Jump to content

Is it a deal breaker for most women if a man does not believe in marriage?


Itchy

Recommended Posts

I don't believe in the institute of marriage and because of my lack of belief, I have no intention of getting married, I know marriage is important to a lot of people, so I am wondering if this would be a deal breaker to a lot of women?

Link to comment
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How do you mean, Itchy?

 

You would have to ask the woman you were seeing or dating for her views on the subject. Each person has different views. Some might be keen on marriage, others not so. You wouldn't know if you don't ask and IMO it is better to find this out early on.

Link to comment

Many people want marriage but others don't. Find the ones who don't. You shouldn't give in to getting married just to get a woman. Times are changing. Not everyone needs or wants to get married and the whole shebang anymore. There are many ways to live your life.

Link to comment

It depends on the woman and, also, on your age and women's age. I imagine women in their '30s who don't have kids are more likely to want to start a family and that, usually, includes marriage. On the other hand, a 20yo girl or a 40yo woman is more likely not to care about marriage that much..for different reasons each. But, still, it depends on the individual. You'll have to ask every woman you date..and if you're positive you never want to get married, it's better to let the woman know asap.

Link to comment

I am not sure what you are asking here. Is it the individual opinions of women in this site? It would be a deal breaker for me but not for other women in here. Either is OK as long as both parties are on the same page. As you stated that you know yourself, "marriage is important to a lot of people". That by default includes "a lot of women". Not all. As long as you are upfront about it, and stick to the ones that don't care about marriage, everything should be OK. What would not be OK is not being upfront about it - no matter the woman's age.

Link to comment

Yes, Clio. Honesty is the key, whatever one's views are, not just on marriage but on other important issues.

 

Many couples simply live together, but I do notice that - invariably - when children come along (unless the couple has decided not to have children) that the couple decides then to marry, and as I see in a lot of cases they have the children they maybe already had present at the ceremony.

 

Again it is a serious topic needing to be discussed at the outset.

Link to comment

Yes it would be a deal breaker for a lot of women, and it wouldn't be for others. Key is honesty right from the start, to make it clear that you will never ever consider marriage. If someone is ok with that, they'll stay, if not, they won't.

 

For me personally and most of my female friends, yes marriage is a goal and it would be a deal breaker if the man doesn't want marriage.

Link to comment
I am not sure what you are asking here. Is it the individual opinions of women in this site? It would be a deal breaker for me but not for other women in here. Either is OK as long as both parties are on the same page. As you stated that you know yourself, "marriage is important to a lot of people". That by default includes "a lot of women". Not all. As long as you are upfront about it, and stick to the ones that don't care about marriage, everything should be OK. What would not be OK is not being upfront about it - no matter the woman's age.

 

Yes I wanted a general consensus from women on this forum.

 

I'll always be up front when asked about my opinions on marriage; I have been honest about my belief system whenever asked, I have nothing to hide and no reason not to be honest with people.

Link to comment

It would depend on why, and what I hope to achieve with you.

 

If I were 20 or 30, yes, deal breaker.

 

Now, it probably represents a difference in our values that makes us incompatible. Not necessarily true, but likely true.

Link to comment

Yes, it will be a deal breaker to women who want to get married.

 

But for the women who do not know if they want to ever be married, or who definitely do not want to get married, this will not be a deal breaker.

 

So, be honest about your stance on marriage and you'll find out from there.

Link to comment

For most women yes, it will be a deal breaker. Most people, men and women, actually do want marriage. So your stance does make you different. Which means that you need to be really honest about that up front and seek out someone who is like you - not interested in marriage. Plenty out there, even if not the majority.

Link to comment
Depends where you live. I'm from the Netherlands and none of my female friends believe in marriage or want to get married. They are in there 30's and half of them have kids already (without marriage).

 

That's interesting, so it could depend on demographics to some degree. I am someone who is not sure if he ever wants children, so I couldn't date a single Mother while I am undecided on the issue as that is unfair on her.

Link to comment

It's a deal breaker for women that are not "true" feminist. Cause if they were, and assuming feminism is for "equality" (which it isn't BTW)......no woman would EVER marry a man that wants or believes in marriage. Mostly because everyone and their mother knows that the court and our justice system is balanced towards women.

 

 

 

Act of marriage is essentially a Government and Religious STAMP. Is it needed or required? Absolutely NOT.

Link to comment
That's interesting, so it could depend on demographics to some degree. I am someone who is not sure if he ever wants children, so I couldn't date a single Mother while I am undecided on the issue as that is unfair on her.

 

They aren't single mothers. Most Dutch people get kids before marriage - if they would ever want to get married at all that is. So parents just live together, a lot with a 'cohabitation agreement' and for most people that's enough. The Dutch tend to view weddings as an unnecessary expensive romantic fuss.

 

In our friend group I actually only know two couples who got married and one had grown up children (before marriage) and the other one never had children (and never will).

Link to comment
I don't believe in the institute of marriage and because of my lack of belief, I have no intention of getting married, I know marriage is important to a lot of people, so I am wondering if this would be a deal breaker to a lot of women?

 

Yes it would have been and was. There were several men I did not meet either because they were not looking for marriage or were not enthusiastic about marriage. I do know of women who don't want marriage- one lives with her boyfriend, the other is divorced in her 50s and doesn't want to remarry, etc.

Link to comment
I don't believe in the institute of marriage and because of my lack of belief, I have no intention of getting married, I know marriage is important to a lot of people, so I am wondering if this would be a deal breaker to a lot of women?

 

It depends mostly on the woman's friends and family. Even if she herself is open-minded about this, it's a very hard thing to explain to people who view marriage as a requirement for a long-term relationship. Even an open-minded woman may decide it's not worth the trouble dealing with this issue.

 

Also, even in the best of circumstances you'll have to put a lot of effort into convincing your girlfriend that you believe in something substantially the same as marriage in terms of commitment, sharing, connection, devotion, etc. You'll have to specifically delineate exactly where your rejection of "the institute of marriage" begins and ends. Otherwise it will be uncomfortable for your partner. One useful thing about marriage, you must admit, is that there's a clear picture of what a good one looks like. Here, you'll have your own picture of what your marriage-equivalent relationship looks like and your partner may or may not have that preconception.

Link to comment

Another vote in for dealbreaker.

 

If my partner was involved in a serious, life traumatic accident, I would have NO legal say on what care to provide since I am not married. I would be restricted from riding in the ambulance or would not be allowed in the ER. In a worse case scenario, if my partner was in a coma and could not verbalized treatment, I cannot advocate for him. And what if he has no family? Then you got the GOVERNMENT - not your loved one - dictating your treatment. That's some 1984 BS. Even a bigger problem.

 

If my partner had died and owned property, I have no legal grounds to claim it- his family would. In the long run, I would be shafted and would be forced to move out. In the past when gay couples owned a house together, and one of the partners died, family could run out the remaining partner and leave him/her homeless.

 

Marriage is more than just love-it's having legal advocacy for emergency situations. This is why the LGBT community fought long and hard to be recognized as a married couples under the eyes of the law.

 

If I dated a man who didn't want commitment, I would feel taken advantage of and am just a casual sexual mistress, with no strings attached. No thanks.

Link to comment
Another vote in for dealbreaker.

 

If my partner was involved in a serious, life traumatic accident, I would have NO legal say on what care to provide since I am not married. I would be restricted from riding in the ambulance or would not be allowed in the ER. In a worse case scenario, if my partner was in a coma and could not verbalized treatment, I cannot advocate for him. And what if he has no family? Even a bigger problem.

 

If my partner had died and owned property, I have no legal grounds to claim it- his family would. In the long run, I would be shafted and would be forced to move out. In the past when gay couples owned a house together, and one of the partners died, family could run out the remaining partner and leave him/her homeless.

 

Marriage is more than just love-it's having legal advocacy for emergency situations. This is why the LGBT community fought long and hard to be recognized as a married couples under the eyes of the law.

 

If I dated a man who didn't want commitment, I would feel taken advantage of and am just a casual sexual mistress, with no strings attached. No thanks.

Yes ,in a lot of situations without marriage you may be SOL. As you described with medical situations , with children etc. Marriage provides legal protection for both parties.

Link to comment

This depends a lot on what kind of relationship you are looking for. Does your standpoint on marriage affect your views on longterm relationships? I mean, if you're just looking for casual dating and you're clear about that up-front, I don't see many women expecting a wedding all of a sudden. However, many women feel that a long-term commitment to each other automatically includes marriage. This varies a lot depending on your demographics. I'm from Belgium and most of my friends (including myself) don't care much about marriage. However, if we're going to be living with someone, buying a house together and signing up for a mortgage, having children etc. you need some legal and financial security. In my eyes this is a purely practical decision. If my partner was to pass away, I'd hate for his half of our house to go to his parents in stead of me. How do you feel about cohabitation agreements of including each other in your will? For some women, this will demonstrate enough long-term commitment to forget about marriage. I think this is a cultural thing though. You're much less likely to get away with this in more conservative and more religious countries.

Link to comment
It's a deal breaker for women that are not "true" feminist. Cause if they were, and assuming feminism is for "equality" (which it isn't BTW)......no woman would EVER marry a man that wants or believes in marriage. Mostly because everyone and their mother knows that the court and our justice system is balanced towards women.

In my marriage, I'm the Alpha. I handle the bills, work on the cars/computers, and assist the yard work. I'm Mrs. Fix-It and don't need to depend on my husband to do it for me. My husband acknowledged when he married me that I will be the dominant force and the mastermind of any big decision making. In his culture (and in many southeast Asian cultures) women are the head of the household and therefore must be respected and recognized first. But we equally share financial contributions- I get the higher salary and he brings in the healthcare benefits.

 

A relationship is a business. If I am investing my time in one, you damn well believe I want the legal protection in case of emergencies so that the government or his family cannot override my household. That has nothing to do with being a feminist or dependency.

Link to comment
Another vote in for dealbreaker.

 

If my partner was involved in a serious, life traumatic accident, I would have NO legal say on what care to provide since I am not married. I would be restricted from riding in the ambulance or would not be allowed in the ER. In a worse case scenario, if my partner was in a coma and could not verbalized treatment, I cannot advocate for him. And what if he has no family? Then you got the GOVERNMENT - not your loved one - dictating your treatment. That's some 1984 BS. Even a bigger problem.

 

If my partner had died and owned property, I have no legal grounds to claim it- his family would. In the long run, I would be shafted and would be forced to move out. In the past when gay couples owned a house together, and one of the partners died, family could run out the remaining partner and leave him/her homeless.

 

Marriage is more than just love-it's having legal advocacy for emergency situations. This is why the LGBT community fought long and hard to be recognized as a married couples under the eyes of the law.

 

If I dated a man who didn't want commitment, I would feel taken advantage of and am just a casual sexual mistress, with no strings attached. No thanks.

 

That is true, although depending on the state you live in, you could get a civil union or domestic partnership with your partner (straight or gay) and get most of the legal benefits of marriage without actually marrying.

 

In my state, any couple of legal age, gay or straight, can become domestic partners. It makes them next-of-kin (so they can see each other in the hospital and default healthcare proxy too), able to take time off for FMLA for work, able to share health insurance, to property after the death of domestic partner (which you mentioned), etc.

 

And what is the best part? No alimony, no martial property in my state - no common law. So splitting, if it must be done, doesn't involve a divorce, forcing your assets to be split, etc. Also, you get to file your taxes separately which means you may actually save on taxes (marriage doesn't always benefit everyone in a tax situation).

 

So yes, it's quite possible these days to get most of the benefits of marriage without actually being married. I think it's wonderful. Nobody should feel pressured into marriage for legal reasons. So there are options for OP, and others (like myself, possibly) who don't really like the idea of marriage. I know I don't.

Link to comment

I want to get married on day so, yes it would be a personal dealbreaker for me. But, I've known women who says they never want to get married. So you just have to find one of those women. As a sidenote, GRRM (author of Game of Thrones) and his girlfirend dated for 30 years before getting married in their 60s (at the age where I believe Social Security has some nice perks for married couples!).

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...