Having the 'marriage and kids' talk.

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?

HellFireClub

fenris wrote: »

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.

I have a close friend who is currently going through the worst of the situation you have portrayed above and when I look at him and what he has to now endure, (he wasn't married but had a kid with this girl and they took out a joint mortgage, subsequently broke up, she has the house, he pays the mortgage, she has moved another guy in, while he is living back with his parents), you'd have to ask yourself sometimes is being single (and careful!), a blessing in disguise...

Honey-ec

HellFireClub wrote: »

I have a close friend who is currently going through the worst of the situation you have portrayed above and when I look at him and what he has to now endure, (he wasn't married but had a kid with this girl and they subsequently broke up, she has the house, he pays the mortgage, she has moved another guy in, while he is living back with his parents), you'd have to ask yourself sometimes is being single (and careful!), a blessing in disguise...

But this is the point I was making, I don't think marriage is the issue at all, it's the complications that kids bring along.

And people wonder why I wouldn't "just" have a child to keep my husband happy... :rolleyes:

HellFireClub

Honey-ec wrote: »

But this is the point I was making, I don't think marriage is the issue at all, it's the complications that kids bring along.

And people wonder why I wouldn't "just" have a child to keep my husband happy... :rolleyes:

You might well have a point there.

EDIT: Thought I think (although I accept it isn't always the case these days I think in around 40% of childbirths these days being outside of marriage), but when people think of commitment these days, there is still the "I want to be married before I have kids", mentality out there, although it obviously doesn't always work out that way in practice.

Wibbs

HellFireClub wrote: »

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???

I suppose it depends on a few factors. For me I never really had the feeling of my body clock for a couple of reasons. The males in my family traditionally live long and pretty healthy lives(and tend to marry later). My dad didn't get married until he was 50 and he lived well into my 30's. Growing up I didn't see any diff. I mean at father and son and father races at my school sports days he won more medals than I did It's only now I realise he had at least 2 decades on most of the fathers there. People age at different rates, especially between the ears. In my experience I've found this to be doubly so for men. I knew a lot of "middle aged" men in their 20's who are near oul fellas in their 40's. Stuck in a mindset kinda thing and very conscious of the number of candles on a birthday cake. I've found that impacts them physically too, or maybe one informs the other?

In any event, I'd not be so sure about your particular future. I knew a guy who came out of a very unhealthy long termer at 39. Actually she dumped him and he was a wreck. Now in his late 40's he has a great lifestyle and a wonderful long term partner and a kid. You just never know.

The Corinthian

floggg wrote: »

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

Because I already did explain and others understood. The posts are still there, so there's nothing stopping you from reading over them again.

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

Because I had presumed you'd actually understood the point in question; that women have far greater control over reproduction than men and if they get pregnant and don't want to be then they don't have to be - happens all the time.

Men on the other hand have no such options, so that suggesting that as a solution whereby we should not have sex in the first place because we have to be more responsible than women is offensive and sexist at the very least.

If this was not your intention, because you misunderstood the original point, then fair enough. However, I'd rather not discuss this point any further, as I genuinely do not want to help drag this discussion down an OT rabbit hole.

The Corinthian

Honey-ec wrote: »

But this is the point I was making, I don't think marriage is the issue at all, it's the complications that kids bring along.

True, but married with child is a lot more complicated than unmarried with child, fewer parental rights notwithstanding.

Caveat: As I suggested before, with the Cohabitation bill, this distinction may largely have become moot.

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

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

Because I already did explain and others understood. The posts are still there, so there's nothing stopping you from reading over them again.

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

Because I had presumed you'd actually understood the point in question; that women have far greater control over reproduction than men and if they get pregnant and don't want to be then they don't have to be - happens all the time.

Men on the other hand have no such options, so that suggesting that as a solution whereby we should not have sex in the first place because we have to be more responsible than women is offensive and sexist at the very least.

If this was not your intention, because you misunderstood the original point, then fair enough. However, I'd rather not discuss this point any further, as I genuinely do not want to help drag this discussion down an OT rabbit hole.

I suggested you use condoms or abstain if you don't want a baby or a vasectomy. That's not sexist, it's common sense.

Women don't have (significantly) greater control over contraception than men (I don't know what the statistics are for pill etc v condom). They do have inordinately greater control over termination of a pregnancy.

Maybe we might be crossing wires here, but no way in hell is the idea of requiring men take responsibility for contraception or avoiding pregnancy sexist.

I'm saying it's a matter for both parties and you cannot say its down to one or the other.

If a man engages in any form of vaginal intercourse, he has to take responsibility for the consequences.

While its not foolproof, you should always wear a condom if you don't want a child. If for whatever reason you don't, you can't complain if your partner didn't take appropriate responsibility for contraception on their end.

That said, I do recognise that men are at a disadvantage if conception occurs with regard to whether the baby is carried to term in that they have little or no say in that regard.

If that was your point, then I would be somewhat in agreement, though I think once you become sexually active you accept there are consequences to your actions - particularly given that as a matter of Irish law women don't actually have a choice in that regard either (though obviously in practice abortion is easily available in the UK).

Zulu

floggg wrote: »

I suggested you use condoms or abstain if you don't want a baby or a vasectomy. That's not sexist, it's common sense.

It's common sense for teenagers perhaps; it's common sense in a black and white world, but it ignores completely how married life works.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

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

Please accept my apologies, that's not my intention; tone doesn't travel well on the interweb.

I assume your vows would also include treating each other with respect and love etc.

A person could readily justify wanting to have a child against the same. It happens.

I assume you would expect your partner not to make life-altering decisions for you?

You would do, but thats not always the case.

floggg

Zulu wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

I suggested you use condoms or abstain if you don't want a baby or a vasectomy. That's not sexist, it's common sense.

It's common sense for teenagers perhaps; it's common sense in a black and white world, but it ignores completely how married life works.

If you can't have an open and frank discussion about contraception and children, come up with a mutually satisfactory approach to contraception and prepare to deal with any resulting pregnancy in a mutually agreeable and respectful manner, you have no business being married.