Couples who don't want to ever get married but are in LTRs

[daisydook]

This is pretty much the only reason women want to get married -- just so they don't get judged for being in long-term non-marriages. Suppose the woman doesn't ever want to get married, despite the man being willing to right away?

 

Yes. That is exactly my predicament. Lol. I do not want to get married but my boyfriend does. I am a 30 year old female who does not want to get married to my 35 year old boyfriend. I certainly have no interest in doing so and I am definitely in no rush, if I were to want that. I dont want that at all right now, for sure. He wanted to move in together. I said no. I moved closer, so I am much closer to both of our jobs now, which is really nice. I compromised. Lol. I guess I am just not willing to give someone my entire life yet, really like my alone time, and have made my way back onto my feet. I have no interest in ruining any of what I just said, for a man who I have only been seeing for 6 months. I dont care how awesome you are in bed, or how much money you have, or how wonderful you are to me. It wouldnt change my mind. I like my own space and my own things and it is of no interest to me to get married

[Col1]

The OP seems to think it would be a topic for embarrassment.

Wrong. Never stated that directly or indirectly.

 

 

Would you be worried about what some 7 year is gonna think about you lol

Not some 7 year old; A grandchild.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Col1

[Tbisb74]

Wrong. Never stated that directly or indirectly.

 

.....

 

Not some 7 year old; A grandchild.

 

The implication here is that you would be embarrassed to reveal it to your grandchild.

So, actually, whether you think you implied it or not - that's how it comes over.

And I'm obviously not the only one to think so....

[Emilia]

Some people have married and divorced, and say they won't get married again. Yet, they are in wonderful LTRs. Will they just live together for the rest of their lives if they are both happy? 15 years go by and they are still in bliss. 20 years go by and still the same. 30 years!

 

"This is my girlfriend/boyfriend of 30 years" will sound odd!

 

How do they explain their relationship to little grandchildren: "We love each other so much that we decided not to get married!" ?

I doubt I would use the word 'boyfriend'. I would say 'partner'.

 

Once you have been through the ringmill you realise that the piece of paper guarantees you nothing, except misery when you are trying to untangle your finances through the expensive divorce courts.

 

Now I want someone to be with me because they want to, not because it's hard and expensive for them to leave.

 

It's unlikely that I'll have grandchildren, but if I did, I'd hope they wouldn't grow up to be so narrow minded

[Col1]

The implication here is that you would be embarrassed to reveal it to your grandchild.

So, actually, whether you think you implied it or not - that's how it comes over.

And I'm obviously not the only one to think so....

 

Once again, you are incorrect.

[Els]

Once again, you are incorrect.

 

So what was the implication of your question? Do clarify.

[Tbisb74]

I think you'll find I'm not, because others have shared the viewpoint.

So you are not embarrassed by your grandchild's potential questioning of your marital status? How old is this young grandchild?

And why should "How am I going to explain that?!" be a worry?

 

"This is my girlfriend/boyfriend of 30 years" will sound odd!

 

How do they explain their relationship to little grandchildren: "We love each other so much that we decided not to get married!" ?

 

Where's the issue here, exactly?

[littleplanet]

Kids talk. Especially girls.

The implication is that a grandchild arrived (in the usual way) through an adult child. All to the good.

Said adult child (parent) is probably the best source of information for that grandchild, I'd say.

 

My experience of others' LTRs outside of marriage is that they work for the same reasons good marriages work. Same dynamics.

Although again, in my experience, many of them are childless relationships.

 

But i've had a lot of fun in my life tracking the ex and step thing in LTRs where kids are involved........a dozen kids spread through perhaps a half-dozen LTR's involving people who used to be married and aren't anymore, and haven't been for quite some time, and who are now lifers with someone they will grow old with (and are in fact, doing so) and the kids.....many of whom are now college age - are fine with whatever arrangements their parents have made.

 

It's hysterical how the surnames get established, though.....siblings with different last names. Confusing to straight-laced busybodies. But the kids are fine.

That's actually a pretty powerful lesson.

[MissBee]

I do think after a certain age or especially if you've been together for eons "Boyfriend/Girlfriend" sounds a bit juvenile...but I know people in LTR who aren't married, it's quite common in the culture I'm from, but you'd never know as they simply still refer to their bf/gf as their wife/husband or man/woman, even though they aren't married. I don't think they go out of their way to explain anything to their grand kids.

 

 

I think after a while they are recognized as common law spouses even though they never officially married and so in some ways it amounts to the same thing socially for some, as people simply assume they're married.

[MissBee]

In all honesty, marriage is a little odd.

 

"I have fallen in love with you. I want to keep you around, so I am going to get the Government involved, so you can't go anywhere. If you ever want to leave, you will have to give me half your ****. I love you though."

 

I think it is nice when couples can stay together that long and not concern themselves with marriage. If neither party is going anywhere, why rush, or even do it to begin with?

 

I didn't think this thread was to argue about if you agree with marriage or not...

 

But I will say that, married or not, if you have a years long life with someone with children, houses, pets etc...and IF you decide to separate, there is going to be the issue of separating stuff. Plain and simple.

 

People act like marriage is what gives people stuff and assets to separate and produces certain kinds of negative feelings upon dissolution of the relationship but those who are together 20 years and never marry, should things come to an end they just say "Goodbye" amicably and leave with only what each of them brought in 20 years ago or somehow they are more amicable about splitting joint stuff they've accumulated and their feelings are more rational and neat. No such reality. Sorry. People are people and if you're together for any length of time and have children, a house, property, q business or what have you...it's probably going to involve some amount of the regular drama as well as the regular emotions to end things and separate your lives. Marriage certificate or not.

 

At least with marriage and the legal aspects, it takes into account that shyt happens and since if you leave it up to people to be civilized it doesn't always happen...there is some legal recourse to deal with a separation should it occur. Unmarried couples who have years invested and essentially a paperless marriage aren't people living on some cloud of love... they are normal people who still have a partnership but without the legal documents that actually can help them dissolve things in a fair way...and when they break up like everyone else, should it happen, they may find themselves in a more complicated situation without the legal recourse.

 

But the idealization of unmarried LTRs as more loving or somehow more real and more immune to the drama of what it means to end a LTR is naive.

Edited July 21, 2014 by MissBee

[pink_sugar]

Another important thing to note is that SOME employers require that you be legally married for you to add on your partner to your health insurance. Also owning a home together unmarried also makes things more complicated from a legal standing.

[Tbisb74]

The prior point would be classed as discriminatory, in the UK.

The second point is not an issue, as it's perfectly legal for two people to have their names on a mortgage agreement/purchase document, even if they aren't married. In fact, in France, it's a point of law that a woman sign a document of such importance in heer maiden name, as heritage is an important factor in genealogically-legal situations (such as inheritance, division of material wealth, etc)

[d0nnivain]

My "in-laws" just left. The reality is that DH's father & the woman with whom has been living for almost 25 years just left. I joke & call her my fake step mother in law. The silly title has no bearing on how much the people involved feel about each other.

 

My uncle & his SO have been together for over 35 years. It works for them without a marriage license. Who am I to Q their relationship?

[pink_sugar]

The prior point would be classed as discriminatory, in the UK.

The second point is not an issue, as it's perfectly legal for two people to have their names on a mortgage agreement/purchase document, even if they aren't married. In fact, in France, it's a point of law that a woman sign a document of such importance in heer maiden name, as heritage is an important factor in genealogically-legal situations (such as inheritance, division of material wealth, etc)

 

Never said it was illegal...it's just more complicated in the event of divorce.

[Tbisb74]

...... Also owning a home together unmarried also makes things more complicated from a legal standing.

 

...

The second point is not an issue, as it's perfectly legal for two people to have their names on a mortgage agreement/purchase document, even if they aren't married....

 

Never said it was illegal...it's just more complicated in the event of divorce.

 

What...?

How does the term divorce figure in a situation where a marriage isn't a factor....?

[SJS]

My daughter is 9, and her teacher this past school year was in her late 20's with 2 very young kids by her long-time boyfriend. She went by Miss X. The kids all knew this, and none of them talked about it. Her teacher the previous year was in her 50's, had been divorced for several years with a boyfriend (who came in often to help out in the classroom). She went by Ms. X. Again, the kids never talked, and all knew the men were boyfriends. Most did refer to both teachers as Mrs. though.

 

 

At 7, if they ask questions, all you really need to say is "we love each other and this works for us" or "when you get to be my age you can do things differently", etc. I doubt most will give you a hard time or want to know details. Give them an answer and they'll say ok as they're running off to play. If you don't make a big deal of it, they won't.

[Col1]

I think you'll find I'm not, because others have shared the viewpoint.

So you are not embarrassed by your grandchild's potential questioning of your marital status? How old is this young grandchild?

And why should "How am I going to explain that?!" be a worry?

 

 

 

Where's the issue here, exactly?

You are bound to be incorrect when you try to dictate what someone is thinking through faulty inferences. As is the case here.

[SharM]

This is pretty much the only reason women want to get married -- just so they don't get judged for being in long-term non-marriages. Suppose the woman doesn't ever want to get married, despite the man being willing to right away?

 

I've been with my boyfriend for 7 years. He proposed after 2 years. I quickly changed the subject. I've NEVER been the girl who dreams of her wedding, looks at bridal dresses when we pass the window displays, etc.

But I can't count how many times I've gotten looks of pity from women when they find out how long my SO and I have been together and I'm not wearing a ring. And no one believes me when I say *I'm* the one who doesn't want to get married. Even my SO thought I was avoiding commitment because I was waiting for something better. But I am and always have been committed. The fact that I *choose* to stay with him everyday when I could easily leave shows that, doesn't it?

I had a co-worker tell me that it's important to get that ring because it makes men stay to try to work things out if things start going bad. I don't want him to stick around because leaving would be too much of a hassle, I would want him to stay because he loves me enough to try to work things through.

We're expecting a baby so eventually we will get married once we get a handle on the whole parenting thing, but I'm only doing it to put him on my insurance plan.

[Tbisb74]

You are bound to be incorrect when you try to dictate what someone is thinking through faulty inferences. As is the case here.

 

Why are you avoiding answering the questions?

If you were to answer them, it would dispel the errors you maintain we are making.

[pink_sugar]

What...?

How does the term divorce figure in a situation where a marriage isn't a factor....?

 

Have you ever seen Judge Judy? Complicated court battles happen between unwed mortgage owners all the time and often the result is quite ugly when trying to separate the assets.

[Tbisb74]

Only because someone wants something to which they are not entitled. Insofar as the law is concerned, everything is quite clear and fair. It's just that some people on daytime, trash television, want more than they're legally entitled to. THAT'S when things 'get ugly'. Besides, Law is not exclusive to either Judge Judy or the American system. I think you will find other countries not only exist, but have legals systems that make allowances for this.....

[Col1]

Why are you avoiding answering the questions?

If you were to answer them, it would dispel the errors you maintain we are making.

 

 

I've posted that you have been incorrect about me in this thread by making invalid conclusions. That's all you need to know.

[Tbisb74]

That's unfair. YOU began this thread, with a post which has to all intents and purposes been dispelled by others as invalid, and frankly, smacks of being closed-minded. The least YOU could do when people ask you to elaborate on a point YOU have raised, and who seek some kind of clarifications of the denials YOU are making, is to have the courtesy to at least respond with some kind of explanation.

We have all expanded on what we feel the general consensus of opinion is, and how we feel about the matter. Why is it unreasonable - in a thread YOU posted, and for a point YOU raised - to at least not be given some kind of response as to why YOU view things this way?

[pink_sugar]

I also neglected to mention the fact that if your partner dies, his/her assets will go to next of kin...which won't be you if you're not married. It will go to the parents, siblings or kids they may have. Same goes if one of you is terminally ill...you won't have the authority to make their health decisions. (Unless you are a legal domestic partner, but benefits aren't 100% as if you are married) A will would need to be in place, but sometimes they aren't always carried out and hence the need for court battles. In the eyes of the law, you aren't family.

Edited July 23, 2014 by pink_sugar

[Col1]

That's unfair. YOU began this thread, with a post which has to all intents and purposes been dispelled by others as invalid, and frankly, smacks of being closed-minded. The least YOU could do when people ask you to elaborate on a point YOU have raised, and who seek some kind of clarifications of the denials YOU are making, is to have the courtesy to at least respond with some kind of explanation.

We have all expanded on what we feel the general consensus of opinion is, and how we feel about the matter. Why is it unreasonable - in a thread YOU posted, and for a point YOU raised - to at least not be given some kind of response as to why YOU view things this way?

 

 

Again, know that you're wrong in interpreting my words.