My boyfriends alternative to a wedding

[jbelle6]

May I ask your ages OP?

[SummerDreams]

Typical guy who wants to have his rights in a relationship but is not willing to accept his responsibilities. A marriage used to be what he mentioned decades ago but now things have changed. At these times that he mentioned men would have to get at least engaged with a girl to even touch her hand. Now he gets sex without a wedding and he accepts this change happily, but he wants to stay in the old fashioned reason for a marriage cause that is convenient for him at the time. A marriage has more reasons than he mentioned. A wedding and marriage shows to both parties and their loved ones that both people are willing to stay in this relationship no matter what, they are willing to share joys and sadness, to share finances, to share parenthood, to share their lives in general. It is a proof that both parties are ready to make sacrifices for each other, as a marriage should be, that both parties accept their responsibilities of a relationship. I don't like the way your bf insisted on this so much, having ready his arguments and all, and most of all I don't like his connection with money ("you want me to spend money", like you don't deserve him to spend some money to make you happy).

 

In his defense I have no idea why you felt the need to record your conversation. Plus, as another poster mentioned before, you never said anything about loving him and wanting to spend your life with him. You only seem to want a wedding in order to prove something to yourself and your loved ones. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[SmartDude]

A marriage has more reasons than he mentioned. A wedding and marriage shows to both parties and their loved ones that both people are willing to stay in this relationship no matter what, they are willing to share joys and sadness, to share finances, to share parenthood, to share their lives in general.

 

 

This statement is more or less based in the old paradigm, which is now dying.

It is dying because the underlying reasons are a lie, and always were.

 

Legal marriages were invented so that if you had a cheating wife, and she got prego with another guy, you would not have to flip the bill for kids that are not yours. Its about inheritance.

 

I am a big believer in the ceremonial and communal aspect, and always will be. A celebration and love and commitment is quite adequate for modern times.

 

But legally tying yourself together? Sharing finances? This has nothing to do with love and more to do with ignorant ,animal like co-habitation for the purpose of procreating the species mindlessly.

[SummerDreams]

This statement is more or less based in the old paradigm, which is now dying.

It is dying because the underlying reasons are a lie, and always were.

 

Legal marriages were invented so that if you had a cheating wife, and she got prego with another guy, you would not have to flip the bill for kids that are not yours. Its about inheritance.

 

I am a big believer in the ceremonial and communal aspect, and always will be. A celebration and love and commitment is quite adequate for modern times.

 

But legally tying yourself together? Sharing finances? This has nothing to do with love and more to do with ignorant ,animal like co-habitation for the purpose of procreating the species mindlessly.

 

A legal marriage protects the woman from a man who after X years will prefer a younger version of his wife and leave her with a kid all alone. Men have to learn that a commitment means that they have to keep their vows and their responsibility especially towards their kids and secondly towards the mother of their kids.

 

As for your last sentence, I disagree so strongly that it's better to not even get into a conversation about this matter.

[2sunny]

It isn't getting married, we wouldn't be legally married, all he said was he would make the vows publically, he wouldn't legally be a husband & I wouldn't be a wife, there wouldn't be a marriage, just the commitment part we make publically.

 

Then look for a man that is a better match for you.

 

This guy isn't budging and his ideas long term differ from what you have in mind.

 

There are other men out there - this one is making it clear he's not willing to do things to make you happy.

[Cynicalme]

First, the two of you have different life visions. You, as a wife, he, as a perpetual boyfriend.

 

Second, tell him you'll be happy to have a courthouse wedding and go to dinner afterwards. If he still refuses, then you need to say buh-bye.

[Mascara]

What he's offering isn't any kind of "commitment" at all, it's standing up in some sort of pretentious pseudo ceremony and saying some words that have no legal standing whatsoever. That's not a commitment, because it has no legal standing and no responsibility to uphold the vows. That's a party. A party that presumably will cost the same as a simple wedding, so that's that objection out of the window.

 

If any of my friends invited me to a "commitment ceremony" I'd tell them to grow up.

[firmness]

A legal marriage protects the woman from a man who after X years will prefer a younger version of his wife and leave her with a kid all alone. Men have to learn that a commitment means that they have to keep their vows and their responsibility especially towards their kids and secondly towards the mother of their kids. .

 

This is one of the most offensive, ignorant, and disturbing comment on men I have ever read on the internet. No wonder things are as bad as they are.

[Mascara]

OP: I think he was testing you, and you failed. You want to get married, you don't want him. Odds are, if he ever considered marrying you, he won't now.

 

 

 

 

What he offered her is definitely a commitment. He is offering to give everything a marriage offers, without getting the government involved in their lives.

 

Marriage has no responsibility to uphold the vows anymore either. No fault divorce took care of that.

 

No, it isn't a commitment. It's saying "you will be my girlfriend forever" but he can just say the words and walk away 5 minutes later, and do the same with every girlfriend you have - which you can still do with a marriage but people tend to think hard before getting married - because it's a commitment of actions and not just words when you're tying yourself legally to someone. The fact that it can fail does not change the original commitment one that is intended to be lifelong, in the eyes of society and the law. A "commitment ceremony" is something people offer when they are trying to get out of making a real commitment.

 

I would be offended if someone offered that to me, it would be like saying "I don't want to make a real commitment - here, this party will shut you up"

 

How on earth that is supposed to be everything marriage offers is beyond me. Marriage makes you his next of kin, his heir, the right to be informed if he has an accident, shared property - you are a joint legal entity, and a commitment ceremony conveys none of that. So you'd have to file endless papers to get all of that marriage stuff, when you could just file one - a marriage licence.

[Mascara]

Being his next of kin is not a "benefit" of marriage. It's both of us knowing that we want each other to have final say if something happens to us, not one of our parents. Try telling the doctors who want to turn off his life support "but we had a commitment ceremony!"

[Mascara]

Actually here it does make you the next of kin. And yes I agree that the only reason to want to get married is to spend the rest of your life with someone, but here we're talking about his unwillingness to marry yet willing to take part in some laughable ceremony that doesn't convey any legal status. And commitment is being willing to give all of that over to the other person - only marriage or filing lots of papers will do that.

 

Anyone who advocates a commitment ceremony as being exactly the same knows that it isn't.

[lollipopspot]

What he's offering isn't any kind of "commitment" at all, it's standing up in some sort of pretentious pseudo ceremony and saying some words that have no legal standing whatsoever. That's not a commitment, because it has no legal standing and no responsibility to uphold the vows. That's a party. A party that presumably will cost the same as a simple wedding, so that's that objection out of the window.

 

If any of my friends invited me to a "commitment ceremony" I'd tell them to grow up.

 

Seriously. The only people who "commitment ceremonies" make any sense for is gay people for whom the religious right decided aren't allowed to get married.

 

I don't think I'd even bother to attend a heterosexual "commitment ceremony" unless I thought it would be a fun party. It's not a serious thing.

[lollipopspot]

Besides, that legal commitment you keep talking about means diddly. Just ask all the spouses on this forum that got cheated on or ditched.

 

In practical matters, it does mean something - as you will see on this forum. There are lots of people who factor in to the choice to get a divorce the hassle, cost, failure, etc. of getting a divorce specifically. If all you have to do is move out because you were never legally joined and never shared assets, then it is a less firm and serious bond.

[SummerDreams]

This is one of the most offensive, ignorant, and disturbing comment on men I have ever read on the internet. No wonder things are as bad as they are.

 

Of course this comment is all the things you said, but sadly it's something that happens quite often and I really don't understand why you are getting so offended. Are you denying that some men leave their wife for another woman or are you denying that a wife and mother should have a way to keep her rights? Can you explain further please?

[Mascara]

And you've just hit the nail on the head - a commitment ceremony isn't anything like being as committed as a marriage and those that offer it know that. They're just hoping the girlfriend won't notice. If it meant exactly the same and cost exactly the same they'd just do it - but they know they don't want to go as far as marriage. Usually because they got burned with marriage before.

[SummerDreams]

I think this couple is quite even. She wants to get married for wrong reasons and he doesn't want to get married for wrong reasons. The real problem here is lack of honesty and communication. The woman should be able to say "I want to marry you cause I love you firstly and want to spend my life with you, but secondly cause I want to secure myself and my kids, my family is gossiping about us not being married yet and cause I want to be sure you will never leave me". The man should be able to say "I don't want to marry you as society demands not cause I don't love you, but cause I don't believe in forever love, I am afraid one day I'll be bored of you or find someone else and I want to be able to walk away without having to pay extra money or having to feed you forever to do this.". This is the harsh truth, but nobody wants to hear it.

Edited June 27, 2014 by SummerDreams

[lollipopspot]

So, does this mean that the reason you prefer marriage is so that you can make sure a guy experiences those costs when you move out? Sounds to me like the only thing that goes along with marriage is the guy can get screwed.

 

So you are assuming the only marriages are ones where the male makes more than the female. That doesn't happen to be the case, and even when it is, they both take a financial hit by splitting households.

[Radu]

OP, it could be that he is afraid of Divorce, in which case you are approaching it the wrong way.

 

If he makes more and will continue to make more, offer a prenup, and also have this argument ''i see marriage as also the girl going into the guy's relationship, taking his name and having his kids [if you both want kids]; i don't want a large wedding like the herd, but i want a wedding and we can do it cheaply".

[lollipopspot]

I think better than a prenup is deciding what kind of marriage you want to have, and how finances will be handled. If someone is going to stay home with kids, who will do that? Is it acceptable for one partner to pull significantly more of the financial weight? What do you expect out of your careers and lives? The problems happen when one partner gets out of the workforce, usually in caring for children - and both deciding this will happen - and then when they break up, one has to support the other for a time. If this is not acceptable, decide how you will deal with children and employment differences.

[lollipopspot]

So, does this mean that the reason you prefer marriage

 

Just to be clear, I'm not a huge fan of marriage for a number of personal reasons. But there are reasons for it, and for those who want to make a life commitment to someone, it means a heck of a lot more than a "commitment ceremony."

[SummerDreams]

The only thing marriage was meant to be was a saying of vows in front of family and your god that signify your desire to be with one person, and only that person for the rest of your life. A commitment ceremony.

 

It also meant that after the wedding and only then the couple could have sex. Things have changed these days though, haven't they?

[Grumpybutfun]

OP, if after three years you didn't know that your bf did not believe in marriage, you know nothing about him. I can't imagine how shallow your conversations are after three years for neither of you to know something so important about the other.

You two need to sit down and talk, face to face, without any interruption... Talk about your views on religion, spiritual matters like heaven or hell or the afterlife, childhood fears and things from then that made you happy or sad or fearful, family dynamics such as gender roles with your mom and dad and what you expect from each other as regards to those, psychological issues, finance issues and transparency on debt and retirement vision, expectations on how many kids, what kind of life you want, where you want to work, live or travel, how each of your family will be treated by the other, all bills including splitting of finances, childcare if you want to have children, and whether or not you two can reach an agreement about the level of commitment you two can be happy sharing. If you can do this, you might have a chance if you agree and can compromise on these things, but if not, you two need to stop having such a shallow relationship because three years is a long time to be this incredulous about your bfs personal beliefs. I knew everything my wife believed and all her stories in the first six months and she knew mine. When I asked her to marry me I knew she would say yes because all of her values, all of her stories, all of her dreams and visions for her family and future included a man who believed in her and our love enough to take that step with her. I would not have wasted my time with a woman who didn't believe in traditional values like marriage and family, of building a future tied together by more than words. It would never have occurred to me to be with someone who thought my values and traditions of standing up in front of the world as her legal and equal partner in life was silly antiquated drivel. I would have thought they were incompatible and moved on to someone who wanted the same things in life as me. It doesn't mean your bf or you are wrong, just not compatible. Still, have that discussion about what you both want in life. Stop trying to change him and concentrate on understanding why you want what you want and why, and then find someone who shares that vision.

Best,

Grumps

[SummerDreams]

Yeah, they have. Even less reason to marry a girl now. Thanks for pointing that one out for me.

 

Sad but true. :/

[firmness]

Of course this comment is all the things you said, but sadly it's something that happens quite often and I really don't understand why you are getting so offended. Are you denying that some men leave their wife for another woman or are you denying that a wife and mother should have a way to keep her rights? Can you explain further please?

 

Wow. You just said a mouthful right there. I read this as "Sure this is offensive, so what's the big deal?" You might as well say to me "Sure lots of people use the "N" word, but black people sort of deserve it, so what's your point..." Think on that for a moment before you get defensive (usually the reaction of people who say stuff like this).

 

The comment makes it clear that the very pretense of marriage is the idea that men are somehow incapable of keeping their promises. So in some distant past generation we started creating ceremonies and laws to make sure they didn't run away from their obligations. And men have not changed in the past few millennia.

 

But it completely ignores the fact that for every consensual heterosexual act, there is a woman freely involved. Think about that. Just sit on it for a moment.

 

If a woman were to truly believe this about the man she is about to marry, why the hell would she marry him? Just think on that.

 

And, I ask that you think and reflect deeply about how many horrible things that comment says about us as humans:

 

1. Men are dishonorable at their core and we need threats/contracts to keep us honest in our most intimate relationships. But women are fine and generally virtuous (the stats show otherwise).

 

2. Women are not capable of making good decisions. They are so feeble in the "judging character" department that we need to have this system wide contract to protect them from their own ineptitude. (I agree with Feminists who claim that this attitude is sexist and offensive. And they must then agree that the very institution that embodies this attitude is equally offensive and sexist - and many feminists do!)

 

3. Taking time to get to know someone, and his/her family, before making a commitment is too much of a bother. This life long intimate partnership that will impact your lives, parent's and children's lives needs to be locked into by government contract - as quickly as the more strident partner dictates.

 

4. Finally, I have seen stats posted here (Cannot find them) that show that the overwhelming majority of marriage proposals are actually initiated by women. Through subtle threats of cheating, or moving on, or family pressure, or biological clock pressures, they push for marriage much more often than previously thought. Add to that the fact that over 70% of divorces are initiated by women (this stat is fairly well known and easy to find) - taken together, these stats tell a very interesting story that does not paint women in a good light. Forget about words, pop culture, and past ignorance - look at the behaviors and outcomes. They speak volumes.

 

So t just because some horrible thing is commonplace does not make it any less offensive. And just because some horrible system wide abuse is experienced by one group does not make it okay because the other group benefits from it. Isn't that sort of one of the indicators of privilege? Abuse does not magically disappear because one group says "prove it" or "no it doesn't"

 

 

Marriage is truly, by just about any measure, a horrific construct and it ultimately damages the lives of millions of children, men, and women - not to mention the elderly parents and others affected by divorce.

 

I am not sure how this is okay with so many people.. Make what you will of all of this, but there is no way, no angle, no perspective I can conjure that paints any nice picture - taken on the whole. (of course every individual story is different) of modern marriage.

 

We will not likely revise marriage as a society. More likely is that more and more men will refuse to get married and women will slowly catch on.

 

I have to thank Feminism for this. This is a good thing.

Women are not property to be sold off by marriage contracts, and neither are men.

[Robert]

Thread reopened