When you talk about the negatives of marriage, do you also include long-term cohabitation?

[Wamster]

There is a thread here about criticisms of marriage. Fair enough, but isn't long-term cohabitation much the same as marriage in terms of how people behave in their home lives and don't we just treat people who are in long-term relationships as married, anyway?
Civil partnerships would not change things, either, as legally they are identical to marriage and I find that a couple's legal status has little to do with how they behave in their relationships. Marriage, long-term cohabitation, civil partnerships whatever-patriarchal society will STILL try to push traditional gender roles whatever set-up women are in.

Apart from legally, of course, but then I disagree with cohabitee rights as I believe that marriage should have nothing to do with the state and be a purely private affair and people shouldn't legally be treated as married just because they cohabit.
I don't treat couples differently in a social sense because of their legal status and nor does the dwp when it comes to benefits..

Because of this, I have exactly the same opinion of long-term cohabitation as I do marriage. They BOTH suck.

Well there are quite a few benefits of having a life partner and living with them. I wouldn't say it sucks.

Living with a man does not force you into traditional gender roles.

I have to disagree, becasue (the uk) places less importance on marriage genrally in society cohabitation is seen as a more valid realtionship.

I know many women who are expected to behave like 'wives' in un married relationship.

However there is all the legal waffle of getting divorced etc,

I just see no real difference in how people actually behave if married or cohabiting. Cohabitation is presented as being the better alternative, but from what I've witnessed, people in long-term co-hab relationships seem to act in same way as the married.

Well no, if you are cohabiting long term, your day to day life is probably similar to, or the same as, a married couple.

I'm not sure who is presenting co-habiting as a better alternative. It can be disastrous for women sometimes if the relationship breaks down and they don't jointly own the home. I think it is a valid alternative if people choose to co-habit long term, but I don't necessarily think it is better than getting married.

Getting married to my husband didn't really change much at all. It was a great party to celebrate our commitment to each other, and deciding to take his name meant that I got the same name as our daughter, too, which I liked. But it was not the huge thing some people made it out to be.

Leaving my homecountry, family and friends behind, and having children with him certainly were the much bigger events to us.

I guess being married would mean less hassle in the event anything happened to him, or to me, but that's about it. Not sure who presents it as "the better alternative".

So I personally think cohabiting in a long term relationship is not really much different to being married, but I do not share your opinion that it sucks. Much the opposite. Moving in with my husband, and sharing a household and my life with him was - apart from having the children - the best thing I've ever done.

I don't feel as traditional gender roles are pushed on me either - apart from the fact that UK law meant that it was me who had to take maternity leave, even though it would have been financially better for us the other way round. I'm working full time again, as does he, on an equal income.

It was me who moved countries rather than him, because I speak English fluently, while his German needs still a lot of work - it was easier for me to find a job and build a career in England than it would have been for either of us in Germany, so it was a no-brainer which had nothing to do with me being a woman and him a man.

I'm aware, it's not like that in every relationship, and a lot of relationships lack equality, no matter whether there's a marriage certificate or not. But I don't think that stopping to recognise relationships would change anything for the better. I believe the way to address this is to continuously challenge stereotypes, and broadcast the message that living according to stereotypical gender roles is not the only way of living.

Living long term with a loving partner sucks??? WTF

Yes, this "marriage sucks" or "living long-term with a man sucks" attitude does tend to run up against the inconvenient fact that women have always wanted to do it. And it's not that it only seems attractive because the alternative is worse--you don't have to look far (Mumsnet is a good place for research) to see how pervasive the desire for a stable relationship is.

Of course if you think the alternative is actually better, you're free to stay single. But you have to come to terms with the fact that most people see it differently.

I don't think it's possible to claim that "women have always wanted to do it", when previously they had virtually no choice.

Now women have a choice, more and more are opting out.

Nyac - really? More and more women opt out of wanting to share their life with a partner? I personally don't think that setting up a household with a long term partner is only something heterosexual women always wanted to do or were coerced into doing, but something people with genitals of any shape and with any sexual orientation like doing.

Not out of social pressure, but simply because it's nice to fall asleep and wake up and spend your time with the one you love. Yes, not every lovestory has a happy end, and it's a good thing that nowadays there's much less pressure to stay in a loveless marriage, but that doesn't negate that there is such a thing as incredibly happy long term relationships.

"More and more are opting out" is right if you're talking about marriage--the marriage rate is down. But the cohabitation-without-marriage rate is up, so it's hard to believe that people are rejecting relationships generally.

Even in the bad old days, marriage was seen as something to celebrate, and the way people treated it made it seem as if women in particular thought so. If it was just barely better than staying unmarried, it should have been more of an unpleasant necessity, like dental work or something.

I love being married and DHs support has helped me achieve all the things I have?

Am I in the wrong section??

Rhonda, probably.

I think most men want long term stable relationships to, but I'll get flamed for saying that here.

I have found that too star, and observed it in my friends.

Long term relationships, if based on true balance and appreciation of each other and mutual care and support, whether heterosexual or same sex, are a positive thing.

SOME men are not the enemy?

I know more men who cry over being single when drunk than women.

Men are not the enemy-you just wouldn't want to live with one. Loving relationships are great, just not marriage/cohabitation.
Anyway, my personal views aside, this thread is about my not being able to comprehend why it is acceptable to denigrate marriage as 'outdated' yet accept long-term cohabitation. I see no difference apart from the legal aspect/s.

I also think it is no coincidence that the birth rate in the UK has dropped with the advent of freely available contraception. Correlation may not equal causation, but I think that this indicates that the reason women had children was down to lack of choice and not free will.

You mean before the advent of freely available contraception women could not enjoy sex without fear of falling pregnant, whilst now they can?

If you don't like sex, that's ok, if you don't want to live with a man or anyone, just don't do it. But extrapolating from your individual choices, likes and dislikes that that is how everyone should do it is a bit myopic.

I was single til I was 39. I was had a great career but was lonely as hell. I had no one to share it with and no one to support me during parental illness and the lows in life. The years since my marriage have been the happiest in my life.

WidowWadman, Of course fear of getting pregnant lessens the enjoyment of sex for women! Sorry, but that is bleedin' obvious.

That is not what I meant at all but never mind. I meant that now women have a CHOICE about getting pregnant, they are not getting pregnant. FACT.

Whether or not I like sex is irrelevant. But, funnily enough, you don't have to be married/cohabiting to have sex. Or do you only believe that you have to be married to have sex?

why wouldn't I want to live with a man? I think it's pretty good, providing you are living with a nice one of course.

Obviously reliable contraception has lowered the birth rate. So has the availability of abortion. However that just means we can choose when to have children. It doesn't mean that previously ALL children were unwanted.

I had a choice about getting pregnant. I'm not even married. But I am pregnant. I chose to have a baby. FACT. There are many other women I know who, despite the availability of contraception, have chosen to do just the same thing.

I think we are herd animals and it is far more unhealthy for people to live alone than in groups, whether social or family. It don't think it is important whether that is marriage or another set up, I think everyone naturally wants someone to love and hold onto at night.

Like Rhonda, my marriage is the cornerstone of everything I am. It may enrage some feminists, but I rely totally on my husband's emotional support. I have always earned more, so I have never needed him to provide and now the children are older, co parenting is less important. It is loving support I need and give and receive unconditionally.

I use to consider myself a feminist, but this section on mumsnet has made me wonder. Can I be a feminist and in a happy long term marriage? Well, I will take my husband over feminism!

Wamster - I've been having sex before I was married and not only with my husband. I've been pregnant twice, by choice, with the full knowledge of the perils of pregnancy.

Mumsnet is full of people getting pregnant by choice, some of them quite desperately trying to fall pregnant. Sometimes it's women who want more children when their partner doesn't. Or even women who don't have a partner but very much long for a child

I really don't see the point you're trying to make. At the moment I read it as if you think that neither living with a partner nor having children is a thing women want or should want. Why on earth are you then on a forum called mumsnet?

ithaka it depends on what brand of feminism you subscribe to.

I'm going for the Caitlin Moran "I've got a vagina and want to be in charge of it" brand, and don't want to be discriminated for having one. That means that rad feminists probably wouldn't agree with the idea that I was a feminist, but I wouldn't really want to belong to their club in the first place. Don't let them drive you away. There's some quite interesting discussions here, if you ignore the extremist fringe.

[/puts on fireproof coat and a hard hat]

WidowWadman why are you even posting in the feminist section? You clearly do not get the basic fact that until the past 30 or so years women did not have access to contraception. And still do not in many parts of the world. In fact, this is hotly debated in the USA RIGHT NOW!

Oh, yes, I forgot: because I criticise marriage I must dislike sex. In your view at least. Bollocks. Criticism of marriage does NOT equal to dislike of sex.

I thought I was a C-grade feminist, you are an F-grade.

In your view marriage is not to be criticised and sex is only enjoyable within marriage.

I mean why else would you state that I disliked sex here? I've not mentioned sex at all! Just criticised marriage.

Wow, I did not know you could get grades in being a feminist! I would obviously be a Z grade - no hope for me.