Akward Situation...

I'm not talking about him protecting the little women I'm talking about the concept that you probably (although he may do it all himself) do most of the housework, cook, do the shopping, buy gifts from both of you are christmas & birthdays etc & the myriad other things that women do to make life more comfortable that men enjoy but would never bother to do themselves. Not to mention he can have sex whenever you agree. Pretty much all his needs catered for right? Without you he would prolly have to do much more for himself. So why would he need to "beleive in marriage" when you give him everything a wife would but with the option to get up & walk away with no ties if he should ever feel like it.

Anyway, I am not specifically talking about your relationship. IF you are both happy with the arrangement then thats great. BUT the op WANTS marriage. That is what my comments, advice, opinion etc are geared towards & if it upsets of offends your/others then I'm genuinely sorry for that but my views arefor the OP's predicament not for whatever you decide to do with your life.

FBaby wrote: »

On which basis? The whole point about compromise is that one HAS to back down there is no alternative when it is a case of not being able to meet in the middle (you can't be a little bit married! ). However compromises should be looked over time with an expectation that all in all it comes to about 50%. So far I would say that it comes to about that ratio in my relationship.

This isn't going to be received very well by some, but in my view, it is almost always the woman in the relationship that ends up 'backing down' and compromising.

In many cases, through the whole relationship from start to finish, (married or not,) it seems to be the woman who has to back down, compromise, or change things in her life. Rarely is it the man.

IMO that was a pretty sexist paragraph really

Nope realistic. I thankfully have a very sharp bs filter & see things in a very clear way. It's is uncomfortable for people to read sometimes as I can be very close to the bone but it is generally a correct observation & yes, there are alwasy exceptions to the rule (q everyone "my oh's not like that") but they are rare.

Mojisola wrote: »

This^

I can understand people not wanting to get married but how can you not believe in it?

I think it remains very important people have the choice NOT to be married, hence no accession to common law spouse being rightful IMO.

Person_one wrote: »

Did you have a look at the link I posted earlier about the legal differences? Its not possible to get exactly the same rights without marrying, no matter what paperwork you have.

You are willing to offer him all that protection/security etc as you'd happily get married.

This. We got married quickly. We were going to get married anyway but got married quickly so DH would have rights as my spies and so there would be no question as to his status as my NOK among other reasons.


We forgot our wedding anniversary this year as in the middle of health carp again and it drifted past. But that's how it is with us. The marriage has always been more important than the big days, and the formalisation was in essence cementing what we felt, spiritually, we had achieved alone. Nonetheless, it still means something. More than I expected. More than I hoped.


I have no 'issue' with cohabitation permanently WHATSOEVER, except when its not by mutual desire and when the parties are ignorant as to what the benefits ( or pitfalls) might actually be in marriage/ cohabitation for them.