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

[Fudgie]

Makes sense, thornz. That's a really one-sided way he was looking at it. High earners, whether it be women OR men, can be taken to the cleaners after a divorce. However, it's usually women who opt to take a break/stop working to take care of the children so yeah, if a divorce happens, she's going to get alimony/child support. My mom made more than my dad for YEARS despite them having the same professional degree. It's just how it works sometimes.

 

If I get married, I'd have a pre-nup but it would be equitable and fair so that we'd BOTH be protected. I don't feel it's good to go into it with a "You'll probably screw me over, this is to protect ME from YOU" attitude. It should be for both parties.

[lukeb]

Also men have greater paternal rights to children (even those not biologically theirs) with the woman to whom they are married. Plus a load of other benefits. There's pros and cons as with anything.

 

This is generally only true if the children are born within wedlock and the father believes them to be his. Paternal/maternal rights to children brought in from previous relationship are pretty much nil. Many of those children already still have their biological parents with visitation rights etc. If you wanted parental rights you need to get the ex's to give up theirs and actually legally adopt the children. At least this is how I understand it.

[Seraphim]

Essentially that he didn't want a woman to be able to take all his money (pre-nup anyone?) and that marriage is just a way for a woman to trap a man and his assets leaving him with no rights to children etc in the event of a divorce.

 

I was enraged and very happy to point out that I was quite capable of pulling my weight financially and plenty of women could in fact earn double what their partner did, putting them at a financial disadvantage in the event of divorce. I did actually get a job later in the relationship where I was earning more than double his income. Naturally I made sure to remind him I couldn't possibly consider marriage now that he was a threat to my financial security. Tool!

 

If I am to marry it's to set that person apart from my previous relationships as someone I am serious about. Someone I would like to build a life with and have a family with. Not so I can trap them and leech all their funds. Got my own money thanks!

 

Also men have greater paternal rights to children (even those not biologically theirs) with the woman to whom they are married. Plus a load of other benefits. There's pros and cons as with anything.

My step dad had no rights with my brother and I . Those rights were held by my mother and my father even though they were divorced . My stepdad wanted to adopt us and my father refused to let that happen . And he retained those rights until we reached 18.

[lukeb]

My step dad had no rights with my brother and I . Those rights were held by my mother and my father even though they were divorced . My stepdad wanted to adopt us and my father refused to let that happen . And he retained those rights until we reached 18.

 

That is unfortunate that your biological father wouldn't let your stepdad adopt you guys in your case but it makes sense that your biological father would retain his rights even after the divorce and regardless of your mom marrying someone else.

[Seraphim]

That is unfortunate that your biological father wouldn't let your stepdad adopt you guys in your case but it makes sense that your biological father would retain his rights even after the divorce and regardless of your mom marrying someone else.

 

Actually it was not unfortunate because my mom and step dad broke up when I was 11 and he had 3 children of his own he was paying child support for and that would have been increased to 5. When they made a clean break with each other he made a clean break with me and my brother . He was very heartbroken about that but saw no other solution since we werent his and my mom chose to move across to the other end of the country where she had family .

[Ms Darcy]

Makes sense, thornz. That's a really one-sided way he was looking at it. High earners, whether it be women OR men, can be taken to the cleaners after a divorce. However, it's usually women who opt to take a break/stop working to take care of the children so yeah, if a divorce happens, she's going to get alimony/child support. My mom made more than my dad for YEARS despite them having the same professional degree. It's just how it works sometimes.

 

If I get married, I'd have a pre-nup but it would be equitable and fair so that we'd BOTH be protected. I don't feel it's good to go into it with a "You'll probably screw me over, this is to protect ME from YOU" attitude. It should be for both parties.

 

That's a good point Fudgie. I grew up in the Midwest in a fairly conservative area. Most of my high school friends married early (early 20s) and had kids early. Usually, it was both partners who felt strongly about the woman staying home with the kids. And of course, the cost of living was so low that single parent earnings were enough. A few gfs "sort of" work but it is usually part time stuff so they have the flexibility to take off for sick kids.

 

My sister has two boys and was married for 15 years. She ended up divorcing her husband for many reasons one of which was he basically saw her as the person to do all the child care and home cleaning even though they had full time jobs. It's when kids come into the picture that you really get a sense of how people really feel about gender roles and how much work both partners put into having kids.

 

Having spent long periods with my nephews, I personally think being a SAHM is a much harder job than mine (and I make enough to be the main breadwinner!) It's the hardest unpaid job when you are a mom like my sister. She taught those kids a lot outside of school work with tutoring and museum trips and it has paid off. They are both in gifted programs. Some people are lazy parents but for those like my sister, wow she deserved to be paid my salary in my opinion.

[Fudgie]

I agree, Ms Darcy, I think being a SAHM would be rough. From what I understand, it is because it's your + kid(s) all the time and it's easy to feel isolated from other adults. At least with parents who work, they get some of that interaction built-in through their jobs. Being a SAHM is hard in its own way. And yeah, usually both partners feel strongly about the woman staying home with the kids. And that's fine and all, but I think if you value your financial freedom and ability to "Cut away" quickly in the event of a divorce, then you shouldn't push your spouse to stay home with the kids. Because they have sacrificed their career time for childrearing, time that they may not get back, and so yes, they should get compensated for that in a divorce.

 

So either marry someone who wants to stay working full time after the birth of children, or find someone who doesn't want to have kids at all.

[Batya33]

I agree, Ms Darcy, I think being a SAHM would be rough. From what I understand, it is because it's your + kid(s) all the time and it's easy to feel isolated from other adults. At least with parents who work, they get some of that interaction built-in through their jobs. Being a SAHM is hard in its own way. And yeah, usually both partners feel strongly about the woman staying home with the kids. And that's fine and all, but I think if you value your financial freedom and ability to "Cut away" quickly in the event of a divorce, then you shouldn't push your spouse to stay home with the kids. Because they have sacrificed their career time for childrearing, time that they may not get back, and so yes, they should get compensated for that in a divorce.

 

So either marry someone who wants to stay working full time after the birth of children, or find someone who doesn't want to have kids at all.

 

I agree that becoming a full-time mom in your 20s/early 30s before having worked for a good number of years/socked away a nest egg can be risky in the event of divorce (or your spouse becoming incapacitated) is a somewhat risky venture. My friend divorced after 20 years, never really worked outside the home, still had 2 teenagers (4 kids) at home so she retrained as a massage therapist and barely eked out a living. Scary.

 

I contribute to the family income from my savings but my situation is unusual because I worked for 20 years before becoming a full-time mom. I noted that Ms. Darcy talked about how the kids are "gifted" - that's not how I would judge whether a full-time mom made a contribution but rather whether the kids are reasonably happy/healthy/well-adjusted. So much of the "gifted" label has to do with the individual child, plus the school/teacher/school environment.

 

Oh and what I consider a huge accomplishment as a parent (whether full-time or works outside the home) is if, after they are verbal/mobile, you can take them to a playground and they can play on their own or with other kids without needing the parent to intervene constantly. So, the parents sitting on the park bench might be doing that on purpose, not because of their Iphone. (And on the Iphone note -just got a smartphone 2 days ago, got the lowest internet data plan possible, and plan to not be on it when I am with him other than when I have to - I feel that the focus on the phone/surfing is at a level of intensity where then you're not "with" your kids again, or watching them quite enough - JMHO).

[thornz]

My step dad had no rights with my brother and I . Those rights were held by my mother and my father even though they were divorced . My stepdad wanted to adopt us and my father refused to let that happen . And he retained those rights until we reached 18.

 

In regard to this and lukeb's comment, in the UK, a man's parental rights due to marriage are overridden if another man's name is on the birth certificate. If his or no name is recorded as the father's name he has paternal rights unless the biological father contests and wins in court. That's my understanding of it . .

[thornz]

I agree, Ms Darcy, I think being a SAHM would be rough. From what I understand, it is because it's your + kid(s) all the time and it's easy to feel isolated from other adults. At least with parents who work, they get some of that interaction built-in through their jobs. Being a SAHM is hard in its own way. And yeah, usually both partners feel strongly about the woman staying home with the kids. And that's fine and all, but I think if you value your financial freedom and ability to "Cut away" quickly in the event of a divorce, then you shouldn't push your spouse to stay home with the kids. Because they have sacrificed their career time for childrearing, time that they may not get back, and so yes, they should get compensated for that in a divorce.

 

So either marry someone who wants to stay working full time after the birth of children, or find someone who doesn't want to have kids at all.

 

That's not a realistic option for those on a typical salary in the UK, childcare is so expensive that any earnings would be sapped up by that. I would personally rather stay at home and raise my kids than pay somebody the best part of my wage to miss out on that quality time.

 

Even if you both worked after all the kids were popped out then you likely wouldn't be able to afford to live comfortably separately in the event of a divorce anyway.

 

I think a better idea would be to marry somebody who you won't divorce

[Fudgie]

That's not a realistic option for those on a typical salary in the UK, childcare is so expensive that any earnings would be sapped up by that. I would personally rather stay at home and raise my kids than pay somebody the best part of my wage to miss out on that quality time.

 

Even if you both worked after all the kids were popped out then you likely wouldn't be able to afford to live comfortably separately in the event of a divorce anyway.

 

I think a better idea would be to marry somebody who you won't divorce

 

That is a better idea, yes.

 

Although here in the US, many many households have both people working. Childcare is ridiculously expensive but for most people here, it's just not feasible to survive on one income so many times, parents will both work and will rely on daycare/relatives to watch kids, or they will coordinate their schedules so that one has the kids while the other works.

 

Actually, that's been my experience, from what I've seen. Many of my coworkers coordinate their schedules with their partners, and some do daycare. They are in for a rough several years until all the kids are school age but they are making it work, by the looks of it.

[Seraphim]

In regard to this and lukeb's comment, in the UK, a man's parental rights due to marriage are overridden if another man's name is on the birth certificate. If his or no name is recorded as the father's name he has paternal rights unless the biological father contests and wins in court. That's my understanding of it . .

I am Canadian so it would be different. But my parents were married at the point of my birth my father is on my birth certificate and he raised me until I was six years old. So my stepfather had no rights at all.

[Hermes]

Thread:

 

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

 

I don't think it is necessarily so. Certainly I would not apply the word "most". As with everything "it depends".

[Ms Darcy]

 

I contribute to the family income from my savings but my situation is unusual because I worked for 20 years before becoming a full-time mom. I noted that Ms. Darcy talked about how the kids are "gifted" - that's not how I would judge whether a full-time mom made a contribution but rather whether the kids are reasonably happy/healthy/well-adjusted. So much of the "gifted" label has to do with the individual child, plus the school/teacher/school environment.

 

Oh and what I consider a huge accomplishment as a parent (whether full-time or works outside the home) is if, after they are verbal/mobile, you can take them to a playground and they can play on their own or with other kids without needing the parent to intervene constantly. So, the parents sitting on the park bench might be doing that on purpose, not because of their Iphone. (And on the Iphone note -just got a smartphone 2 days ago, got the lowest internet data plan possible, and plan to not be on it when I am with him other than when I have to - I feel that the focus on the phone/surfing is at a level of intensity where then you're not "with" your kids again, or watching them quite enough - JMHO).

 

I agree Batya. The gifted thing sounds sort of elitist. I was trying to get at the idea that she taught them a lot (how to read early, a foreign language, how to play instruments etc). My mom's standards for success was that she raised three girls who graduated from college and didn't get pregnant beforehand lol. I would like to raise healthy well adjusted kids who go to college. We all have our goals.

[Batya33]

I agree Batya. The gifted thing sounds sort of elitist. I was trying to get at the idea that she taught them a lot (how to read early, a foreign language, how to play instruments etc). My mom's standards for success was that she raised three girls who graduated from college and didn't get pregnant beforehand lol. I would like to raise healthy well adjusted kids who go to college. We all have our goals.

 

I don't mean to pick stuff apart but I did want to mention that I don't believe in teaching kids to read early. I do believe in having an environment which is rich in books/magazines/interesting signs/language/arts and crafts that involve words, like making books- so that the child who is ready to read early can be supported and facilitated.

[lukeb]

In regard to this and lukeb's comment, in the UK, a man's parental rights due to marriage are overridden if another man's name is on the birth certificate. If his or no name is recorded as the father's name he has paternal rights unless the biological father contests and wins in court. That's my understanding of it . .

 

That rings true but it wasn't quite the scenario was getting at, I was more getting at a a situation where a child is born in wedlock and believes it to be his and raises it as his own. Let's say DNA evidence shows it not to be his biologically in that case being married gives him a lot more standing than if he weren't as far as parental rights are concerned. At least in North America it does.

 

I know it is slightly different in Europe. Inheritance laws in the Netherlands a parent can not disinherit a child, even a child he was completely unaware of in life but DNA evidence show it to be his lets say after his death still gets a full child's share of the estate. Marriage doesn't enter into this one way or another.

[Zaphod]

When you say you don't "believe" in marriage, what do you mean?

[abitbroken]

Thread:

 

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

 

I don't think it is necessarily so. Certainly I would not apply the word "most". As with everything "it depends".

 

If a woman is dating in order to find an eventual husband, it is a deal breaker.

If a woman is just looking to date around, its not a dealbreaker.

I hope that you are absolutely upfront on your confirmed bachelorhood and in turn, if a woman expresses having a family/marriage as her lifegoal, you do not stay with her for any reason (beauty, good sex, hoping she changes her mind).

 

There is a difference between a man who RESPECTS the marriages of others and acknowledges couples in their life with good marriages, but just does not wish to marry/its not for him and admits this vs

a man who "doesn't believe in marriage", badmouths the marriages of friends, belittles people who want to marry someday, etc., and is unsupportive of his budies that wish to marry or are getting married.

 

If I was a woman just looking to casually date, I would go with the first guy, but not the second guy.

 

Also, you need to ask yourself - are you just not ready/not ever wanting to marry - or you also don't ever want to commit. If its the first, find yourself a freespirited woman that wants to find a partner but be unattached, but if its the second, you are only going to have a relationship that lasts so long.

[Itchy]

When you say you don't "believe" in marriage, what do you mean?

 

Marriage is an outdated concept that is incompatible with modern day living, it was compatible with humans a hundred or two hundred years ago but not any more. I think we as society or series of societies in the West need to progress, we need to challenge the ideals of yesteryear and question why that was done and whether or not it should be done in the future.

 

It's very easy to stand underneath the roof of a religious building or registry office and repeat words with grave meaning, it's very easy to do that, but from my own observation most people are unable to uphold those vows they've made in front of their friends and families.

 

If a woman is dating in order to find an eventual husband, it is a deal breaker.

If a woman is just looking to date around, its not a dealbreaker.

I hope that you are absolutely upfront on your confirmed bachelorhood and in turn, if a woman expresses having a family/marriage as her lifegoal, you do not stay with her for any reason (beauty, good sex, hoping she changes her mind).

 

There is a difference between a man who RESPECTS the marriages of others and acknowledges couples in their life with good marriages, but just does not wish to marry/its not for him and admits this vs

a man who "doesn't believe in marriage", badmouths the marriages of friends, belittles people who want to marry someday, etc., and is unsupportive of his budies that wish to marry or are getting married.

 

If I was a woman just looking to casually date, I would go with the first guy, but not the second guy.

 

Also, you need to ask yourself - are you just not ready/not ever wanting to marry - or you also don't ever want to commit. If its the first, find yourself a freespirited woman that wants to find a partner but be unattached, but if its the second, you are only going to have a relationship that lasts so long.

 

I've explained that I am always honest with my intentions and I wouldn't even be in a relationship with a woman that wanted to be married, we are incompatible and she would be able to go and find a man who does want what she wants. Also you're generalising here. I don't respect marriage at all and I think any people that get married are making a mistake, but I never express my disdain for the institute of marriage to anyone else. My best friend has been with his girlfriend for nine years and he will propose to her once they've bought a house together and if that's what he wants then he has my support, but if he asks me my opinion on marriage I'm not going to lie to him, I'll tell him what I have expressed here.

 

I don't want to marry, it has nothing to do with not feeling ready, I just don't want it. If other people want it then good for them, I wish them all the best (despite me believing they are making a mistake). Also you seem to imply that a relationship without marriage is doomed to fail and this is simply not the case for all people. The parents of an old school friend of mine never married and they have been together nearly forty years. Another reason I am put off marriage is that in my country the average length of a marriage is four years and the average cost of a wedding ceremony is £26,000. That cost is the average salary for a year in my country. Its usually the man's family that coughs up the money for the marriage, so essentially it would be my family footing the bill for a marriage that probably wouldn't last more than four years. It's not worth it in my opinion. There are married people in the world who are happy and I wish those people the best for the future, I hope more marriages in the future are successful, but for me the risk is not worth any potential reward and I don't believe you need to be married to have a happy and prosperous long-term relationship.

[Seraphim]

You seem to be missing a concept. If someone was happily married for 20 years but they get divorced all of a sudden that 20 years is nul and void? 20 years of happiness just disappears and doesn't exist? Of course not.

 

Have the fond years of your life just disappeared because you're not doing them anymore?

[Batya33]

"but if he asks me my opinion on marriage I'm not going to lie to him, I'll tell him what I have expressed here"

 

 

How about being a supportive friend in this way "my opinion about the institution of marriage is irrelevant but if you want my input on the health of your relationship with your intended I'll do my best". Sometimes even when someone asks the best thing to say is nothing - he will have already proposed, they will be planning a marriage -why introduce negativity? Hopefully it would be irrelevant to him, too -he would be secure enough to know his own mind but what's the point?

[puzzled25]

It really depends on the woman and what her beliefs are really. Some woman will be fine with the idea of never getting married and some would be devastated by it. Definitely something you need to bring up casually near the beginning of the relationship to make that very clear. Instead of waiting till the woman is super attached and in love to tell them. I do think that if its the right woman and you reallllyyyy care about her and love her, then if that was something she wanted you might be more open to the idea.

[Ms Darcy]

 

There is a difference between a man who RESPECTS the marriages of others and acknowledges couples in their life with good marriages, but just does not wish to marry/its not for him and admits this vs

a man who "doesn't believe in marriage", badmouths the marriages of friends, belittles people who want to marry someday, etc., and is unsupportive of his budies that wish to marry or are getting married.

 

If I was a woman just looking to casually date, I would go with the first guy...

 

I agree with this. It doesn't make sense to me to badmouth any life choices as it relates to wanting to marry or wanting to be single. I think the people who can respect that marriage just isn't for them have a healthier attitude and generally have values that don't align with the institution of marriage. I think people who badmouth marriage tend moreso to be those who were dumped/had a bad relationship and redirected their anger at one or more dating partners to the whole institution. That's just my observation.

 

For example, I think it's great if someone is single by choice. I definitely respect that. I don't assume that person is a commitment phobe unless they start badmouthing relationships.

[Fudgie]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Itchy (or others) seeing marriage as not desirable, not just simply "not for them". Very few people opt out of something without ANY negative thoughts at all on that thing. There's a reason why he doesn't want marriage. I don't see the point in telling someone that they can't express their opinions on something because it's negative and apparently negativity = bad as long as they are respectful and careful about their opinion.

 

For example, I still think marriage/procreation is largely a farce personally but I would never, ever say a word to someone close to me who was getting married, TTC, or had a baby. Because it's just unneeded and rude. It's irrelevant.

 

Itchy, it's okay to think negatively of an institution. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

 

That said, I actually think it's better if he shares his views with women. Women who may think they can "Change" him will not be put off by him saying "marriage just isn't for me" but they will be put off by "I don't believe in marriage because x, y, z"

 

and trust me, these are the kinds of women you don't to waste your time on, the ones who think they can get you to marry them despite your feelings on marriage.

[Seraphim]

I don't think there is anything wrong with not wanting to be married or having kids but is there really an objective to crapping on what makes others happy especially if they are close to you? It's like saying hey I'm your friend but let me poke this stick in your eye . There is such a thing as over sharing one's opinion .