What is the taboo in 2023 about an unmarried, couple in a committed relationship having kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're doing this and one partner dies, the household gets half the social security benefit it would have gotten had the parents been married. For some people, esp while raising kids, that is a big deal.

Yes this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a class issue at this point. UMC and UC do not have children without getting married. A married couple invests their assets in their children (education, activities, healthcare).
Marriage is the driving force on inequity between classes. This is written about all the time. Smart, wealthy people know this and capitalize on it.

Interesting. I have younger cousins from my childhood in the Midwest now marrying at 19-24. If the average DCUMer met these people, they’d regard them as poor country bumpkins. Some of them are in or finished college, and some have opted out attending entirely, but they are far from alone among their social circles in marrying at that age. I’m 32 and many of my friends & coworkers aren’t married.

I personally think it has more to do with religiosity & political orientation than class.

Maybe this does not work for your cousins but there is certainly a trend that I have seen of UC children marrying either right out of college or by 24/25. I see this with Biglaw partners kids a lot now. I get invited to lots more weddings where the biglaw kid is young. Not sure why. Maybe because they can. Often both kids are from an elite college and both have elite jobs. Probably no student loans and cars and down payments from parents?

DP. I have noticed this too, and I am fascinated by it because most UMC parents I know are very very opposed to their kids dating in high school. They do not allow it. They strongly discourage their kids from dating in college, too. So if they’re marrying at 24, it’s with very little dating or relationship experience. Hopefully those marriages work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women = marriage to getting his money and if you are not getting his money you are a fool.

Women think men who sign a document that gives you his money = commitment.

I am not so sure that survived the 1970s. The woman is likely to earn more in 2023.

It doesn’t matter what the facts are this is what society thinks. Yes society is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women = marriage to getting his money and if you are not getting his money you are a fool.

Women think men who sign a document that gives you his money = commitment.

If you want a woman with options to reduce her earnings power, take a physical risk, and significantly reduce her future romantic options in service of having and raising your children -- and none of these are things you are having to do, btw - then yes, she's a fool if she takes a totally one-sided deal and doesn't protect herself and her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care what strangers do, however, I would never want my daughter to have a kid with a man she’s not married to. Marriage is a huge commitment and grants many legal rights that mere cohabitation does not.

It depends. I am a woman. I am far worse off having married.

[Anonymous]

Because we think it’s trashy to have a child with someone who doesn’t even care enough about you to commit to marriage. A child should be the last step in a relationship, not one of the first. We care about children and want them to have stable homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on your social circles, OP.

Why? In other countries there is Z E R O taboo to being unmarried & parenting even for rich & UMC people.

And in some countries it is taboo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a class issue at this point. UMC and UC do not have children without getting married. A married couple invests their assets in their children (education, activities, healthcare).
Marriage is the driving force on inequity between classes. This is written about all the time. Smart, wealthy people know this and capitalize on it.

Interesting. I have younger cousins from my childhood in the Midwest now marrying at 19-24. If the average DCUMer met these people, they’d regard them as poor country bumpkins. Some of them are in or finished college, and some have opted out attending entirely, but they are far from alone among their social circles in marrying at that age. I’m 32 and many of my friends & coworkers aren’t married.

I personally think it has more to do with religiosity & political orientation than class.

Maybe this does not work for your cousins but there is certainly a trend that I have seen of UC children marrying either right out of college or by 24/25. I see this with Biglaw partners kids a lot now. I get invited to lots more weddings where the biglaw kid is young. Not sure why. Maybe because they can. Often both kids are from an elite college and both have elite jobs. Probably no student loans and cars and down payments from parents?

DP. I have noticed this too, and I am fascinated by it because most UMC parents I know are very very opposed to their kids dating in high school. They do not allow it. They strongly discourage their kids from dating in college, too. So if they’re marrying at 24, it’s with very little dating or relationship experience. Hopefully those marriages work out.

Why would you encourage your child to limit dating while surrounded by a bigger pool of education-oriented, functional members of the opposite sex than you will ever be around again? What’s the rationale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your relationship is more likely to end. And this is bad for the kids. This is the gist of it. I'm sure everyone will say "but we are so happy and I know married couples who are way more dysfunctional, blah blah"... but still, the truth is that it's crazy to commit to having a child with someone when you wouldn't even commit to a relationship with them. A child is FAR more serious.

This.

Every American couple I know who has done this has wound up breaking up.

Scandinavians and Germans do it for life but they have a different social system and safety net.

There are also lower expectations for German and Scandinavian men in terms of providing for a family. My Northern European friends wouldn’t remotely benefit from marriage. They’d probably have to take on even more domestic responsibilities but not benefit financially. It’s why there are such long parental leaves there. Most couples have separate finances and you can’t have a baby if you’d earn $0 after the birth without a husband supporting you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your relationship is more likely to end. And this is bad for the kids. This is the gist of it. I'm sure everyone will say "but we are so happy and I know married couples who are way more dysfunctional, blah blah"... but still, the truth is that it's crazy to commit to having a child with someone when you wouldn't even commit to a relationship with them. A child is FAR more serious.

This.

Every American couple I know who has done this has wound up breaking up.

Scandinavians and Germans do it for life but they have a different social system and safety net.

There are also lower expectations for German and Scandinavian men in terms of providing for a family. My Northern European friends wouldn’t remotely benefit from marriage. They’d probably have to take on even more domestic responsibilities but not benefit financially. It’s why there are such long parental leaves there. Most couples have separate finances and you can’t have a baby if you’d earn $0 after the birth without a husband supporting you.

Germans are also far more responsible people than Americans, and German men are very involved fathers. If the relationship broke down then they would continue to provide for their kids out of a sense of obkigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women = marriage to getting his money and if you are not getting his money you are a fool.

Women think men who sign a document that gives you his money = commitment.

It is. Money is usually the last thing men will willingly share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggested to my wife we not get married due to the tax penalty (we ended up paying $20k more per year!) and she was hearing none of that. She was like well then we're paying it. Luckily, god bless President Trump, he eliminated that penalty for pretty much everyone - probably the single biggest pro-family political action ever taken

I thought the tax code incentivized marriage?

Generally only if one spouse doesn't work.

Yup. When DH and I were both in biglaw we were paying many tens of thousands of marriage penalty. I think the first year was $50k and it went up from there.

But there's no patriarchy, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think a couple that lives together & probably has for an awhile. This arrangement is very common in several European countries. So why the taboo?

Because we know he won’t marry you and we can’t help but wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your relationship is more likely to end. And this is bad for the kids. This is the gist of it. I'm sure everyone will say "but we are so happy and I know married couples who are way more dysfunctional, blah blah"... but still, the truth is that it's crazy to commit to having a child with someone when you wouldn't even commit to a relationship with them. A child is FAR more serious.

This.

Every American couple I know who has done this has wound up breaking up.

Scandinavians and Germans do it for life but they have a different social system and safety net.

There are also lower expectations for German and Scandinavian men in terms of providing for a family. My Northern European friends wouldn’t remotely benefit from marriage. They’d probably have to take on even more domestic responsibilities but not benefit financially. It’s why there are such long parental leaves there. Most couples have separate finances and you can’t have a baby if you’d earn $0 after the birth without a husband supporting you.

Germans are also far more responsible people than Americans, and German men are very involved fathers. If the relationship broke down then they would continue to provide for their kids out of a sense of obkigation.

Ok but they wouldn’t provide for the woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think a couple that lives together & probably has for an awhile. This arrangement is very common in several European countries. So why the taboo?

Because we know he won’t marry you and we can’t help but wonder why.

Oh wow. So many of you on here have it incorrect. Did you ever consider those of us women who aren't married to our partners because we don't see any benefit financially being linked to them? And bahahaha that you think a piece of paper binds you to a man. It just means the divorce costs more money for everyone.

Ok lastly, yea the marriages last longer than the unmarried couples because cause and effect. Smh so narrow minded on here. I still have the kid and stay with the partner because "business transaction" as someone mentioned. But no marriage for us and no we prob won't stay together not because we aren't married but because the relationship is a transaction for the kid.

Make sense to those of you who are confused? Ofc this is not everyone's situation and so thus I don't go around telling married women they're dumb for marrying!