View Full Version : Marry or shack-up?
11th Dec 2002, 09:31
Hey everyone which is better to do in the long run? Get married or simpley shack-up? Im not talkin moral issues here, just practical. The way I see it (for both men AND women!) -
Advantages of marriage
* theres a less likely chance your mates will pork your partner behind your back.
* if your genitals are found up against another you can put pressure on the parents-in-law that your so sorry and regret your actions (assuming your in good with his/her oldys). Family pressure on him/her to stay together will be greater than if you were both only livin in sin.
* Um, Im sure theres more........
Disadvantages of marriage:
* far too numerous to mention here. Even I consider PPRuNe bandwidth!
Advantages of shackin up:
* both partners have to keep-up apearances because either one can b@<hidden> off from the relationship whenever he starts moaning shes gettin too bloodey fat and fugley
* a guys sh!t is HIS! Hers is hers.
* obvious benefits for gigolos (M or F)
* if he/she wants a new sports car then he/she bloodey pays for it then!
* for guys: she will always remain a willing gulper (even if she pretends to be willing!)
* for girls: as long as you continue to swallow him hes less likely to stray (and he doesnt mind if you pretend liking it!)
* for guys: if she likes a bit of stray snatch herself now and then, she'll let you watch!
* for girls: if you like a bit of stray snatch yourself now and then, he'll love to watch!
* the ocasional 'group' thing is ok!
Disadvantages of shackin up:
* that white-anting possibilitey by your mates I mentioned before esp if your old lady is endowed with large breasts and a cute bum (similar in the female case if your old man has a nice butt and a big prong!)
* he/she might be rich and own the pad, car etc and you might have nothin to your name. If you ever dumped your stuffed.
* if he/she finds your genitals where they shouldnt be (or allowed to be!) all bets are off. Your wiped clean off the board. You cant even pass GO or colect $200.
11th Dec 2002, 09:38
I can't fault your thought process at all Slash.
I must say, that in my experience, the question of marraige or not, seens to be dictated by how much pressure a man can take without eventually folding, and saying 'yes'. I am sorry to say that there is some inevitability to this, and it is only a matter of time. It took my wife a number of years but she got her way eventually.
On the other hand, if you have actually found a chick who can put up with a non perminent relationship (meaning at least something on her finger) more power to you.
I used to have it just right.
At weekends my g/f would travel up to my place on the Friday eveing and stay over until the Sunday evening. The rest of the week I was 'free'.
This worked really really well, giving us the best of both worlds.
But now I've gone a bought a house halfway between where we both used to live and she has moved in fulltime. Not quite the same, but enjoying it nonetheless.
Can't quite get away with being out everyday of the week now, and have had to learn to 'stay in' a couple of nights each week. Incidently, isn't week nights TV a load of tosh.
Marriage talk is definately not on the agenda of either of us as I think we both like the idea of the small amount of freedom. Also, it's my house, my car and I've just bought all the furniture so not too keen on signing it all away just yet.
One day perhaps.
Last thought though, aren't live in partners entitled to something after living together for 2 years or so, or is that an urban myth?
11th Dec 2002, 10:07
Last thought though, aren't live in partners entitled to something after living together for 2 years or so, or is that an urban myth?
As I understand it, it's an urban myth. My understanding is that anything that a person brings to the relationship (eg car, money, house) belongs 100% to that person when the relationship breaks down, regardless of time spent together. Anything bought by either one after the relationship is started is considered to be a joint purchase, even if in one person's name.
However - inheritance rights, pension rights etc are all very difficult. If you haven't made a will, then your partner's family are as entitled to part of the house, money, car, pension, etc as you are. In the case of pension, could be you don't get anything at all. So make a will!
Also, the rules about sharing tax allowances are not the same as for married couples - eg if you transfer money between each other, it could be liable to capital gains taxes (doesn't happen if you are married).
Finally - it can actually be more difficult to split up possessions, etc from a failed partnership than it can from a failed marriage. And more expensive.
Check out your options with a lawyer. Marriage might be worth it.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer! This advice was given to me 7 years ago. Things might have changed by now.
11th Dec 2002, 10:07
If it flys floats or f@<hidden>, rent it by the hour. Then you don't have all the hassles that ownership brings.
11th Dec 2002, 10:08
If yer taddies find home base unexpectedly then you had better be prepared to marry.
If you shack up for a long term relationship then it will be harder to make your decision to marry even if the taddies find home base.
I guess only you will know when the time is right.
If you want me to give you a more detailed appraisal, just email me a pic of her boobs.
11th Dec 2002, 10:17
Personally I would not encourage a chick to take up even temporary residence at my gaff. Sure she can stay the night a couple of times a week, maybe even Friday and Saturday night, but never Sunday. That would be too close to living together. I might even buy her a toothbrush, but certainly isn't using mine, and leaving a hairdryer (or, God forbid, having a second one to leave here) would be a no-no. You stand to lose half of everything in the UK now, even if you only 'co-habit' thanks to all the lefty liberalism that is spreading around this once beatiful island.
As for marriage: if that happens it will be a sure sign that I ahve lost control of my mental faculties.
The rules are different if she, or her parents, are really, really wealthy.;)
Biggles Flies Undone
11th Dec 2002, 10:24
Watch out for the ‘knicker trick’!!
An innocent enough comment “Can I keep a clean pair of knickers in one of your drawers? It’s just that you always make me so….” (err… you know the rest). Once the knickers have established a presence, half her wardrobe won’t be far behind. :D
11th Dec 2002, 11:16
Excuse me for being nosey Slasher but has something happened to make you wonder about marriage v. shacking up? :o
Have you had a fright?
Marriage isn't equal death of swallowing, unlimited BJ and whatever-else you happen to find rather pleasurable. There are those women who get more 'interested' in their husbands than they were before marriage, although those women are supposedly quite rare. :p The bedroom activities have certainly become more interesting for me since getting married :)
11th Dec 2002, 11:57
Please excuse my ignorance on these matters, but I'm terribly young and naive and innocent really. :rolleyes:
I just have a very simple question. If you're living together anyway, why does the presence or absence of a ceremony and a certificate make any difference to fidelity, oral sex, freedom, possessions, or anything else?
Answers on a postcard in words of one syllable that Whirly can understand please.
11th Dec 2002, 12:06
Your not married to me by any chance?? :o
11th Dec 2002, 13:11
Having done both, and each of them in excess of ten years - there really isn't any difference, apart from one or two legal technicalities. A spouse is your next of kin, your partner isn't. If you own property together, the issues are just the same. There are inheritance laws that should be dealt with if you don't want your partner's family to start claiming assets the two of you acquired together.
And as for potential fidelity issues, if someone's going to f*ck around, they'll do it regardless of whether their name's on a marriage certificate or not.
There's precious little difference between divorce and splitting up a partnership - I can only think of the parental/in law fall-out as making divorce worse. Both cases will cost in a financial sense.
Seems to me the ideal solution is that each party has their own residence and the relationship is conducted entirely in hotels.
11th Dec 2002, 14:10
For women, there's no good reason to do it--you've got all the responsibility of marriage, and none of the benefits. And in most cases living together does not lead to marriage. For men, it's the reverse.
11th Dec 2002, 16:19
Can I introduce a new concept of RESPONSIBILITY, I know that it is out of favour, but when you see the current state of crime being committed by children from single or divorced homes, the only way to bring up children properly to mix into society is within marriage full stop. Sorry if you don't like it, but if you want children then get real. If you just want to sleep around without the hassle of being mature then help yourself but don't come crying for affection when you get older.
Sorry, but current attitudes bring out the worst in me.
Thinks again - hell no I'm not sorry, I stand for what I believe in - true partnership through thick and thin.
11th Dec 2002, 16:31
oh, if there's kids, of course you should be married!
11th Dec 2002, 16:39
but when you see the current state of crime being committed by children from single or divorced homes, the only way to bring up children properly to mix into society is within marriage full stop.
Having brought 2 children up in a 'divorced' home- for 10 years, I take exception to the above comments.
My kids have never committed a crime, done well at school- A Levels and have been 'brought up properly'!
Of course they are not perfect, but who's kids are??
How dare you suggest because their dad and myself fell out of love that they are criminals and havent been brought up in a secure environment.
Let's see the evidence to back up your claims :mad:
Oh yeah............and my daughter will be more than just mixing with society - she's training to be a nurse!
true partnership through thick and thin.
Oh yeah, that's right, bring em up in a house where there is no love and deceive them, they do know when things arent as happy as they should be - I lived through it, my parents stayed together for the sake of the kids.
Get real, you live on Fantasy Island!
11th Dec 2002, 16:45
Yes CUNIM, but a piece of paper with writing on it does not a true partnership make.
11th Dec 2002, 17:18
I'd guess that in many of the "western" type of legal jurisdictions once you have been together for a certain time then a lot of what you think of as yours will also be seen as her's by the beak.
Was'nt it Lee Marvin's "Palimony" case that brought this to the public eye some time ago?
11th Dec 2002, 17:27
If you are not shackled by the ancient ritual and legal ropes of marriage your relationship holds together on a basis of mutual respect.
If you marry you are fulfilling every lawyers wish of an enlarging client base.
On the chauvenistic front I remember the words of a respected friend,
Men don't change but women do. Once when you marry them, and again when they have your kids.
For what its worth it is possible to be unmarried and have kids and a relationship for 30y plus.
13th Dec 2002, 11:29
From what I've seen over the past few weeks re. the gay partner issues, unmarried cohabiting partners have little, if any, rights over and above what would be present if they were just housemates. The concept of "common-law marriage" is a myth.
Unmarried partners have no rights over each others property. If one person pays a mortgage, and the other pays bills equalling that amount, then the one who has payed the mortgage will get the whole house. In the case of a joint ownership, any property will be divided according to who bought it - if one person puts in 3/4, they will get out 3/4. Unmarried men have no rights over their children. If one person is seriously ill, the other has no juristiction w.r.t. signing medical release documents. If they die, the other can't sign the death certificate unless they were present at the death. The surviving partner has no rights to the pension of the deceased. They have no automatic rights to any property held by the deceased, and in the case of a will providing for the survivor, they will still be liable for any inheritance tax.
As for the Lefty-liberals, the main issue has been that same-sex couples could not register each other as next of kin, thereby avoiding some of the above issues. Given that they are not allowed to marry, this is what is currently being addressed. Some wanted it to be applied to "straight" couples too - current concensus is that this would weaken marriage, and will not therefore happen.
13th Dec 2002, 12:43
Aside from the rather "in your face" approach, an interesting question. I found that in my case the desire to marry formaly was a decision reached when the appropriate love and respect for my partner had built up to the point that I wished to formalise our relationship and legaly accept all the consequences of that action.
As can happen to all good things, it came to an end but there was enough respect after 20 good years to part fairly and amicably with neither party feeling financialy screwed. We did have children and it was and remains a priority that their interests were as much as possible looked after by both of us. We still have a good friendship that both of us values even while acknowledging that we had grown apart.
I have two sons who are presently in this particular situation and am greatly interested in their particular ways of approaching the question. Whatever they choose to do is OK with me and I will support them in whatever they feel is appropriate for them. It is, as so many of these things, a very personal decision and one that can only really be judged by those concerned.
I feel that times have changed and the emphasis on marriage as such is not as great as it once was. I strongly feel that a loving, concerned and commited partnership is still the ideal way of raising children, with or without a formal marriage, though I do have grave doubts about single sex partnerships and children. Sorry Slash, that is really straying from the question.
I suppose to sum it up if I was going to have children I would probably be more inclined to formalise the relationship.
13th Dec 2002, 17:34
Nah Im not under any heavey pressure to get hitched. Ive got my own thoughts on it and I thought Id ask everyone what they thought. Yeh Im a pro shack-upper.
Dont know if havin kids warrants marriage for that reason alone. A kid out of wedlock is of course a bastard. but Ive been called a bastard (fancey that!) many times in many forms (horney, selfish, right, outright, right-royal, shallow self-centered, 2-bit, young, angry, old, mangey, insensitive, real, cheap, etc) starting when I bit mums tit real hard when I was 8 months old, but my parents were alreadey married 9 years prior! ;)
13th Dec 2002, 20:51
..... and that, my fellow PPRuNer's,... concludes the story of where Slasher's fixation with T!t's came from!!! :p ;)
14th Dec 2002, 14:48
No, no, no, surely B&B it should be,
...and that fellow PPruners was the just the START of Slasher's oral fixation...