Why doesn't he want to marry me?

Prothet_of_Doom

Is the OP's partner called PETER ?

It's just that I have a mate called Pete, who has 2 kids, and has been living with his "missus" for 15 years, kids aged 11 and 9. They've both been married before, and do not see any point to wasting all that money, and changing what they have together. I was surprised, as they recently got engaged, and I'd just assumed that a bloke of 46 with a child in high school would be married. There are no firm wedding plans, just a ring and a promise.

Personally, I probably live in 1955, because I could imagine living with someone, and having kids with them, and not being married.

notanewuser

fluffnutter wrote: »

Nah, this just isn't true. Jeez, if I suggested to my husband that I'd coerced him into marrying me, he'd snort with derision. He does have his own mind! He wanted to be married to me, plain and simple. We're not different species, us birds and fellas.

That's why I said "most", not "all".

How many threads have women posted on here about wanting to get married, how to get their bloke to propose, yadda yadda yadda?? At How many similar threads from men? None.

Most men (as in more than half) just aren't likely to resort to the things women do to get a wedding ring.

Bazey

fluffnutter wrote: »

Change your name. Nothing to stop you doing this.

I agree. I think Alan suits the O/P better.

fake_smile

I personally think a wedding is just an unecessary expense. Why do you feel so strongly about getting married? Maybe you should explain why to your partner so he understands. Maybe he's just not fussed and sees it as a waste of money?

hawk30

Person_one wrote: »

That author is writing from a country where 'common law' couples have legal rights. Marriage is a feminist choice when its the choice that protects and empowers women, as it is here.

Taking a man's name is never a feminist choice though, she's right about that.

Agree to the first, not sure about the second. While I see your point, I still class myself as a feminist even though I took his surname, which I did through choice. I like having a family name. He offered to take my name, but I preferred his.

Person_one

hawk30 wrote: »

Agree to the first, not sure about the second. While I see your point, I still class myself as a feminist even though I took his surname, which I did through choice. I like having a family name. He offered to take my name, but I preferred his.

Seems like the man always has the nicer sounding name.

Tiddlywinks

I have what is now seen as a 'traditional' view of 'family'... I still don't understand why anyone would consider having a child/ren without being married.

It doesn't have to be religious, it doesn't have to be expensive BUT it does show commitment in the form of a contract.

A partner who is not prepared to commit to marriage would not be father material to me.

Tiddlywinks

fake_smile wrote: »

I personally think a wedding is just an unecessary expense.

Getting married - without all the unnecessary expense - can be done very affordably.

Most people that say 'it's just an expensive piece of paper' etc just don't see it as a commitment - they seem to focus more on the 'big' day.

slightlyconfused1

Hi

Leaving aside the arguments above, I think if you sat down and explained to your partner how you feel, why you feel marriage is important, you may have a more reasonable discussion.

It really depends on whether your OH is not bothered about marriage or anti-marriage. If he is anti-marriage then there will be a reason why and I doubt you will change his mind.

Marriage wasn't important to me until our daughter was born. Then I hated having a different name too but I was more upset that her father did not have the automatic rights and responsibilities that I had. He didn't really understand why it all upset me so much but he loves me and wanted me to be happy so we got married. It was a very small low key wedding, but an amazing day and I loved it. Twelve years and two more children later we are still happy and we still make decisions that make each other happy.

I totally understand what you mean when you say it makes you feel as if your partner is not committed if he doesn't want to get married. I don't think it is necessarily true but if he is not willing to discuss it rationally and explain his reasons for not getting married when it is so important to you then I may wonder what is going on.

an9i77

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I have what is now seen as a 'traditional' view of 'family'... I still don't understand why anyone would consider having a child/ren without being married.

It doesn't have to be religious, it doesn't have to be expensive BUT it does show commitment in the form of a contract.

A partner who is not prepared to commit to marriage would not be father material to me.

It's a bit late for that, as our first child was a (happy) accident. I wasn't going to hold out on having the second before I had a ring on my finger as time was not on my side fertility wise and I didn't want a big age gap. I was just grateful that he wanted another kid, as I did, as I suppose there was always a seed of doubt in my mind as to how commited he was when we had the first given that it was an accident and only 6 months into the relationship. I never wanted him to feel trapped and my big fear was that he would feel trapped, despite me saying that he could leave if he didn't want to be with me long term when I found out I was pregnant.

TBH splitting up would not really be an option, certainly not over this, so if he definitely doesn't want to get married in the future I suppose I'll have to come to terms with it. It just feels like we're going backwards, before it was all 'maybe' and 'be patient' so I thought it was just a matter of time, whereas now it seems like he's not really up for it, and I can't see that that's going to change much. Never say never though...