Having the 'marriage and kids' talk.

lazygal

There's a thread over in TLL about women leaving it too late to have children. I, and friends of mine, have all had experience of men not wanting to have the chat or getting cold feet/doing a runner if the subject of marriage and/or kids comes up.


So, gentlemen, does that talk freak you out? And given that women have a finite amount of time to get pregnant the 'natural' way, does that time limit have any bearing on your relationships? Do you feel there's a window for men being a father or are you happy enough to wait a little longer?

Given that I've heard stories from my female friends about their experiences with men, I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

LegacyUser

I'm female, but here's my experience.
Dated guy for 5 years, everything going swimmingly...until "the talk"....other than minor quibbles, this was literally the only thing we had every properly fought over.
He wanted to wait another 5 years before getting engaged/married (had no issues with the marriage as whole otherwise), I didn't want to wait (both of us were late 20's at the time).He based a lot of his argument on his older brothers' relationship, who was 31 at the time but dating a girl my age- they apparently had no interest whatsoever in the whole marriage thing themselves, happy being happy& all that jazz, so what was my problem? Long story short, we split up, following which, his brother& gf got engaged& married within 18 months.....

Otherwise, amongst my sample size of 8 weddings in the last year, in all cases, it was the brides who spearheaded "the talk" first; there was no spontaneous/surprise proposal coming from the grooms' side- admittedly they all went through with the proposal& wedding however, and afaik are all happy.

The Corinthian

lazygal wrote: »

So, gentlemen, does that talk freak you out? And given that women have a finite amount of time to get pregnant the 'natural' way, does that time limit have any bearing on your relationships? Do you feel there's a window for men being a father or are you happy enough to wait a little longer?

Biologically men can in theory have children at 80. In practical terms our 'window' is dictated indirectly by our ability to attract a woman who can still have children.

Fortunately for us (be it a mixture of biology, social convention or whatever) younger women will still tend to be attracted to older men on average, which means that we should be able to settle down with one who is anything between five and twenty years our junior if we wanted; depending upon our own attractiveness - physical, personality and, let's be blunt about this, financial.

As such, there's very little pressure on men to settle down until much later; many of us don't even vaguely consider it at all before our late twenties / early thirties - and I mean vaguely.

Secondly there is the very real consequences of marriage not working out. Two thirds of divorces are initiated by the woman and if it does happen it's the man who's going to get screwed in the settlement. Full stop.

Sure, maybe you're in love and everything's hunky dory now, but so was everything for that couple who's wedding you attended seven years ago and who's recently split; with the guy having to hand over the keys to the house, continue paying the mortgage, spousal and child maintenance and thus forced to move back in with his ageing parents. The older you get the more you see this and it's chilling because the older you get, the more you also consider your old age and whether you'll have enough to survive in it.

The odds might only be 1-in-6 in Ireland of a marriage failing, but interestingly those are the same odds as losing a game of Russian Roulette - and how many people want to play that?

So this too is a factor for many men; at the very least it'll make you think twice, thrice or more before you take the leap, if not dispel the notion altogether (an increasingly common phenomenon known as the Marriage Strike).

So, in summation, and while there are other factors at play, the two principle ones in my mind are that:

• There's no rush for us; we can easily wait until our late thirties, if not forties before starting a family.
• We have to be a lot more certain of the person we're going to marry than women need be, because the potential consequences are so much greater.

seamus

I think to a certain extent part of it is that in many cases marriage is seen as an achievement for a woman, but an inevitability for a man. This is probably cultural moreso than anything else.

So men have no particular great drive to get married, it's not a measure of success in the eyes of their peers in the same way that it can be for women.

You also have the "don't rock the boat" point of view where marriage is perceived to change a relationship (though in reality it doesn't), and if a man is happy with his relationship then he may see no point in getting married and potentially risking what he has. For men, marriage is often painted as making the relationship worse, not better, so the fear of marriage isn't a fear of commitment or whatever, it's often just a fear that it will ruin the good relationship that they have going.

The children thing I think is actually a separate issue to marriage overall. I don't think men consider any "window" for children, or at least haven't been told that one exists. Many men only realise that a window exists when they reach their forties and find they don't have the energy they used to have and the idea of chasing after a child sounds exhausting. Up until their mid-30's, men generally still think they're invincible and virile, so it's not until they start having knees that ache in the cold or having to see a physio about their back that they realise they are in fact getting old. It's only then that the concept of any kind of "window" for children might come into focus.

Even then, I believe a lot of mens' attitudes towards children comes from their own upbringing, so the desire to be a father will often be heavily influenced by their own father's involvement/attitude in upbringing, as well as their overall experience as a child.
I had a great childhood, no complaints to be had, it's all good memories. So although I've never been mad about other people's children, I knew from my mid-twenties that I would love to bring a child up to have the same or similar experiences that I had. I was probably 95% there and then when my brothers started having kids and I saw how awesome they were, that pretty much sealed it for me.

However, I can see how a man who may have had a cold or non-existent father, or otherwise just not a great experience growing up, would be reluctant to go through that again from the parental side. Women who had poor childhoods obviously can and do feel this way too, but there's such a cultural and biological push for them that it's harder to fight it.

Corinth does make a good point about "marriage strike". For men, you could liken a marriage to signing up to a very punitive mortgage. When everything is good, you're warm and comfortable and happy and chances are it will work out in the end. But there's a chance taht if things go wrong, you will end up losing everything.
However, I'm not sure if it's a common thought for men. Fear of divorce is not something I have ever heard any men mention outside of an internet forum.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

Corinth does make a good point about "marriage strike". For men, you could liken a marriage to signing up to a very punitive mortgage. When everything is good, you're warm and comfortable and happy and chances are it will work out in the end. But there's a chance taht if things go wrong, you will end up losing everything.
However, I'm not sure if it's a common thought for men. Fear of divorce is not something I have ever heard any men mention outside of an internet forum.

Personally I feel that men who reject marriage altogether on this basis (the "marriage strike") are still a small minority, albeit a growing one.

However I would be pretty certain that the potential consequences are a consideration - a man would have to be an idiot to ignore them when faced with marriage.

That we don't discuss it openly, even with male friends, is not surprising though; if in a relationship, even voicing such a concern could be seen as an admission that you don't fully trust or have doubts in the woman you're with and many men would shy away from this. And if single or if marriage is not on the horizon, then we're probably not even thinking about it.

Pembily

The Corinthian wrote: »

We have to be a lot more certain of the person we're going to marry than women need be, because the potential consequences are so much greater.

How so? Have you evidence to back this up?

seamus wrote: »

I think to a certain extent part of it is that in many cases marriage is seen as an achievement for a woman, but an inevitability for a man. This is probably cultural moreso than anything else.

+1, that is very true, it really is seen as an "achievement" more for women than men.

seamus wrote: »

You also have the "don't rock the boat" point of view where marriage is perceived to change a relationship (though in reality it doesn't), and if a man is happy with his relationship then he may see no point in getting married and potentially risking what he has. For men, marriage is often painted as making the relationship worse, not better, so the fear of marriage isn't a fear of commitment or whatever, it's often just a fear that it will ruin the good relationship that they have going.

I think that again is a cultural thing... I don't understand it at all.

seamus wrote: »

However, I'm not sure if it's a common thought for men. Fear of divorce is not something I have ever heard any men mention outside of an internet forum.

I am a girl but I have many male friends and divorce is never their reason for being afraid to get married. It's actually my female friends who are afraid of divorce and not the guys.

The Corinthian

Pembily wrote: »

How so? Have you evidence to back this up?

http://blog.divorce-online.co.uk/?p=1386

Pembily

The Corinthian wrote: »

http://blog.divorce-online.co.uk/?p=1386

That states that they lose the family home, who says the man paid for it? I have seen a number of female family members and friends being the one "screwed" by divorce!

Zulu

Excellent points by TC & seamus. But it's worth considering/food for thought...

Perhaps most men don't balk at the talk of marriage when they are in the right relationship?

Consider the infamous "friend zone" for men. A situation were the girl gets all the emotional support & trappings of a relationship, but isn't physically intimate with a boy who seeks more. Eventually, when the boy declares his intentions, he's knocked back as there was never a chance from the start. Now, consider the opposite. A man gets all the trappings of a relationship physical & emotional with a woman he can. Eventually, the woman presses the point of marriage, and the man exit's as he has no intention of growing old with her.

The Corinthian

Pembily wrote: »

That states that they lose the family home, who says the man paid for it?

You might actually want to read beyond the first sentence of the article.

I have seen a number of female family members and friends being the one "screwed" by divorce!

Whatever, I'm not terribly interested in arguing the point, especially if all you've got to offer is anecdotal evidence bases upon what you consider to be 'screwed'.

All I've said is this is one of the reasons that men are more hesitant about marriage and believe that there is good reason for this (as the non-anecdotal evidence tends to demonstrate).

seamus

Pembily wrote: »

I think that again is a cultural thing... I don't understand it at all.

It's most definitely cultural in this country anyway, probably in the US and UK too.
The woman is generally seen as being the one in charge of the marriage. So a common slag after a man has gotten married is about whether or not he can get a "free pass" to go out on the booze with his mates, or about being "under orders" and having to get home before a curfew.

So in many cases getting married is perceived by men as swapping your girlfriend/partner for a "Mammy" and the loss of freedoms that such a thing entails. Some men prefer this idea, most don't and may see marriage as the death of a good relationship.

Zulu

Pembily wrote: »

That states that they lose the family home, who says the man paid for it? I have seen a number of female family members and friends being the one "screwed" by divorce!

Well whether they did or didn't contribute they can rest assured they aren't going to come out on top. Access to children determined by her. House goes to her... I'm surprised you are questing this frankly.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

A man gets all the trappings of a relationship physical & emotional with a woman he can. Eventually, the woman presses the point of marriage, and the man exit's as he has no intention of growing old with her.

The "if you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with" syndrome.

Aye, that also happens, especially where the woman is driving the relationship (she was the one who pushed for cohabitation, for example) and the guy is really just going with the flow. Probably more common than many of us would care to admit.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

There's a thread over in TLL about women leaving it too late to have children. I, and friends of mine, have all had experience of men not wanting to have the chat or getting cold feet/doing a runner if the subject of marriage and/or kids comes up.


So, gentlemen, does that talk freak you out? And given that women have a finite amount of time to get pregnant the 'natural' way, does that time limit have any bearing on your relationships? Do you feel there's a window for men being a father or are you happy enough to wait a little longer?

Given that I've heard stories from my female friends about their experiences with men, I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

I've asked this to my friends both male and female - we're all mid to late 30's and so far beside me all are child free.

I would have thought the notion of a biological clock was almost exclusively female but all my male friends would have one. Obviously its not as pressing because there is the security in knowing they can have children whenever but they have a cut off in their own heads beyond which they don't want children.

I have the same thing here in my own house. My 40 yr old husband would love another baby but feels it has to happen in the next year or two or he will be too old. He wants to be young enough to enjoy them and wants to be here long enough to meet our grandkids. As he says himself there is no joy in looking forward to being a father of a young child in your 50's / 60's.

The marriage thing I can't really comment on, we were living together for years with our kids and marriage was never really that much of a big deal for us. For some people they seem to go hand in hand though.

Honey-ec

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly there is the very real consequences of marriage not working out. Two thirds of divorces are initiated by the woman and if it does happen it's the man who's going to get screwed in the settlement. Full stop.

Sorry, but this is patently not true. My marriage ended last year. I moved out of the marital home to my parents. I'm not receiving a penny from my ex, nor would I expect to. I work, why would he pay me just because the marriage ended? All I expect from him is fair recompense for the money I put into the house over the seven years we were together. After that, he's free and single.

It may not be the "norm", but not all marriages ending result in the man being "screwed".

Zulu

Honey-ec wrote: »

It may not be the "norm", but not all marriages ending result in the man being "screwed".

Ok, so 99.9% 79.9% of them do. The point is the "norm" is that the man does get screwed...
What the hell, you're contradicting yourself.

Maguined

Honey-ec wrote: »

Sorry, but this is patently not true. My marriage ended last year. I moved out of the marital home to my parents. I'm not receiving a penny from my ex, nor would I expect to. I work, why would he pay me just because the marriage ended? All I expect from him is fair recompense for the money I put into the house over the seven years we were together. After that, he's free and single.

It may not be the "norm", but not all marriages ending result in the man being "screwed".

Was you leaving the home done by your own choice or was it decided in court?

That article is for any cases that were contested in court. If you decided things for yourself then you are being a nice and fair person so fair play to you, however the article points out that if things get contested in court men will lose out 99% of the time.

The Corinthian

Honey-ec wrote: »

It may not be the "norm", but not all marriages ending result in the man being "screwed".

I'd wager you have no children from your ex-husband, in which case divorce tends to be far less punitive to men (although a man is still probably more likely to be paying maintenance than receiving it even then).

Once children are added to the mix, then that he'll lose out in a divorce is almost guaranteed. Child custody will go to the wife (well over 90% of the time) and with custody, the family home (as it is naturally the children's home). If the wife is a SAHM or works only part time, then she'll also be entitled to spousal maintenance, on top of child maintenance.

And let's be honest, if not for children, how many couples get married any more? Certainly some, but you'd have to be in complete denial if you thought this was anything but a small minority at this stage.

The facts are what they are and while you're always going to find anecdotal examples that contradict them, they're still only anecdotes that are demonstrably a minority and men do consider this where it comes to marriage, even if most keep silent about it. Attacking what I've said won't change that.

floggg

I honestly don't know if I will have kids or not, but regardless if I do or don't, I fully intend to get married/civil partnered.

There is so much more to it than kids - apart from the commitment aspect, it's important to establish your partner as next of kin if you are building a life long relationships.

You only have to look at some of the horror stories you hear about same sex partners being excluded from hospital visitations and decisions, inheritances, or even funerals.

LegacyUser

The predominant theme running through posts here seems to be FEAR.
What if it all goes pear shaped in a few years? What if the marriage breaks up? What if there are kids involved? What if the courts decide against me re finances/access?

Is it really the case that protecting ourselves against future emotional/financial ruin is the sole determinant in deciding to/not to get married?

Honey-ec

Zulu wrote: »

Ok, so 99.9% 79.9% of them do. The point is the "norm" is that the man does get screwed...
What the hell, you're contradicting yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting The Corinthian, who stated that the man gets screwed in divorce cases, and I quote, "end of". My point is that there are clearly cases where this doesn't happen, but I accepted that they are in the minority. They do exist, though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd wager you have no children from your ex-husband, in which case divorce tends to be far less punitive to men... Once children are added to the mix, then that he'll lose out in a divorce is almost guaranteed.

Then perhaps you should qualify your original statement to clarify that you're referring to cases where there are children involved rather than making a blanket statement that clearly doesn't apply in all cases.

LegacyUser

The Corinthian wrote: »

[*]There's no rush for us; we can easily wait until our late thirties, if not forties before starting a family.
[/LIST]

Scientists in Iceland have found that 97% of genetic mutations were caused by the age of the father, whilst the age of the mother had no impact.
The child of a 40 year old father had 2.5 times as many potentially damaging mutations as that of a 20 year old, and the gap increased with every passing year.
The study was based on genetic screening of 78 families whose children were either on the autistic spectrum, or diagnosed with schizophrenia, the data was then compared to hundreds of other families with no link to either condition.
The risk from older mothers (Downs' syndrome, miscarriage) still far far outweighs the male risk obviously.

Also, how many men who choose to delay fatherhood, have their sperm count checked regularly? I'd wager none.

The Corinthian

Honey-ec wrote: »

Then perhaps you should qualify your original statement to clarify that you're referring to cases where there are children involved rather than making a blanket statement that clearly doesn't apply in all cases.

That's a fair enough point, and you're right it should be qualified in this manner. Accepted.

Given this, the majority of marriages do involve children and children are commonly cited as the major if not principle reason for marriage (even the OP cited this). As of 2006, only 30.4% of marriages were childless - including marriages where starting a family is planned, but not yet begun and late marriages where having children was no longer a realistic option.

Additionally, men have very little control over fertility - a vasectomy is pretty much all we can do if we don't want to have children. As such, even if children are not on the cards now, there's no reason that they won't be in the future even if man doesn't want any and his wife changes her mind.

Honestly, it's not like I'm saying anything particularly radical. It's really just common sense for any man who's considering such a commitment, given the likely consequences of it not working out (which incidentally does not include marriages that don't break up, because the husband decides that he cannot afford it or fears he'll lose his children - I know quite a few anecdotal examples of those, I can tell you).

who_me

Reminds me of that old adage "Women marry men hoping they'll change, and they never do. Men marry women hoping they'll never change, and they always do."

I think - for a lot of men - a long term relationship with the right girl is the "ideal"; yet often get married & have children as that's what their girlfriend wants. Obviously, that's a generalisation, but I think there's a lot of truth in it.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a fair enough point, and you're right it should be qualified in this manner. Accepted.

Given this, the majority of marriages do involve children and children are commonly cited as the major if not principle reason for marriage (even the OP cited this). As of 2006, only 30.4% of marriages were childless - including marriages where starting a family is planned, but not yet begun and late marriages where having children was no longer a realistic option.

Additionally, men have very little control over fertility - a vasectomy is pretty much all we can do if we don't want to have children. As such, even if children are not on the cards now, there's no reason that they won't be in the future even if man doesn't want any and his wife changes her mind.

Honestly, it's not like I'm saying anything particularly radical. It's really just common sense for any man who's considering such a commitment, given the likely consequences of it not working out (which incidentally does not include marriages that don't break up, because the husband decides that he cannot afford it or fears he'll lose his children - I know quite a few anecdotal examples of those, I can tell you).

Anecdotally I know several couples where children were the reason for marriage after the kids were born. The men in these cases were more eager than the woman to get married. I commented on it at a wedding fair I was at recently, where nearly every bride-to-be was pregnant or had kids with her

Personally we had the talk from the other angle, where we are not haviing kids. It can still be a little nervy bringing it up in case your partner does want them. I think by the time we talked about it we knew neither of us was keen on kids in general (I don't think babies are cute, he hates kids being noisy ). As for marriage, neither of us want it in the immediate future, but wouldn't rule it out. He's brought it up as often as I have...as in what way we would plan it.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

However, I'm not sure if it's a common thought for men. Fear of divorce is not something I have ever heard any men mention outside of an internet forum.

I certainly have among my mates, but they'd be ahead of you in age and have been more exposed to divorce/separation among their peers so maybe that's a large part of it?

Honey-ec wrote: »

It may not be the "norm", but not all marriages ending result in the man being "screwed".

True. I can think of two other relationships similar to your experience, in one case the woman ended up paying maintenance. All were childless. Generally though.. actually no generally about it, in the vast majority of cases divorce is worse for men than women.

Interesting findings from the US. Scarily when it gets to divorce divorced men have a 39% extra risk of suicide, whereas "Among women, differences in suicide risk among those who were married, divorced or widowed were statistically insignificant'.

The Corinthian wrote: »

which incidentally does not include marriages that don't break up, because the husband decides that he cannot afford it or fears he'll lose his children - I know quite a few anecdotal examples of those, I can tell you.

Ditto.

As such, even if children are not on the cards now, there's no reason that they won't be in the future even if man doesn't want any and his wife changes her mind.

Actually that bit would really concern me going on the experience of others. The amount of men I've known that didn't want more kids than they already had, only for the wife to fall pregnant while being on the pill etc. One extreme example was one guy who continued to wear condoms for safety and his wife went ape over this. He went along with her and within weeks she was pregnant again.

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally, men have very little control over fertility - a vasectomy is pretty much all we can do if we don't want to have children. As such, even if children are not on the cards now, there's no reason that they won't be in the future even if man doesn't want any and his wife changes her mind.

WTF?

Ever hear of condoms?

Or ****ing abstaining if your wife tells you she wants to have a baby even though you don't want one.

If you can't take that much responsibility for your self you have no business having sex. Somebody so helpless shouldn't risk having to be responsible for somebody else.

The Corinthian

floggg wrote: »

Ever hear of condoms?

Not full proof by any stretch of the imagination.

Or ****ing abstaining if your wife tells you she wants to have a baby even though you don't want one.

Well, I can imagine that many men would rush into marriage if that's what they have to look forward to.

If you can't take that much responsibility for your self you have no business having sex. Somebody so helpless shouldn't risk having to be responsible for somebody else.

Sure and when women have no choice but to go to term, keep and raise a child upon becoming pregnant, I'll take this sexist nonsense of yours seriously.

Wibbs

floggg wrote: »

Or ****ing abstaining if your wife tells you she wants to have a baby even though you don't want one.

Yea I can see that relationship going well...

howamidifferent

Honey-ec wrote: »

Sorry, but this is patently not true. My marriage ended last year. I moved out of the marital home to my parents. I'm not receiving a penny from my ex, nor would I expect to. I work, why would he pay me just because the marriage ended? All I expect from him is fair recompense for the money I put into the house over the seven years we were together. After that, he's free and single.

It may not be the "norm", but not all marriages ending result in the man being "screwed".

You are probably in the 1% of cases mentioned in the article linked above. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

howamidifferent wrote: »

You are probably in the 1% of cases mentioned in the article linked above. :rolleyes:

In fairness the above article specifically discussed contested divorces. Also marriages that are childless (like hers) could not be considered to be overly punitive against men. Even I had to admit that I'd overgeneralised.

This thread was started by a female poster who asked why men are less enthusiastic about getting married and I, along with others, gave a number of reasons, of which the consequences of marital breakup was one and pretty much every man agreed that this is one reason, perhaps not for themselves, but for many.

Looking over this thread and who thanked what posts, I'm sorry to say that it seems to be dividing up on gender lines. When I first responded I really did not intend for this to happen or for the reaction I got to even suggesting that men may get the short end of the stick in divorce.

So, a male perspective was sought (I presume so given there's another discussion on this on tLL) and you got it. Don't get upset at us guys if you don't like the answer.

LegacyUser

As regards ones upbringing influencing whether or not to have kids, I think I may have to buck the trend on that one.

I'm a guy, I am lucky to have a wonderful father whom I adore and am always happy to spend time with, I am 30 and he's pushing 60 and we go for pints, to concerts, rugby matches etc, and talk sh!te like we're one of the lads. Any problems I have, I always seek his advice and input. I'm also in a secure long-term relationship that will lead to marriage in the future.

That said, I have no desire for a family of my own and I dislike the idea, especially when you hear about fellas getting "trapped" by broody types who think the addition of a 8lbs Austerity Package will somehow save a failing relationship. Of course not all women are like that, and there are men who think the same way.

It's something Id refuse to compromise on, and that's my right as a person. I don;t think it can be compromised its not like ya can have half a kid or something!

My OH doesnt like children and doesnt seem to have a biological clock, but if it kicked in, I'm afraid we'd have to go our separate ways so she could find a dude who actually wants kids before she gets too old. Considering couples counselling on this, but so far it hasnt been an issue.

Please dont rip my head off for this, im just telling it like it is.

LeeHoffmann

Wow. I know the question of the thread is going to lead discussion down a negative path, but tgc´s view of marriage and children is so overwhelmingly negative (based upon this thread). I wonder whether this reflects men´s view irl.

I think - for a lot of men - a long term relationship with the right girl is the "ideal"; yet often get married & have children as that's what their girlfriend wants.

I find that just so sad. I knew one guy who had pretty much decided to get married and have children with his gf because it was what she wanted, even though he didn´t want either. It seems to me like everyone loses out in that situation - the man won´t have the life he wants, the woman knows her husband/father of her children doesn´t really want to be her husband/father of her children, and the children will have a Dad who wishes he was childless. I can´t understand why ANY woman or man would ever agree to such a scenario.

men have very little control over fertility - a vasectomy is pretty much all we can do if we don't want to have children.

you have just as much control as women, I would think. That is, unless you´re assuming the woman is selfish enough to make the decision on her own and trap the man into it...but that brings up 2 questions - 1. why would you be with a woman like that? 2. why not wear a condom? (and if she would go nuts if you wore a condom - that brings me right back to question 1: why would you be with someone like that?!)

in many cases marriage is seen as an achievement for a woman, but an inevitability for a man.

:eek: This is probably the most stunning opinion I´ve come across on boards. A woman agreed with you about this on this thread so I have to ask why? I cannot imagine why you would think that unless you´re both from a much older generation. I´m 28 and newly married. It was something we both wanted for years now. But with female friends, I´ve often felt like I have to explain myself for wanting to get married and acting excited about it would have made me a social outcast. Maybe if I was older - like mid/late 30´s it might have been seen like an achievement?

I do agree that men lose out far more often when it comes to custody battles (imo it´s a disgrace and something that makes me really angry), and I could see why this might make them more hesitant when it comes to having children.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Wow. I know the question of the thread is going to lead discussion down a negative path, but tgc´s view of marriage and children is so overwhelmingly negative (based upon this thread). I wonder whether this reflects men´s view irl.

Wow, some reasons were given and you take it that our view of "marriage and children is" "overwhelmingly negative"? Thats a bit of a leap. I'm married, and I'm very positive about it.

I can´t understand why ANY woman or man would ever agree to such a scenario.

Probably because they love their partner and are happy to sacrifice somethings for them. I'd suggest this is more common that you'd believe.

1. why would you be with a woman like that?

Because you love them?

2. why not wear a condom?

Because you trust your wife when she tells you she's taking the pill.

(and if she would go nuts if you wore a condom - that brings me right back to question 1: why would you be with someone like that?!)

Why would you suddenly start wearing a condom when your wife tells you she's taking the pill? Because you don't trust her or because your having an affair??
It's the classic: "when did you stop beating your wife?" scenario.

The Corinthian

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

1. why would you be with a woman like that?

Because when you married her she wasn't a woman like that.

Remember, if you marry someone (male or female) at, say 29, they're unlikely to be exactly the same person at 35, 45 or 65. Sometimes those changes are unimportant to the relationship or even add to it, but other times they can be detrimental. It's naive to think we don't change over time.

Both might agree at the time of marriage that they want to have no children, but a few years later with the big 4-0 looming, many women do change their minds, as do many men. However, if there is an accident (and I use the term loosely, because not all accidents are completely accidental) and the wife becomes pregnant, a man has absolutely no legal say in whether they have the child or not. Women on the other hand do and I've known at least one who popped over for a quick 'holiday' to the Netherlands, without saying anything to her husband, the moment she found out.

And if there are children in the mix, this too changes people hugely. Childless both may have careers and never even think about their combined wealth. But if a woman ends up sacrificing hers, staying at home to care for the child and a marital breakup looms, I can guarantee that she's begin to consider what she's 'entitled' to.

If the people we married remained the same for life, there'd probably be no problem, but they don't which is why some men are with "a woman like that" - just as some women find themselves with "men like that".

2. why not wear a condom?

As I already said, it's not full-proof by any stretch of the imagination.

Malari

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I find that just so sad. I knew one guy who had pretty much decided to get married and have children with his gf because it was what she wanted, even though he didn´t want either. It seems to me like everyone loses out in that situation - the man won´t have the life he wants, the woman knows her husband/father of her children doesn´t really want to be her husband/father of her children, and the children will have a Dad who wishes he was childless. I can´t understand why ANY woman or man would ever agree to such a scenario.

I think in many cases like this the woman may be the driver in the marriage & kids but the man is not necessarily going along under duress. It's not that the man actively wants not to have kids, but that he'd give or take that kind of life. Or that he really hadn't considered it that carefully and is ok with it. As long as he's with his girlfriend!

LeeHoffmann

Wow, some reasons were given and you take it that our view of "marriage and children is" "overwhelmingly negative"?

no need to be catty. The discussion from a male point of view seems very negative. Do you not agree?

Probably because they love their partner and are happy to sacrifice somethings for them. I'd suggest this is more common that you'd believe.

Everybody´s happy to sacrifice some things for their loved ones, but choosing a whole life you don´t want or marrying somebody who doesn´t want to marry you and having children with somebody who doesn´t want children - that´s the height of madness. It doesn´t benefit you, your partner or the would-be children. It´s not selfless or noble, it´s a recipe for disaster.

Regarding the discussion on condoms Vs. trust, the parts of my post you quoted followed on from the assumption stated

unless you´re assuming the woman is selfish enough to make the decision on her own and trap the man into it

Wearing a condom while on the pill would seem reasonable (i.e. for extra protection - pill isn´t 100% effective). I know what you mean that a man could trust his wife (and most likely would until she proved herself untrustworthy) and then be trapped into fatherhood by her. That possibility doesn´t mean that "men have very little control over fertility" (which was the point I was responding to). However, I understand that the worry of entrapment might turn some men off marriage/relationships.

I don´t know what having an affair has got to do with wearing a condom while you have sex with your wife. I also don´t know what the ´when did you stop beating your wife´ scenario is.

LeeHoffmann

if you marry someone (male or female) at, say 29, they're unlikely to be exactly the same person at 35, 45 or 65

Of course people change over time. But if one partner became the kind of person who would trick you into becoming a parent, knowing full well that you did not want to be a parent...why would you stay in a relationship with that person?

a man has absolutely no legal say in whether they have the child or not.

I think I get your point now. You´re talking about abortion/ voluntary abandonment? i.e. the woman can choose to abort, the man should be able to choose to have no legal responsibility towards the child?

Yes, condoms aren´t fool-proof, but your point was that men have "little control over fertility". That suggested they have less control than women have. Apart from the deliberate accident scenario, both men and women lack control over fertility. So, it seemed like a moot point

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

The discussion from a male point of view seems very negative. Do you not agree?

Well it's a thread looking for reasons why men balk at the talk, so these are the reasons. But that's not to say men are "overwhelmingly" negative about marriage. One doesn't equate to the other.

That possibility doesn´t mean that "men have very little control over fertility" (which was the point I was responding to).

Well it kinda does. If the couple have opted for a method of contraception other than condom/vascetimy/abstinence the man has no control.

I don´t know what having an affair has got to do with wearing a condom while you have sex with your wife. I also don´t know what the ´when did you stop beating your wife´ scenario is.

If a man suddenly decides he wants to start wearing condoms, their partner would rightfully become suspicious. Why?
"Is there a risk of an STI all of a sudden ('cause I'm on the pill)?"

Aside: The "when did you stop beating your wife" scenario is simple. The question presupposes the person is a wife beater. Forget about it.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Of course people change over time....why would you stay in a relationship with that person?

Because you are married? Some of us mean our vows when we take them; some of us believe marriage to be for life. Thick & thin. Sickness & health. And all that...

The Corinthian

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

The discussion from a male point of view seems very negative. Do you not agree?

I think this is largely because of who the OP was framed; implying that men already have a negative attitude twoards marriage and seeking to know why. So naturally, you're going to get a negative answer to that question.

What's surprised me is that looking at many of the responses, thanked posts appear to be very much divided on gender lines and it looks like some didn't like the answer they got.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Of course people change over time. But if one partner became the kind of person who would trick you into becoming a parent, knowing full well that you did not want to be a parent...why would you stay in a relationship with that person?

Sure, you could divorce them - which, if you have children, means you're more than likely going to get financially crucified and see your kids one day a week (presuming no obstruction to access).

Not exactly a scenario that sells marriage to men, and that is what we're talking about here.

I think I get your point now. You´re talking about abortion/ voluntary abandonment? i.e. the woman can choose to abort, the man should be able to choose to have no legal responsibility towards the child?

I am making absolutely no argument of that nature pro or against. I'm merely stating a fact, a reality, which would naturally cause men to think twice or more before entering marriage - again, that's the topic.

Yes, condoms aren´t fool-proof, but your point was that men have "little control over fertility". That suggested they have less control than women have. Apart from the deliberate accident scenario, both men and women lack control over fertility. So, it seemed like a moot point

Actually that's not true; if women can and do have the final word on wither to bring a child to term or not and men do not - which you've already accepted - then obviously men have less control over fertility (more correctly, reproduction) in the equation.

Honey-ec

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, you could divorce them - which, if you have children, means you're more than likely going to get financially crucified and see your kids one day a week (presuming no obstruction to access).

Not exactly a scenario that sells marriage to men, and that is what we're talking about here.

I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but that scenario can apply in any relationship breakdown where there are children involved, the couple in question don't have to be married.

My brother left the mother of his three children to be with someone else. They went to mediation and agreed that she would get the family home, on which he pays the full mortgage, and an extremely generous monthly allowance from him. She never worked while they were together, and still doesn't. Had they gone to court rather than being able to agree it via mediation, she'd probably have gotten pretty much the same deal.

But they weren't married. So perhaps we're asking the wrong question on this thread - I don't really think marriage is the issue here, tbh.

ETA: Incidentally, he married the woman he left her for within 6 months, so he clearly wasn't put off by his break-up experience either.

LeeHoffmann

There are too many points here to reply to them all so I´ll respond to the most pertinent ones.

Zulu, your tone is coming across as unnecessarily aggressive to me.

Some of us mean our vows when we take them

I assume your vows would also include treating each other with respect and love etc. I assume you would expect your partner not to make life-altering decisions for you? That would also be part of your vows.

I think this is largely because of who the OP was framed; implying that men already have a negative attitude twoards marriage and seeking to know why. So naturally, you're going to get a negative answer to that questio

n.
I agree with you and noted that in my first post. Notwithstanding, I was still shocked. Ok so, maybe it´s best to ask the question this way - would you say, men/tgc men have a negative attitude to marriage and kids? Maybe it´s a question for another thread.

That´s a fair point that if you divorce/separate, you (as a man) are unlikely to win custody and likely to end up paying maintenance, assuming the mother fights for sole custody etc. In that scenario, you would have a poor choice before you - stay with your wife and be a reluctant father, or leave and probably not have custody (assuming the reluctant father would want custody when the child is born). How often do you think a wife entraps her husband in such a manner? I´d hope it´s a very small minority.

Actually that's not true; if women can and do have the final word on wither to bring a child to term or not and men do not...then obviously men have less control over fertility (more correctly, reproduction)

You have a point but really how many genuine accidents are there? I´d say the number is small enough the make the gap between men´s and women´s control over reproduction negligible. I think my perspective on this issue is based on the assumption that genuine accidents and deliberate accidents are both pretty rare. Would you assume otherwise? Do you know otherwise (you may have some stats I don´t have)?

The Corinthian

Honey-ec wrote: »

I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but that scenario can apply in any relationship breakdown where there are children involved, the couple in question don't have to be married.

My brother left the mother of his three children to be with someone else. They went to mediation and agreed that she would get the family home, on which he pays the full mortgage, and an extremely generous monthly allowance from him. She never worked while they were together, and still doesn't. Had they gone to court rather than being able to agree it via mediation, she'd probably have gotten pretty much the same deal.

But they weren't married. So perhaps we're asking the wrong question on this thread - I don't really think marriage is the issue here, tbh.

True. The situation has become more complicated in Ireland since the Cohabitation Bill was enacted; this essentially gives a partner a right to claim the assets of the other partner and maintenance if they have been living together for five years (two if there's a child). It is automatic, although may be (somewhat) opted out of.

If your brother did this prior to the Cohabitation Bill coming into force or they had cohabited for under two years, then he did so entirely by choice - as she would have had absolutely no claim on his assets or for 'spousal' maintenance.

To put it in context; the lowest, District, court can award any amount up to €500 p.w. in spousal maintenance and €150 p.w. in child maintenance per child - before we even we talk about assets. So financially marriage makes a big difference.

Or at least it did because if he did fall under the act, he may ultimately have been advised that he had little choice and opted for mediation rather than risking the courts. Genuinely, I have no idea how comparable the rights of ex-partners are to ex-spouses under this law, so I can't comment further.

Another factor is that fear of being blocked by his ex may have made him choose to be generous; my cousin did this precisely because he knew that not giving his ex what she wanted would likely result in his being cut out of his daughters' lives.

But it's a fair point in that the distinction has decreased significantly, it's just many men don't have a clue about the what the Cohabitation bill means.

The Corinthian

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I agree with you and noted that in my first post. Notwithstanding, I was still shocked. Ok so, maybe it´s best to ask the question this way - would you say, men/tgc men have a negative attitude to marriage and kids? Maybe it´s a question for another thread.

The link to the marriage strike article in my first post here probably covers, at the most extreme negative end of the scale, why men have such attitudes in general.

I stress that this is the most extreme negative end of the scale - most men are not so pessimistic, but neither does that mean we're idiots either.

There are naturally many positive reasons for marriage too, but we weren't really asked about those.

How often do you think a wife entraps her husband in such a manner? I´d hope it´s a very small minority.

I don't have stats, so can't say. Anicdotally, I've seen at least three cases of married couples (already with children) where the wife decided to 'accidentally' go for another against her husband's wishes (or knowledge). Two of those resulted in the husband going for a vasectomy after the pregnancy announcement, without discussing it with the wife first. A fourth case involved a work colleague of my other half who was/is considering an 'accident' as she has two boys and wants to have a girl, while her husband wants to stop at two. Nothing has actually happened there to date though.

As for straight entrapment, I've come across a few cases, although not always to entrap a man. There appears to be an increasing incidence of single women in their thirties who are less interested about entrapping a man than having a child.

An ex of mine did this and fully admitted to me she did so without any interest in a relationship in the father (whom, I'll have to laugh when I say it, she met in a Bible group). No, she was not religious when I dated her, BTW.

So I can't comment on how prevalent this is, only that it does happen, especially within marriage.

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not full proof by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, I can imagine that many men would rush into marriage if that's what they have to look forward to.

Sure and when women have no choice but to go to term, keep and raise a child upon becoming pregnant, I'll take this sexist nonsense of yours seriously.

No method of contraception is foolproof as has been pointed out.

I don't know if I'm meant to take this he-man woman hating stuff about all those women who change and become manipulative bitches who trick their husbands into having babies seriously.

Yea, it happens, but I can't imagine very often. If a woman was that manipulative, you should certainly have an idea before marriage that she would lie to get what she wants so (apart from questioning why you married her) you should know to take your own precautions to avoid pregnancy. If you are that scared of having kids, wear a condom. End of.

Maybe try tight underpants - kill your little swimmers at source.

And how exactly is me saying men have responsibility for contraception as well as women sexist? And against which sex?

I'd love an explanation of that because I'm really confused.

The Corinthian

floggg wrote: »

I don't know if I'm meant to take this he-man woman hating stuff about all those women who change and become manipulative bitches who trick their husbands into having babies seriously.

Don't then. And I really don't know where you get this "he-man woman hating stuff" from. These things do happen, but even if it is purely accidental, it does not change the facts surrounding reproductive rights and their inevitable consequences.

If a woman was that manipulative, you should certainly have an idea before marriage that she would lie to get what she wants so (apart from questioning why you married her) you should know to take your own precautions to avoid pregnancy. If you are that scared of having kids, wear a condom. End of.

Maybe try tight underpants - kill your little swimmers at source.

Or maybe don't get married. Seems like a far less complicated solution TBH.

And how exactly is me saying men have responsibility for contraception as well as women sexist? And against which sex?

If that was your point, then it was a non sequitur to mine, which probably means you didn't understand what was being discussed.

Read back on the follow up posts, by me and others, related to that point and you may better understand.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

I stress that this is the most extreme negative end of the scale - most men are not so pessimistic, but neither does that mean we're idiots either.

This in a nutshell. No pun.

As for straight entrapment, I've come across a few cases, although not always to entrap a man. There appears to be an increasing incidence of single women in their thirties who are less interested about entrapping a man than having a child.

I've certainly noted a trend in women mates of mates who fell pregnant in their mid and late 30's on short termers and the same women had been very careful in their wild and wooly fair play )20's with nary a "scare" between them. Which is a little odd as women's fertility tends to drop off(as an average) after 30. It did seem the father in question wasn't too pursued to be overly involved. These would be well paid professional women so financial independence wouldnt be such an issue. Two admitted they wanted a child and that was that.

So I can't comment on how prevalent this is, only that it does happen, especially within marriage.

Of course this is entirely anecdotal and as birds of a feather may be in play, but I've most certainly observed this. Off the top of my head of the marriages I know with existing children in just under half of them the last child was an accident and the husband wanted to stop at the number of kids they already had. In one sorry excuse for a marriage/partnership she only slept with him until she got pregnant. Once he lied and said he'd had the snip when she was away on business and she threw him out of the house. TBH I blame him more than her as all the warning signs were there from the get go and he kept going back. Very weak man.

floggg wrote: »

Yea, it happens, but I can't imagine very often. If a woman was that manipulative, you should certainly have an idea before marriage that she would lie to get what she wants so (apart from questioning why you married her) you should know to take your own precautions to avoid pregnancy. If you are that scared of having kids, wear a condom. End of.

Great in theory, but if the guy's 6 years into a marriage and all that entails and he gets serious resistance about condoms, how is that going to go down? Me, I'd scrape someone like that off between heartbeats, but I'm cold that way, plus I know that there are many many women out there better than that, so she'd be replaceable. Many, if not most men wouldn't and often don't realise that. EG you get a guy whose stumbled into a couple of relationships in his life and feels lucky to get someone. His mindset is going to be different. On top of what he feels he'll lose(and often will) he's scared he's going to be alone. That kinda guy - and I know a few of them - will stay in an unhealthy situation. Just like some women who stay with/keep going back to abusive bastards and it makes no sense to outsiders.

fenris

Like it or not from the male perspective there is a huge reduction in personal freedom that goes with marriage and even more so when kids arrive.

You have to be very sure that you go in with your eyes open and have had your fun to a point that you will not spend your time lamenting lost opportunities and letting resentment build. The person that you marry has to be worth that trade off.

If things go well and stays well and everybody lives happily ever after then great.

If things don't go so well then the simple truth is that the male is the big loser in every way, family gone, ability to live in anything approaching pre-mariage quality of life gone, the sheer venom that men are exposed to in most breakups is quite shocking especially when the solicitors get involved, to me the real surprise is that so many of us get married in the first place!

For my part I am very happily married with great kids, but I am under no illusions as to how fast a married man can end up homeless / living in B&Bs living as an utter slave to a mortgage and maintenance check fighting a losing battle to maintain contact with your kids if things go bad.

It is no surprise to me that the level of suicide among men in those circumstances is so high.
I remember the funeral of a close friend of mine that committed suicide under those circumstances, there was actually an audible growl in the church when his ex had the cheek to walk up the aisle with the daughter that she wouldn't allow him to see in her arms and put a flower on the coffin she drove him into. Needless to say it fell off and was trampled underfoot when we lifted the coffin.

HellFireClub

lazygal wrote: »

There's a thread over in TLL about women leaving it too late to have children. I, and friends of mine, have all had experience of men not wanting to have the chat or getting cold feet/doing a runner if the subject of marriage and/or kids comes up.


So, gentlemen, does that talk freak you out? And given that women have a finite amount of time to get pregnant the 'natural' way, does that time limit have any bearing on your relationships? Do you feel there's a window for men being a father or are you happy enough to wait a little longer?

Given that I've heard stories from my female friends about their experiences with men, I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

I'm 36 & single, no kids and I totally reject the view that men do not have a "body clock". Obviously we do not have a physical body clock, and can "technically" father at children at any age, but seriously, who wants to be starting a family in their mid 40's or late 50's, which is only naturally possible if you find a partner years younger than you???

Where my head is at, at 36 years of age, (4 years shy of 40), I've pretty much accepted that I have been misfortunate enough not to have yet met someone who I can settle down and have kids with, so saving some sort of a miracle within the next 12 months, I very much doubt I'll have a family. If that passes me by, I doubt I'd get into a long term commitment thing again because for me, having a family is very central to being in a relationship at this particular stage of my life that I find myself in.

That sounds ridiculous to some people, but at the end of the day, if I met someone tomorrow, I'd (for my own reasons), have to put in a year or two with them before I'd be happy that there is a basic for a future together, which pushes me right up against the big four-zero, so again, there's no getting away from the age thing as I generally date girls who are very similar in age to me.

Have to add, it has been very infuriating personally, listening to people, particularly over the last 2 years, telling me: "ah you lads have all the time in the world", blah blah blah, ehhh, NO WE DON'T! Just like women, we want certain stages of our lives to be about certain things. For example, at 36, I've absolutely fúck all interest in standing around in nightclubs, etc, whereas that wasn't the case when I was 24. In the same way, I would rather be in a long term relationship now at this present age and be looking at starting a family.


I'd be convicted enough of everything I've said above, to state openly on here, that if you are in a long term relationship with a guy who will not have this conversation with you and if you are in your 30's, then if you want kids, I think you'd seriously need to consider if you are in the right relationship or not. If a guy doesn't want to settle down and have kids with you and you are in a long term relationship with him, then there is something seriously wrong there I think, (unless he doesn't want kids at all, which is something that you should have been aware of from the get-go I think)...

So there's my 2 cents worth on this subject!

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

I don't know if I'm meant to take this he-man woman hating stuff about all those women who change and become manipulative bitches who trick their husbands into having babies seriously.

Don't then. And I really don't know where you get this "he-man woman hating stuff" from. These things do happen, but even if it is purely accidental, it does not change the facts surrounding reproductive rights and their inevitable consequences.

If a woman was that manipulative, you should certainly have an idea before marriage that she would lie to get what she wants so (apart from questioning why you married her) you should know to take your own precautions to avoid pregnancy. If you are that scared of having kids, wear a condom. End of.

Maybe try tight underpants - kill your little swimmers at source.

Or maybe don't get married. Seems like a far less complicated solution TBH.

And how exactly is me saying men have responsibility for contraception as well as women sexist? And against which sex?

If that was your point, then it was a non sequitur to mine, which probably means you didn't understand what was being discussed.

Read back on the follow up posts, by me and others, related to that point and you may better understand.

Why don't you just explain what you meant rather than trying to be condescending.

Your comment about sexism was made below a quote from me talking about men taking responsibility for contraception. Logical to assume that's what you were referring to.

But if it wasn't, then in what way was I being sexist?