Having the 'marriage and kids' talk.

The Corinthian

goingpostal1 wrote: »

Well, the topic of the thread is "marriage and kids", in The Gentlemans Club, so I can safely say that, for a man, being married with even one child, is going to be WAY more expensive than being single.

I agree, but we were making a comparison between being married or not, with all other factors being the same.

johnr1 wrote: »

However, I don't think this is the main reason at all. I doubt many men go through this kind of detailed analysis on the potential dangers and costs of marriage and consider divorce a likely outcome when the discussion comes up.

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree there. Almost any male friend I know who was about to get married has certainly admitted to this being a concern, although whether they went through a detailed analysis or not, I cannot say.

My feeling is that most men don't go through a detailed analysis, simply because most people don't seem to go through much detailed analysis of their big life decisions - if they did, I suspect the property bubble would not have gotten quite as big as it did.

In my opinion, far more guys just don't want to give up the 'option' of leaving at any moment if someone hotter/ prettier becomes available to them. The fact that they've been with the same woman for 7 years and that Cheryl Cole still hasn't begged them to run away with her yet is lost on them, - "It could still happen dammit"

That's undoubtedly one reason (although the older you get the more you do resign yourself to the reality that Cheryl Cole is not going to be knocking on your door). The cost of divorce is only of several one reason why men men delay or even avoid marriage - it just happened to be the one that seemed to get everyone talking here.

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

The way it's being put forward in this thread, it seems like that once a couple are living together for 5 years (or 2 with kids), s/he automatically has a right to maintenance.

S/he automatically has a right to claim for maintenance and a share of the assets of their partner, in essentially the same way as a married spouse would.

Take a couple, no kids, living together 6 years, both financially independent, the relationship goes tits up. Both walk away without court because they're financially independent.

No, the right to claim on the other remains, just as it would with a married couple - whether they choose to exercise that right or not is another matter.

And whether they're both financially independent or not, it may well not make a difference because if one earns more than the other, they could well be awarded maintenance, as happens with married couples where both earn, but one more than the other.

Nonetheless, as this law is new, it remains to be seen how similar to marriage long-term concubinage is treated in actual practice.

Wibbs

johnr1 wrote: »

In my opinion, far more guys just don't want to give up the 'option' of leaving at any moment if someone hotter/ prettier becomes available to them.

Oh I'm sure some do alright J, but looking around my male mates I'm not so sure that's that common. Not after say 25 anyway and not if they're in the "in love" phase. Actually IMHO and IME women tend to be more about keeping options open for longer, as a generalisation of course. They generally have more options up to 30 odd anyway as it's a "sellers market". Doubly so if considered attractive. A generally very good sign of this type of personality is the woman whose never been single in her adult life. They go from one relationship to the next, often with overlap. Not always, but usually a bad sign.

For me, beyond my cynicism what goingpostal outlined here would be more in play;

goingpostal1 wrote: »

In a houseshare situation, all those are up for grabs, and, in my experience, women usually end up getting their way

This has been my experience too and I don't back down too easily which has scuppered some relationships in my past. I don't buy into the "I have the bewbs and control access to them so I bend the rules in my favour" type stuff, or worse the "I better capitulate for the Quiet Life(tm) or she'll go off on one". If I even sniff a hint of that I get well peed off. I want an equal relationship, not a leader follower one(regardless of which gender is which position) However I'd add a caveat here. I know women who aren't like that, so clearly I pick/am more attracted to those kind of women who do pull this stuff. It's down to me there, more than Women(tm). That said given my previous choices I'm not so sure I'd trust myself too much to make the right choice in the future so...

Quorum

johnr1 wrote: »

In my opinion, far more guys just don't want to give up the 'option' of leaving at any moment if someone hotter/ prettier becomes available to them.

I hope there aren'y that many men around like that, because that's a bit tragic. :-/ I suspect not, though I'm sure there would certain subgroup that would. My BF reckons many men will stay in a bad relationship longer than perhaps they should if the GF is stunning but that eventually they come to their senses.

seenitall

johnr1 wrote: »

In my opinion, far more guys just don't want to give up the 'option' of leaving at any moment if someone hotter/ prettier becomes available to them. The fact that they've been with the same woman for 7 years and that Cheryl Cole still hasn't begged them to run away with her yet is lost on them, - "It could still happen dammit"

Spot on. I know someone like this, in a very long-term and "serious" relationship. He's like the walking definition of commitment-phobia, and it's nothing to do with money. (Then again, I also know someone who is about money when talking about a hypothetical commitment, so IME, both povs are out there!)

Sorry to read about the messiness, johnr1. And the best of luck and happiness on the second go!

Having read through this thread, I ain't ever getting divorced! All the nasty implications scared the life out of me. We have such a good co-parenting relationship now. I shall stay happily separated forever. (I guess it will happen eventually, if my ex ever gets a yen to marry his current gf.)

AnnyHallsal

I'm 30. My boyfriend ended our six-year relationship last month because it "had run its course." The break-up came as a complete shock. We'd been all but living together and I thought very happy. It turned out he was bored. I guess the "warning signs" started a year ago. He said for the first time ever he did not want children. In the past he'd spoken about marriage and children (for us) as an inevitability - picked out names for our kids! When he raised the no kids thing, I was alarmed, not because I knew I wanted them myself, but because I feared what he really meant was that he didn't want to have children with me. He denied this strenuously, said he was committed to a future with me, and a year passed, I thought happily.

I know he left me because he wasn't ready for our relationship to be 'it.' He wanted to have more adventures (I believe) though when he broke up he said he was done with long-term relationships, that they just didn't work. It's a little ironic that one of the things I found so attractive about him at the beginning was that he wanted a long-term relationship, spoke sweetly about growing old together. Looking back, he was so young, with no experience. But I loved him and the vision he created.

Now, in early dates I would be alert to whatever a man said about commitment, and try to believe them. In general conversation attitudes often make themselves apparent. At this point I'd run from anyone who said they wanted no commitment whatsoever, not because I'm actively seeking commitment, but because I don't want to grow attached to someone who doesn't want to attach.

I wonder is there a significant gap between men and women on this, have times changed, will more men stay single longer, more women fail to find someone to build a life with. Personally, the thought of long-term singlehood doesn't bother me. Meeting someone who wants a companion would be nice but perhaps a pipe-dream if this thread is anything to go by Regardless, I'm going with honesty. F*ck game-playing or pretending it's all just a bit of fun. Cards on table. Like it or leave.

OnTheCouch

johnr1 wrote: »

In my opinion, far more guys just don't want to give up the 'option' of leaving at any moment if someone hotter/ prettier becomes available to them. The fact that they've been with the same woman for 7 years and that Cheryl Cole still hasn't begged them to run away with her yet is lost on them, - "It could still happen dammit"

This is fairly accurate in my opinion. Judging from the men I know, I would say 80 percent of them (especially those not being particularly handsome, charismatic, well-dressed etc), have tended to settle in the last seven to eight years or so. This does not necessarily mean getting married straight away, but rather moving in together, reducing the socialising, looking at house prices, all the things that as a general rule slowly but surely lead to marriage, with someone they believe looks-wise they, in their minds at least, realistically cannot do better than. Until they find this better ranked person, they will always be thinking the grass is greener as a general rule. Most of my friends who fit into the aforementioned category tend to be going out with women that are better looking than they are, so have settled in a way, but if this were not the case I suspect they would still be looking around.

Excuse the crude use of numbers here, but for example if a '4' male manages to attract a '7' female, whether this be through his personality, prospects, confidence etc and they go out for a number of months, the chances are fairly high then that he will want to settle and probably eventually get married. Simply because unless he is particularly good with women, he is likely not to have that many offers of her calibre. The likelihood of her also settling is (sorry for any romanticists reading) likely to be down to her age, if she is under 23 for instance and she thinks she can do better, she'll probably want to see what else is out there. Over 25 and she is probably thinking about getting to the settling down stage, but may or may not still be in two minds. Over 30 and then the tables have turned, as the biological injustices for women mean if they want children that they have to seriously be considering marriage (or at the very least settling down properly).

Then, to quote from Wibbs, the women cease to become the sellers and are forced to make a quick purchase. If a woman is 32-33 let's say, she can't really afford to wait around for three years of dating on and off to see if the man is right for her as she could in her teens and twenties, only to have to start the whole cycle over again. Harsh but true.

So anyway, the common wisdom is that the best matches are two people who are similar on the looks scale. I myself do not believe this is true, but would still maintain that if there is an imbalance, there has to be compensation for the looks somewhere. Of course ugly women can go out with attractive men also, so it's not necessarily one way.

Therefore, whereas I believe that most men are realistic enough to know that they won't be going out with Cheryl Cole any time soon, but still may want to bag someone higher up on the scale than they are. I think this is what stops many men from committing before the age of 40-45, when they realise that they aren't getting any younger and might as well stick with what they have.

OnTheCouch

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'm sure some do alright J, but looking around my male mates I'm not so sure that's that common. Not after say 25 anyway and not if they're in the "in love" phase. Actually IMHO and IME women tend to be more about keeping options open for longer, as a generalisation of course. They generally have more options up to 30 odd anyway as it's a "sellers market". Doubly so if considered attractive. A generally very good sign of this type of personality is the woman whose never been single in her adult life. They go from one relationship to the next, often with overlap. Not always, but usually a bad sign.

For me, beyond my cynicism what goingpostal outlined here would be more in play;



This has been my experience too and I don't back down too easily which has scuppered some relationships in my past. I don't buy into the "I have the bewbs and control access to them so I bend the rules in my favour" type stuff, or worse the "I better capitulate for the Quiet Life(tm) or she'll go off on one". If I even sniff a hint of that I get well peed off. I want an equal relationship, not a leader follower one(regardless of which gender is which position) However I'd add a caveat here. I know women who aren't like that, so clearly I pick/am more attracted to those kind of women who do pull this stuff. It's down to me there, more than Women(tm). That said given my previous choices I'm not so sure I'd trust myself too much to make the right choice in the future so...

Wibbs I believed for a short while when I was reading your last paragraph, that it was some memoir of mine, such was the degree that I could relate to what you were saying.:D I used to believe that I was in fact the odd one out when telling my friends and family that my relationship broke up because I would not stand for the girlfriend wanting to change aspects of my life which I believed were going far beyond the limits of what a 50-50 relationship should be. The amount of times I heard people say 'it's just easier in the long run to let her have her way' used to incense me. Even my father, who generally I hold in the highest esteem when it comes to giving advice, used to take this stance. Everyone then used to say it was my fault that we broke up, because I was too stubborn and inflexible.

For whatever reason, whether it is feminism or something else, it does appear that modern-day society feels much more at ease in general with the woman being in charge, as if the man calling the shots, or God forbid an equal relationship was somehow akin to her being abused in some way. This does get on my nerves, because as you say Wibbs, there are plenty of women out there who are perfectly happy with the man making the decisions (or at least the practical ones). Sometimes I look at my friends' relationships and they claim they are not under the thumb, but it appears to everyone else as if they are. I suppose women can always withold sex, give the silent treatment and so on, but I am convinced in a modern, healthy relationship, all these juvenile acts of power can be avoided by talking things through. I suspect they are mainly tests by the woman to see how far she can get away with being domineering.

The counter argument of course to this is that many men say that they simply do not care what shade of blue or green the walls are and just let the women get on with it which is fair enough. I just think that because sex is so important to most men, SOMETIMES the women can withold it and partake in other such acts to retain a position of power which to me is not a sign of a healthy relationship.

Anyway, sorry to go off on a tangent and derail the thread somewhat, was just so pleased when I saw someone shared my opinion on this matter!

larrymickdick

Does marriage and children have to be intertwined? Because you've gotten married now you must have kids or vice versa?

I'm 32 - I love my partner but I don't need to get married to show that to him. I don't need to be married as we live together and I don't see how being married makes me any more committed to him than I already am. Being married doesn't make it any easier or harder to leave someone.

I would love to have kids with him. But my life isn't over if we don't. I know I want to spend the rest of my life with him - with or without kids. I can't comment the same for him. I know that if marriage/kids came along it would be a bonus - I know he would be an amazing father and although I panic at the thought of being a mother (just losing my independence and having a little person relying on me 24/7) I think I would be a good mother.

We haven't discussed seriously kids or marriage as we are both still trying to achieve things for ourselves but that road is way, way in the future if it happens. My ovaries aren't quivering constantly for kids - if it happens - it happens - if it doesn't just go with it. Such is life. I love him and happy don't feel the need to change anything.

Sleepy

Married fathers have it bad enough in the Irish Family Courts system if the relationship breaks down, unmarried fathers are almost entirely at the mercy of their ex-partners.

The Corinthian

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Therefore, whereas I believe that most men are realistic enough to know that they won't be going out with Cheryl Cole any time soon, but still may want to bag someone higher up on the scale than they are. I think this is what stops many men from committing before the age of 40-45, when they realise that they aren't getting any younger and might as well stick with what they have.

This is to a great degree true, and indeed true for both sexes. However, as has been discussed at the start of this thread (before it became dominated with the consequences of marriage failing), men have a good ten years longer than women before we 'have' to settle down - women have reproductive limitations that force the issue much sooner. This leads to a scenario whereby a woman at 28 may feel the need to settle down, while her 30-year old boyfriend may well not feel the same pressure for at least five years.

OnTheCouch wrote: »

The counter argument of course to this is that many men say that they simply do not care what shade of blue or green the walls are and just let the women get on with it which is fair enough. I just think that because sex is so important to most men, SOMETIMES the women can withold it and partake in other such acts to retain a position of power which to me is not a sign of a healthy relationship.

I don't think you're being entirely fair in this regard. Men can and do give their partners/wives the 'silent treatment', we also will withhold sex (it depends a lot on the relative sex drives of both). Men 'nag' too - especially where it comes to what's on the menu in the bedroom, for example.

As to 'equal' relationships, you also have to examine what you mean by that. Of course one partner will seek for the other to change. This does not mean that the relationship is unequal, because if changes are demanded on both sides it can still remain an equitable compromise overall. It is only when one partner changes to suit the other and the other does not reciprocate that you get problems.

larrymickdick wrote: »

Does marriage and children have to be intertwined? Because you've gotten married now you must have kids or vice versa?

It does seem to be the single biggest reason why people in the past, under 40, who have been previously cohabitation, do get married - typically that they're planning to have kids, in my experience.

That's not to say that it's the only reason, by a long stretch, but it's difficult to deny that it does appear a major motivator behind many marriages.

It does raise the question though; outside purely utilitarian arguments such as tax breaks and a handful of statutory right, why would one want to get married? The focus of this discussion has been largely on why men would not want to get married, that we could ask why women would want to get married and why this does not seem to translate to men?

johnr1

Onthecouch, you have explained my point better than I could myself

This is fairly accurate in my opinion. Judging from the men I know, I would say 80 percent of them (especially those not being particularly handsome, charismatic, well-dressed etc), have tended to settle in the last seven to eight years or so. This does not necessarily mean getting married straight away, but rather moving in together, reducing the socialising, looking at house prices, all the things that as a general rule slowly but surely lead to marriage, with someone they believe looks-wise they, in their minds at least, realistically cannot do better than.

Excuse the crude use of numbers here, but for example if a '4' male manages to attract a '7' female, whether this be through his personality, prospects, confidence etc and they go out for a number of months, the chances are fairly high then that he will want to settle and probably eventually get married. Simply because unless he is particularly good with women, he is likely not to have that many offers of her calibre. The likelihood of her also settling is (sorry for any romanticists reading) likely to be down to her age, if she is under 23 for instance and she thinks she can do better, she'll probably want to see what else is out there. Over 25 and she is probably thinking about getting to the settling down stage. Over 30 and then the tables have turned, as the biological injustices for women mean if they want children that they have to seriously be considering marriage (or at the very least settling down properly).

Then, to quote from another poster, the women cease to become the sellers and are forced to make a quick purchase. If a woman is 32-33 let's say, she can't really afford to wait around for three years of dating on and off to see if the man is right for her, only to have to start the whole cycle over again. Harsh but true.

Sadly - Yes, and this can lead to serious problems down the line. If you think of a man of 32, 33, he (unless balding and not shaving it) will often be only approaching the height of his good looks, he will be better paid, and probably more confident than in his life, thus giving him a serious advantage over a woman of the same age in the Market. He's thus under no pressure to settle at all, whereas the woman is struggling with a time window.

So anyway, the common wisdom is that the best matches are two people who are similar on the looks scale. I myself do not believe this is true, but would still maintain that if there is an imbalance, there has to be compensation for the looks somewhere.

This is a subject I find fascinating and would make a good thread on it's own

Therefore, whereas I believe that most men are realistic enough to know that they won't be going out with Cheryl Cole any time soon, but still may want to bag someone higher up on the scale than they are. I think this is what stops many men from committing before the age of 40-45, when they realise that they aren't getting any younger and might as well stick with what they have.

Exactly, - the Cheryl reference was just an extreme example

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Married fathers have it bad enough in the Irish Family Courts system if the relationship breaks down, unmarried fathers are almost entirely at the mercy of their ex-partners.

I don't know if there's much difference any more, unless it's an occult difference.

Would a couple who were happily cohabiting and break up when their child is a few years old be treated any differently than a married couple in the same circumstances?

Certainly guardianship would be automatic for the married man, but even presuming an unmarried one never applies for it, what does it really get you? Mainly rights that are pretty much unenforceable and ignored, from what I can see - and if the proposals for guardianship reform, from the last government, ever became law, those rights would be demoted to a consultative status for all men, regardless of marital status.

The only difference I can think of is if a court actively discriminates against a man on the basis of his marital status with the mother. I don't honestly know if this is the case, or if so how widespread.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

The focus of this discussion has been largely on why men would not want to get married, that we could ask why women would want to get married and why this does not seem to translate to men?

We must have vastly different social circles The Corinthian. You are assuming women want marriage more than men. It is the complete opposite in my experience. I have friends who refuse to marry the guy they are with, because they want to retain all the rights to the children if things go sour. (selfishly in my opinion)

Also, as more men than women are currently unemployed after the housing crash, there are many many women who will not marry someone who is financially unstable. These women are better off single, even as a single parent.

Even in this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056769438
Many men there list their primary aim in life is to be married.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

We must have vastly different social circles The Corinthian. You are assuming women want marriage more than men.

Actually, this assumption was introduced by the OP. I'm just running with it.

I have friends who refuse to marry the guy they are with, because they want to retain all the rights to the children if things go sour. (selfishly in my opinion)

I don't see why, because if the man sues for guardianship (which he'll nost likely be awarded), there's no difference - ultimately, exercise of parental rights are de facto tied to primary custody in Ireland.

Also, as more men than women are currently unemployed after the housing crash, there are many many women who will not marry someone who is financially unstable. These women are better off single, even as a single parent.

You may well be right - not having lived in Ireland since before the bubble burst, I'm out of touch on that one. Another factor is that in many cases women can already have the same financial rights as a married woman now thanks to the Cohabitation Act and that too may have changed attitudes.

All I can say is that in my experience women generally would have been more interested in marriage than men, but I completely accept that this may well have largely changed in recent years. Men have finally become disposable, it seems.

Even in this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056769438
Many men there list their primary aim in life is to be married.

Not sure if that's a fair example. I'm sure most men (including me) would see marriage as an attractive goal when discussed in the abstract of doing so with 'Miss Right' at some point in the distant future - indeed, most of the 'aims' listed in that thread are pretty abstract and, in some cases, even based on fantasy.

When faced with actually 'settling down' in reality, you'll find that such aspirations will evaporate for most of those posters.

OnTheCouch

OK

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you're being entirely fair in this regard. Men can and do give their partners/wives the 'silent treatment', we also will withhold sex (it depends a lot on the relative sex drives of both). Men 'nag' too - especially where it comes to what's on the menu in the bedroom, for example.

The Corinthian, I probably should have qualified my post as being based on my own experience and what I see on TV programmes/films which are supposed to be loosely based on real life, whether they are or not is another matter. Anyway, I am not naive enough to believe that men do not give the silent treatment on occasion, as I am sure that it does happen. I would state in my opinion, however, doing this for the man would be a lot riskier, given general male-female dynamics, which could lead to her straying, although this is just a hunch of mine and not grounded in anything I have read for example. One could argue on the other hand that doing this would really shock the woman, as men are on the whole considered to be the instigators of sexual relations.

As to 'equal' relationships, you also have to examine what you mean by that. Of course one partner will seek for the other to change. This does not mean that the relationship is unequal, because if changes are demanded on both sides it can still remain an equitable compromise overall. It is only when one partner changes to suit the other and the other does not reciprocate that you get problems.

Equal relationships are tricky to define, the ideal is obviously a 50/50 divide, but in practice I believe one is always slightly more in charge than the other, not that this is necessarily a personality thing. It may simply come down to something as mundane as who is the breadwinner and/or who controls the finances. I think that having as close a decision-making process as possible between the two is ideal, but this is not an exact science either and as you say, as long as one partner does not push too hard for unreasonable change on the behalf of the other, then the relationship should remain harmonious.

johnr1 wrote: »

Sadly - Yes, and this can lead to serious problems down the line. If you think of a man of 32, 33, he (unless balding and not shaving it) will often be only approaching the height of his good looks, he will be better paid, and probably more confident than in his life, thus giving him a serious advantage over a woman of the same age in the Market. He's thus under no pressure to settle at all, whereas the woman is struggling with a time window.


Yes, this is very true and demonstrates all too well why large age gaps where the male is a good bit older than the female can often work out well. A man in his thirties is likely to be fairly confident, better dressed and is still a long way away from the stage where his looks start to go downhill rapidly. He should generally be more financially solvent in addition, but in times of crisis, I would not automatically guarantee that currently!

Conversely I have seen many cases where women in their early-mid thirties actually go out with men 5-7 years younger and get the marriage and first child sorted within two years. I wonder is this a direct consequence of the men of their own age being in no hurry to settle, which forces the women to actively seek out younger, more laid back, go-with-the-flow type men?


So anyway, the common wisdom is that the best matches are two people who are similar on the looks scale. I myself do not believe this is true, but would still maintain that if there is an imbalance, there has to be compensation for the looks somewhere.

This is a subject I find fascinating and would make a good thread on it's own

Yes I do find it fascinating also! Maybe you or I should start up a thread once this one has run out of steam!

Emeraldy Pebbles

johnr1 wrote: »

Sadly - Yes, and this can lead to serious problems down the line. If you think of a man of 32, 33, he (unless balding and not shaving it) will often be only approaching the height of his good looks, he will be better paid, and probably more confident than in his life, thus giving him a serious advantage over a woman of the same age in the Market. He's thus under no pressure to settle at all, whereas the woman is struggling with a time window.

Well, I'd say the times window is only a major issue for a woman if she wants kiddies. Unless you're also talking about deteriorating looks, in which case, fair point. Though, not all men get better with age, it should be said.

JuliusCaesar

I'm a bit surprised that people haven't mentioned that after divorce, poverty levels of women increase dramatically - another link.

Single men are generally unhappier than single women, mainly because women tend to have close and confiding friendships and greater social networks. They also tend to have pets, and to be very attached to them. Men tend to look for their partner to be their (often only) close and confiding relationship.

Of course, like any generalisation, these are generalisations going on averages and there will be a lot of anecdotes/individual cases which differ.



However, it is time as a society that we re-think the whole idea of life-long marriages. Marriage is likely to last a lot longer now than at any other time in history. I earlier times, women died more frequently in childbirth, and many people died a lot younger from accidents and disorders which can now be cured or managed.

If we set up a society in which people committed to each other but didn't see this as life-long, but in which there is some sort of set up for ensuring that property is divided fairly, and that children did not suffer, then maybe there wouldn't be as much recrimination or acrimony on separation/divorce.

Of course some of this is economic; the average family is no better off now with both parents working outside the home than they were in the 60s when women stopped working on marriage/arrival of children. The big difference is the price of houses; but the increased ability to pay a mortgage with two wages is almost eaten up with the necessity for increased spending to allow both to work.

I'd really like to see people trying to work out a new kind of relationships that would work, and what social supports and social attitudinal change would be necessary to allow these become reality.

The Corinthian

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I'm a bit surprised that people haven't mentioned that after divorce, poverty levels of women increase dramatically - another link.

To begin with, I don't think anyone has suggested that the financial situation of wives does not suffer as a result of divorce. After all, the same assets and income suddenly has to support two households, rather than one, and unless we can magically get blood out of a stone, there will be a drop in lifestyle on all sides.

As to who does worse, the articles you cite are open to criticism. The second one is particularly suspect; for example it cites "45.2 percent of custodial mothers not receiving child support were living below the poverty line" which is a pretty blatant bias - a bit like deriving national cancer levels by examining only smokers.

Single men are generally unhappier than single women, mainly because women tend to have close and confiding friendships and greater social networks. They also tend to have pets, and to be very attached to them. Men tend to look for their partner to be their (often only) close and confiding relationship.

That sounds more like an argument in favour of men changing our attitudes twoards relationships in general - twoards something more like how women deal with confiding friendships and social networks - rather than a reason for men to be married.

As for single men tending to have pets, that's news to me. I don't think I know a single, single man with a pet.

However, it is time as a society that we re-think the whole idea of life-long marriages. Marriage is likely to last a lot longer now than at any other time in history. I earlier times, women died more frequently in childbirth, and many people died a lot younger from accidents and disorders which can now be cured or managed.

If we set up a society in which people committed to each other but didn't see this as life-long, but in which there is some sort of set up for ensuring that property is divided fairly, and that children did not suffer, then maybe there wouldn't be as much recrimination or acrimony on separation/divorce.

Of course some of this is economic; the average family is no better off now with both parents working outside the home than they were in the 60s when women stopped working on marriage/arrival of children. The big difference is the price of houses; but the increased ability to pay a mortgage with two wages is almost eaten up with the necessity for increased spending to allow both to work.

I'd really like to see people trying to work out a new kind of relationships that would work, and what social supports and social attitudinal change would be necessary to allow these become reality.

I do broadly agree here. To begin with we live longer than in the past (how much is difficult to tell as most figures I've found tend to include infant mortality which naturally will skew the final average), and this is a factor - a life-long commitment is a lot easier when it's going to only last 20 years before you die, rather than 40 years.

The modern nature of divorce, being 'no fault', also makes it less stable, in that you don't actually need a reason to end a marriage. Previously divorce, and annulments, could only be effectuated through a breach in the marriage contract. Marriage, as a result, has become the only contract in law, that may be broken by either party unilaterally, without penalty for breaking it.

In my mind, as I've repeatedly pointed out, there is a desperate need for us to look critically at what marriage is now. Regrettably, it has become a temporary union masquerading as a permanent one, in that we seem to be in denial about this social shift and continue to pretend that it really is 'till death do you part'.

Unless we decide to de-legalize divorce again, we have to accept this new reality and change the laws surrounding it - that are particularly out of step in Ireland - to reflect it.

JuliusCaesar

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for single men tending to have pets, that's news to me. I don't think I know a single, single man with a pet.

My bad, the 'they' in my sentence referred to women - and everyone knows about single women and pets! But it does seem to work in helping to ward off depression. (Very off topic, but this is why 'pet therapy' was introduced to old people's homes.)

Daisy78

As a woman I would never force a man to marry me If I thought he had hesitations about doing it. Marriage should be something you both want, not because you have been hen pecked into it. Though I concede that there are women who do this.

Totally disagree with the posters who maintain a man can hook up with women many years their junior. Maybe biology isn't a limiting factor for.men in their forties to finding a younger partner and starting a family.but I can't think of a single one of my female friends (late twenties, early thirties) who would consider a man forty plus as a potential partner. It's just too much of an age gap which would only become more apparent down the line. A friend of a friend is the one exception, she is going out with a good looking guy in his mid forties, but there was a lot of head scratching amongst her friends when she did start going out with him. We feel it is too much for her to take on but each to their own I suppose.

Also as regards the idea that a good personality, confidence, prospects will make up for a lack of physical attraction on a woman's part be they a 2 or a 10 is I'm afraid a bit delusional. No woman will ever lie there and think " well the sex was mediocre but at least he is a good conversationalist, we can have a nice chat later". In other words attraction has to be equally matched or the whole thing will go pear shaped in the end. Surely men want their partner to be as physically attracted to them as vice versa? you cannot compensate for a lack of physical attraction IME.

Snowie

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.

Hey, nope the above things don't bother me, I think if you allow the above to bother you freak out to things that are entirely natural for some people. I think its about excepting change.

Time limit of pregnancy with a potential gf/wife is certainly not on my mind.
Being honest I would'nt have much of a problem at adopting obviously there's two people involved in that situation but it a possible choice!

I known and meet of a few women who had bf and were engaged but they just didnt feel like they were with the right person! So they broke up

Which isnt nesscerilly a bad thing pretty instinctive and mindful of them... I kinda find that Im more like to respect some who who pays attention to them selves like that, the amount of confidence and change they had to except well its pretty admirable really..

So i my opinion people do what right for them, i think women are generally a little more instinctive with men where as men will happily blunder into something with out paying to much attention to them selves or the mrs... But i think id be the same if i wasnt feeling something in my gut then I wouldn't even bother asking or having kids with a woman if I didn't feel it would go some were...

It would be unfair on them and on me and id probably end up leaving her.

So i dunno if the above makes sense but the only thing I truly fear is having a bitchy keeping up with the neighbours, useing sex and any kind of intimcey as a wepon most of all i dont want to own a red brick house.. other then that sweet

Emeraldy Pebbles

Daisy78 wrote: »

Totally disagree with the posters who maintain a man can hook up with women many years their junior. Maybe biology isn't a limiting factor for.men in their forties to finding a younger partner and starting a family.but I can't think of a single one of my female friends (late twenties, early thirties) who would consider a man forty plus as a potential partner.

I have to agree. I'm in my 20s (for another year and a half anyway ) and during my entire 20s not even one of my 20-something friends or acquaintances has ever hooked up with a man in his 40s, either casual or for a relationship. Hell, none have even ended up with men in their late 30s! This is no exaggeration. It's trotted out a lot online but I don't see much evidence of it in real life. The only older guys I ever see with young ones seem moneyed. I'm in my late 20s now, and I think now is the age that many women might start dipping their toes in the late 30s/40s pool. Maybe. But 20 something and early 30s guys still hold lots of appeal.

And yeah, why do men think we're not bothered about being physically attracted to our partners?

The Corinthian

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

I have to agree. I'm in my 20s (for another year and a half anyway ) and during my entire 20s not even one of my 20-something friends or acquaintances has ever hooked up with a man in his 40s, either casual or for a relationship. Hell, none have even ended up with men in their late 30s! This is no exaggeration. It's trotted out a lot online but I don't see much evidence of it in real life. The only older guys I ever see with young ones seem moneyed. I'm in my late 20s now, and I think now is the age that many women might start dipping their toes in the late 30s/40s pool. Maybe. But 20 something and early 30s guys still hold lots of appeal.

I think that age gaps over ten years are certainly more rare than under. However, even you concede that "20 something and early 30s guys still hold lots of appeal" - which is already what? Two, five, maybe eight years?

It certainly does seem more normal that in a couple the woman will tend to be younger than the man. This may not be by much, but it still means that your average man will have a few extra years that he can wait before 'having' to settle down.

As for age gaps of 10+ years, that does happen and not as infrequently as you might think, even without money.

Emeraldy Pebbles

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for age gaps of 10+ years, that does happen and not as infrequently as you might think, even without money.

IME, it is.

The Corinthian

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

IME, it is.

Fair enough, but IME it's not and given I've over ten years more experience than you, I probably trump you on that score

Emeraldy Pebbles

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but IME it's not and given I've over ten years more experience than you, I probably trump you on that score

Well, not sure about that. You may be older, but as my social circle for the last 10 years has been populated with mostly 20s somethings, it's a not insignificant sample size.

I dunno, it's just trotted out a lot that it's really common (and is just another way of saying that 30+ women are going to be left on the shelf) but in my reality, it's not. And as for men getting better-looking with age? Yeah, lots of men are seriously delusional on that score.

The Corinthian

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Well, not sure about that. You may be older, but as my social circle for the last 10 years has been populated with mostly 20s somethings, it's a not insignificant sample size.

Why are you presuming that your sample size is better than mine?

Of all my close friends (about 20 in total) who have settled down, all but one is with a younger woman (more correctly, she's my friend and she settled down with a younger man). Only one man settled down in his twenties. The breakdown of those appears to be that in about 50% 2 - 5 years age difference, 40% 6 - 10 years and about 10% over ten years. So it does happen.

I dunno, it's just trotted out a lot that it's really common (and is just another way of saying that 30+ women are going to be left on the shelf) but in my reality, it's not.

No. All that has been said is that due to a combination of biological and social reasons older men tend to end up with younger women, which in turn means that men can delay 'settling down' if they want to have a family longer than women.

This does not at all imply that women are 'left on the shelf' at all; it is simply in partial response to the OP's question of why men appear less reluctant to settle down than women. I don't think we are on that score, only we don't need to until later and this may give the false impression that we don't want to.

No one need end up 'left on the shelf'.

And as for men getting better-looking with age? Yeah, lots of men are seriously delusional on that score.

Many are, but that certainly does not mean that all are. You don't have to be Johnny Depp (who's almost 50, btw) to attract women who are much younger. Neither do you need to be filthy rich. And while such large age gaps tend to be uncommon, they do certainly exist, even if it does not in 'your' reality.

Speaking of Johnny Depp - have you ever checked the ages of female sex symbols against the ages of male ones? Let me know what you find.

Goose81

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

Okay the The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of
Cohabitants Act 2010 seems to being bandied about here willy nilly.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a couple that move in together and are both financially independent are still under no obligation to their partner should the relationship fail.

The way it's being put forward in this thread, it seems like that once a couple are living together for 5 years (or 2 with kids), s/he automatically has a right to maintenance. Take a couple, no kids, living together 6 years, both financially independent, the relationship goes tits up. Both walk away without court because they're financially independent.

Am I wrong in my understanding?

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, the right to claim on the other remains, just as it would with a married couple - whether they choose to exercise that right or not is another matter.

And whether they're both financially independent or not, it may well not make a difference because if one earns more than the other, they could well be awarded maintenance, as happens with married couples where both earn, but one more than the other.

Nonetheless, as this law is new, it remains to be seen how similar to marriage long-term concubinage is treated in actual practice.

I haven't investigated this law at all and don't fully understand the answer given here.

I am well aware that this is a new law and as The Corinthian said above no one knows how it will be treated in court but is the above in theory saying that if you live with your girlfriend in a rental apartment for 5 years with no kids she can have a claim on your assets and future earning as if you were married if the relationship ends?

The Corinthian

Goose81 wrote: »

I am well aware that this is a new law and as The Corinthian said above no one knows how it will be treated in court but is the above in theory saying that if you live with your girlfriend in a rental apartment for 5 years with no kids she can have a claim on your assets and future earning as if you were married if the relationship ends?

Yes, that is correct. Two years if there is a child between you.

As to how strong that claim is or what an ex will get, it awaits to be seen. By way of indication, according to Stheno earlier:

Stheno wrote: »

The best information I can give here is that the revenue have updated all of their guidelines on seperation and divorce to include cohabiting couples who have seperated, they treat maintenance the same way.

I think there was also another post that solicitors are treating the guidelines of maintenance in the same way as with marital separation, but I can't find that in the thread.

Goose81

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, that is correct. Two years if there is a child between you.

As to how strong that claim is or what an ex will get, it awaits to be seen. By way of indication, according to Stheno earlier:

I think there was also another post that solicitors are treating the guidelines of maintenance in the same way as with marital separation, but I can't find that in the thread.

F*cking hell. I imagine this will cause huge issues as it comes to light, who in their right mind would move in with someone especially if they have no plans for kids or marriage and see this as an alternative.