that was deliberate.I did not want to be married to them and definately did not want them to have claim on my house.

It makes sense to me, TheFrozenMBJ, but I have to say that I have never been proponent of cohabiting families having same rights as married. Not because I am a Daily Mail reader- nothing to do with how committed people are (of course cohabiting couples can be devoted to each other) but because of freedom of choice.

I can understand why a person would think it would be fairer if they've witnessed women losing out, but, ultimately I think that that is sad but freedom of choice is worth more to me so I say that it is unfortunate but not worth the price of making people married against their will.

Why should I be seen as a financial/legal property of a man when I've not even chosen of it of my own free will? OK, by getting married, I'd have 'made my bed' by agreeing to the legal/financial obligations of marriage, but at least it would have been my decision and not assumed for me by somebody else.

At what point would these rights kick in? Would a cohabiting couple have to discuss their intimate relationship in court for the court to decide how 'serious' their relationship was? Yuk. At least with marriage, it is safe to say that the relationship was serious from an identifiable point and the court can take it from that point as being the start of the joint legal/financial ties.

And as swallowedafly has really perceptively pointed out, it's just another way of extending the patriarchal system that puts forward the idea that women are the property of men.

Any feminist who thinks cohabiting rights are a good thing really ought to think again. Seriously, behind the 'equitable' facade it stinks.

So, if people want these marital rights, they should just get married. Simple, brutal but true.

X-post

Yes, yes. I agree with both of you entirely.

I think we are actually saying the same thing here. Because of the social expectation of families to be a certain way women lose out.

At the risk of agreeing with everyone..completely agree Wamster about cohabitation.

No, actually I don't think you are right there Wamster (about having to get married) although I do like kicks idea of a time limited contract (which can be renewed etc) as it could extend to other types of families too. Not just those based on sexual partners living together. Siblings, or friends etc, etc

I do think you need to do something, I really don't want my status to change by default....though I fully intend to dodge that ethical dilemma by not living with anyone who is no a child of mine on a permanent basis again.

I also like the idea of time limited contracts available to a multitude of family models.

I've nothing against the idea of cohabiting couples signing a contract that binds them together. Absolutely fine.

But,
a, There would have to be a signed contract for those rights all on paper and lodged with an unbiased government official or solicitor.

b, Both members of the couple would sign it of their own free will.

In other words, the state would not assume for the couple that they wanted these rights. And if a couple had not signed the contract, they would be seen as two separate individuals.

But if these rights are the same as marriage rights, why not get married? I know marriage has certain baggage, but it's up to the couple what they make of it (marriage).

this discussion has kind of moved on but i heard this story on the news this morning and it made me think about women's choices in terms of when to have a baby
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/offbeat/stingrays-born-in-female-only-tank-16034632.html

i also think that the idea of just having rights foisted upon us by the state, because we co-habit, is a very bad one - it should be a conscious decision.

i have just seen/heard of too many stories where women lose out by assuming that co-habiting gives them some right. if it were fairly standard form to sign an agreement, or if there was a legal commitment to children (there sort of is the expectation, but not really iykwim atm), then i hope that people would use that. if they were thinking of co-habiting/having children etc together, then if one party refused to sign a contract, it would be a massive red flag.

atm, people use the 'marriage is out of date/a piece of paper/too expensive' as a way to avoid commitment.

i suspect that the whole 'cinderella dream' would still hold strong & big white weddings would continue, with people signing 'forever' contracts rather than have a brutal conversation about 'if we split up'. still, hopefully, they would at least think about some of the issues involved.

SOmething else to think about (re the marriage/non-marriage thing) - living in the same house as your heteromonogamous partner is often a crap idea for women. This is where women often come unstuck when on the marriage/non-marriage issue, they were so busy being In LUrve that they forgot to cover their arses financially, and when the relationship folds they end up losing out big time - either the man has happily kept the mortgage/rental agreement in his own name ('don't worry your pretty little head about it') and can therefore put the woman out into the street if there are no DC involved - or the man refuses to leave the house or permit it to be sold and stays just the right side of violence in order to leave the woman in an intolerable situation.
WHy do women rush into cohiabiting? I have never done it and never liked the idea much - and reading threads on here it seems to me that nearly all the time living in the same house as a male sexual/romantic partner means you do a lot more housework/wifework/egostroking and he puts in a lot less of an effort.