Would you be offended if your partner doesn't want to take your last name in marriage?

[Razp_Sorbet]

[jennifer_bloom]

I would prefer to keep my family name cause I don’t want my enemies to know who I’m married to because they might stalk my future husband. Also I know people who changed their name after marriage and when they changed it back to their maiden name, everyone immediately knew they were divorced and they became the victim of gossip and slanderous remarks and criticism.

[Finchie40]

Sadly most people that don’t take their partner’s last name end up divorced cuz it’s a one sided decision , It shows that girl only really cares about herself and is very selfish , she should feel honored to take her husbands name and shouldn’t be a big deal, unless he has an embarrassing last name then I can see her not taking that lol but if she makes it a big deal out of it she is more than likely just using the guy for her selfishness and she truly doesn’t love him , and it’s disrespectful , Just like people that have tattoos of their exes name on their bodies. , and won’t get it removed when they start a new relationship, people that can’t let go of their past are selfish people , your partner should be your future , so by taking your husbands last name shouldn’t be an issue , you should be proud to be a family and considered as one

[slatyb]

Not at all. I would prefer that she does not. I think that's an old misogynistic convention dating to the time when women were first the chattel of their father, then their husband.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Unless you've made up your own last name womens last names are always from men. It's kinda weird to think about.

[TrueConfection]

This is a good question. I couldn't wait to change my name. When I married my husband, he kept asking if I really thought it was necessary. The country he is from doesn't have that tradition. Wives keep their maiden name and only clarify when necessary that they are "of" (their husband's name).

[DaveJord]

Nope not at all... changing your name is huge pain in the ass.

[Razp_Sorbet]

This is my thoughts

[DaveJord]

I would never do it for any women, so why should I expect her to do it for me? Now my kids I would want to have my name and I am not into the hyphenated name thing.

[AviatorTom]

Nope. She can keep her last name... it is hers, after all.

My ex-wife took my last name, and kept it after our divorce, until she remarried and took his last name. Interestingly, her email address has my last name in it.

[Fireguy17]

No not at all.
The only issue could be if you had kids together, but there are so many second or more marriages today it really wouldn't be too bad, not sure about buying a house, but you would have proof of marriage as well.

[God_of_Thunder]

Not particularly.

Going through the hassle of changing all of their records has got to be a pain in the ass, and my last name sucks, anyway. 🤷‍♂️

[NathanDavis]

nope... because my last name is not even mine, I did not pick it, I didn't choose it... it was stamped on me without being asked... lol

and... it's just a name at the end of the day

[JasM0]

I’m fine with it. It would be a problem if she wanted the children to only have her surname. I appreciate the Latin approach of the child having both surnames with the maternal proceeding the fraternal. It honors both lineages.


Cheers

[melanieeeB]

Nope, I wouldn't take someone elses last name.. unless it's prettier than mine but I doubt it

[Drewski88]

Ya i wouldn’t really be happy , because it would make me feel like she wants to hide something. like maybe she really doesn’t want to get married or she’s just using me? If i’m getting married and it’s a problem to use my last name, i’d think she ain’t the one for me. just my opinion

[Jintendo18]

If I were to ever agree to get married, then yes, absolutely. Why would you not want the same name as your son (s) and/or daughter (s)? I assume that is why you would want to get married in the first place: to start a family, yes?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Not everyone wants kids

[Jintendo18]

No reason to get married then.

[Razp_Sorbet]

That's not what marriage is about

[Jintendo18]

What’s it about then?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Having a ceremonial commitment to the person you love. Legally and spiritually (for some) being tied to eachother

[Jintendo18]

Until it’s not about 50% of the time and it ends in an ugly divorce that the wife initiates at least 80% of the time, rendering the whole ordeal meaningless. What’s a man to gain from such a big risk (an expensive one at that) if not children of his own at the very least?

[Razp_Sorbet]

Sweetie you can have kids without getting married.

[Jintendo18]

I agree. Both of my cousins recently did, and they and their partners are doing just fine.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I don't want kids, and I don't buy into spiritual/religious crap, but I wanna get married because it's a promise for exclusivity and sticking around. The issues with marriage only happen because people marry the wrong person.

[Jintendo18]

That’s a pretty expensive “promise”, my man, especially if it doesn’t work out. Suppose your wife turns around to you one day AFTER you’re married and says she wants kid but you don’t. Then what’re you gonna do?

[TheSpaceGnome]

That wouldn't happen, thats the sort of thing that happens when you marry someone without knowing them well enough first. Any girlfriend I want won't have sex without one of us being sterile because she knows contraception doesn't work.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Also its not expensive, I don't want a wedding or a vacation honeymoon, just the promise, i hate parties, I don't include family in my relationship progress, and I prefer staying home.

[TheSpaceGnome]

highest expense is the marriage license, I like the type of girl who thinks paying hundreds, let alone thousands for a shiny rock you just wear, is retarded. So no diamond rings either.

[Jintendo18]

It’s the divorce that’s expensive if it comes to that, and it’s far more likely to happen if you don’t have any kids.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Actually, financial strain from raising unplanned kids, and losing time for hobbies, sex, and other enjoyable things because of kids, is the second leading cause of divorce, with the leading cause being marrying the wrong person.

Secondly, Prenups prevent having to shell out money or property during a divorce.

But again, there wouldn't be a divorce, too picky for that, I'm only going to marry what is basically a female version of my mental self. She will be too picky to divorce, the odds of finding another match after 40 will likely be zero for either of us.

[TheSpaceGnome]

In fact most divorced people are parents.

[Jintendo18]

That’s because most people that get married actually start families. It’s not a causative factor. By not having any kids, you’re eliminating the one binding factor that can save your marriage during tough times. Besides, it’s a bad idea to place a meaningless time limit on yourself like that for such a major commitment, especially one that’s barely 5 years away when people get married in their 40’s all the time AND have kids.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Sorry, but thats not true at all.

Most people start relationships with the idea of fixing their loneliness and boredom, and having sex.
Contraception exists because more than 90% of births are accidental, and most people want lots of sex that doesn't result in reproduction.

In tough times, financial strain is at it's highest, and children bring that strain to a breaking point.

The right SO will make life feel great even when everything else sucks, so kids or not, the marrriage will remain stable in tough times.

But children cause more stress, and drain funds more than any other problem, and make that much much much more difficult to achieve, and if you are the type to want a fullfilling life? Well.. for most of the populace, kids usually mean the parents have to give that up so the kids can have that instead, and thats the biggest reason kids cause divorce, because then the couple begin to blame and resent eachother for "ruining their life" by forcing kids on them, even though usually both parties are to blame.

Age 40 is not a time limit for having children, and it being meaningless has no bearing, the topic isn't about meaning, meaning is for the religious.

I don't want children, age 40 is simply a likely point in which the number of single women who are artistically talented atheist gamer nerds (who aren't moms) will reach zero, because most people find their SO in highschool, and get married in their 20s, and have kids with the wrong person before their 30s.

I'm not dating a single mom, or someone who doesn't share my interests and hobbies, and thats likely all I'll have to choose from after that point, as I'm strugging to find anything but that already.

If I find a girlfriend who's a match for me, we will be together for life, but if she or I passed away, the odds of finding a second match will pretty much be zero after 40, as any single people will be married/dating someone else, incompatible, or a single parent.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Without kids, adults can persue their hobbies and dream careers, and retire young and just enjoy being themselves, and those are the types to have lasting marriages, because you have to be yourself to find a match and keep a match.

Personality conflicts with the ones they are with, and being stripped from persuring their dreams, is why people become unhappy.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Granted, most people don't bother finding a match, they just find someone who makes them wet/hard, and maybe makes them laugh, or has money, and then when they get sick of being a tool (or bored of the tool they are using), and start to crave a real connection, they breakup.

[Jintendo18]

All I’m saying is I wouldn’t force myself to settle in such a short time frame when there’s no need for it. If there’s any reliable predictor of a marriage not working out, it’s people who settle.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Finding the perfect match is not settling.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Staying single is settling, marrying the wrong person is settling, polyamory is settling. But the perfect match is cloud 9.

[Mark987]

Where I live it cost a lot to change a lot of money to change it about $700 dollars so " No" I wouldn't

[dtweed1996]

Not really if my partner didn’t want to it wouldn’t bother me but my partner wanted to change her last name before we are actually committed then I was like you Anabel Lee are now Anabel Tweed when we’re not actually committed yet ok

[HighValue]

Yes. That is the only benefit the man gets in marriage is to have the family have his name. No other benefits for the guy at all.

[Still-alive]

Id settle with a dash. I wouldn’t care which name cane first before the dash

[Still-alive]

Not sure why the downvote. Im willing to compromise. I do taje pride in my last name a bit.

[nawtee_me]

I do not know about offended but certainly disappointed because I would want a son named after me or a daughter named after my wife meaning with my last name.

[Razp_Sorbet]

The kids can still have your last name

[nawtee_me]

Yes and that is why I would be disappointed and not offered

[ArchivalMars2]

I wouldn't be offended but I'd want to know why though.

[Anonymous]

I would be offended. A marriage is a partnership and one way to solidify it, is by sharing one name. It's a family.

[EaterPeter]

I could care less. I would not want her to keep exes last name either.

[EaterPeter]

Thanks for like!

[Luckycharms12]

I would actually be a bit hurt. If want to marry me think I'm good enough to be your husband then why wouldn't you like to take my last name.

[Razp_Sorbet]

What if your last name is weird/funny

[Luckycharms12]

No normal was just answering your question I've never being married or tried to be

[MannMitAntworten]

No, because she’ll cease being my “partner”. She can find a ‘modern’ man elsewhere.

[donnny2367764]

Yes and no. If she is willing to pay half for everything then she can keep her last name to herself