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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. Bad idea to date in college. It can distract you and make a bad decision to commit too early. I was with my college boyfriend for 7 years. We were too young. He wanted to get married. I broke it off at 24. I should not have been dating so seriously so early. I also missed just dating for fun and missed lessons I should have learned. People should not date seriously until after college and make their own life plans first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

+1

I was married. There was no benefit. I was hesitant to marry because it was a huge risk. I was right.

If I a woman makes her own money, getting married is a huge risk (both financially and career wise because a woman’s ambition usually takes a back seat to the man…) not everyone is pining away to get married, which I now think is a horrible trap for women who can support themselves

[Anonymous]

Who said it’s taboo? No one cares.