What makes a guy want to commit to one woman and pursue relationship?

LegacyUser

Just posting here as this has come up in my group of friends recently. I am just recently out of a long relationship so I'm not looking for anything with guys at the moment but friends have been telling me their experiences and stories.
Quite a number of them have been seeing guys, things were going well from both ends and then around the time where you might expect a relationship to begin or things to become more official, the guy has ended things saying he doesn't know if he can or wants to commit to them.
A few of the girls have been left puzzled by this as they felt the attraction was there on both sides and these relationships has the potential to become something more. While two of them are really disappointed, they are satisfied that the guys ended it for the right reasons and they weren't strung along.
It just got me thinking about relationships and the dynamic in them. Normally it seems to be the woman trying to get the man to commit and it seems to be a big deal/change in his life to say ok "she's a girl I want to commit to and pursue things with her". It seems to be the other way around for women and we are seeing it as a natural progression that if we like someone, are attracted to them and see potential that we are very willing to allow things to develop further.
Just interested to know what are the factors that go through a guys head when he is considering all this? In my friends case was it that they were nice but just not what the guy was looking for in some aspect? Was there enough of a spark? Or does it just come to a time in a guys life where he wants to have a relationship and is willing to pursue one whereas a few years ago he may not have had an interest at all?
I was lucky in my previous relationship that it all happened quite naturally and my ex and myself were open and honest with each other about what we wanted.. Whereas with my friends and work colleagues who are seeking to meet someone they seem to find it challenging to meet a guy who will commit to a relationship after a month or two of getting to know each other. Just curious to read others views and opinions on this really.

Wibbs

Depends on a lot of factors, age for one, but I would say that generally speaking men are more creatures of sexual novelty particularly when younger and if a man has choices then frankly it can simply come down to why buy a book when you can join a library?

I have found this goes double if the man has been burned in a previous long term relationship. Men tend to cynic up much more quickly and for longer than women. I think men are the more romantic gender and more likely to walk into things naively at first. Nothing so cynical as the injured idealist. Again as a general rule I've observed.

Or as the meme goes "he's just not that into you".

I've seen it time and time again among my friends: there is nothing more off-putting to a man than a woman who is desperate for a relationship, and vice versa.

Once a person decides it's time for them to settle down, it's a flag to everyone else who isn't at that stage. The trick is meeting someone in the same zone.

tritium

Kind of hard to say given men are not a hive mind.

Some will, some won't, some will have reasons, some wont. Like anything, the trick would be to find two people in roughly the point in their lives. If one or the other isn't then it's their prerogative to walk away

Letree

I think more men are realising what a hugh commitment a long term relationship is one that may result in marriage, house, kids etc. Men are seeing other men in their social group/family really shafted when a marriage or relationship with kids, mortgage etc goes wrong.

cantdecide

Wibbs wrote: »

I think men are the more romantic gender and more likely to walk into things naively at first. Nothing so cynical as the injured idealist. Again as a general rule I've observed.

I agree. Men are less pragmatic about feelings, IME. In the short term, the honeymoon period is so pleasant, why rush to the end game. I think the difference between men and women is that men want to move naturally through a relationship progression but many women tend to try and index exact location of the relationship on a scale.

Letree wrote: »

I think more men are realising what a hugh commitment a long term relationship is one that may result in marriage, house, kids etc. Men are seeing other men in their social group/family really shafted when a marriage or relationship with kids, mortgage etc goes wrong.

Being hyper cynical for a second; a theory I mull over in my own mind is that men assess women on their many characteristics and traits. Women assess men on their ability to perform in various ways. For example, in my last relationship, unfortunately, she got screwed because my personal and professional life were so turbulent. I often told I knew that the relationship had to play second fiddle to my responsibilities (I was working and studying trying to rebuilding my career and life at large from scratch after some tough years) but I needed to work through things or risk long term misery. Did I get any slack? No, sir. My shortcoming were never left unpunished and I don't think this story is very unique.

Wibbs

cantdecide wrote: »

I agree. Men are less pragmatic about feelings, IME. In the short term, the honeymoon period is so pleasant, why rush to the end game.

I don't think the average man even thinks that far ahead for the most part. A guy in a relationship is often like an ant on a tractor tyre, unaware of the wider picture until it runs over him.

I think the difference between men and women is that men want to move naturally through a relationship progression but many women tend to try and index exact location of the relationship on a scale.

+1. The relationship and status of same is also far more public a concern and wider society, peers and their opinions tend to matter more to women. They discuss relationships(not just romantic) far more than men on average. It's of more import to women as a gender and more a defining thing in society too.

You can really see this relationship progression sped up and writ large if you're a guy in, or who has made it through his 30's in the dating/mating game. There is a large cohort of women who drive the pedal hard on relationships after they pass the big three zero. The call to migrate to the suburbs becomes deafening. I've seen them line up a few potentials(if they have choice on their side) and if one takes, is deemed acceptable enough in polite company(or can be cajoled to be), the rush to strike while the iron is hot is rapid. As is the run to chapel or registry office. Fertility can also magically improve. Nothing seems to give rise to contraceptive failure as much as being over 35 with a man seen as "a catch".

This all happens within two years, while the guy is in that daze of love so it's all a whirl for him. Then it's a quick carve up of the social contacts and Facebook pages, where those singles invited to the wedding afters are never heard from again(unless they get hitched). Then the rush for the first kid. Roll forward five years later and the husband is more an accessory than a man, where the wife has more Facebook pics of her cakes and kids than him. I have seen that exact pattern happen quite literally dozens of times. Hell, the early stages have been tried on me more than once. However I know the script so no sale thanks.

Don't get me wrong. Many guys also want the whole family Denny TV advert and really want and love their kids and that's great, but be careful or it's too easy to be the out of focus duffer in the background getting in the way of the clatter of Irish Mammies(™) in the foreground.

I needed to work through things or risk long term misery. Did I get any slack? No, sir. My shortcoming were never left unpunished and I don't think this story is very unique.

Been there. Actually, in every single relationship but one I was that soldier. My explanation is a) I can pick them, not all are like this(I know a fair few who aren't) and 2) those that are like this tend to be those women who feel there will always be someone to take care of them and ultimate responsibility lays nebulously elsewhere. Daddy, brothers, BF/Hubby, society, god, horoscopes, dreamcatchers whatever. They've never been in the place where the buck stops here in their lives. Your purpose as a man is to support her unconditionally. She may support you but it's conditional and it's on the clock.

Ben Gadot

Letree wrote: »

Men are seeing other men in their social group/family really shafted when a marriage or relationship with kids, mortgage etc goes wrong.

Definitely this for me. Right now I'm happy to be on my own and to be able to focus on myself.

Each to their own and I understand the positives of a commitment. I think the reason some struggle with it is because they still want it all: to be able to do what they want while assuming their woman will happily sit by and be there when they come home.

I know lads with this attitude who have actually gotten married and not only are they miserable but they've made the lives of their other half miserable as well. On the other hand I don't hold much sympathy for the other half as they would have known what the other was like, yet still married them thinking a ring would magically change them

Speedwell

When my husband and I got married, I told him that we shouldn't even think of getting married unless we wanted to live and be with each other with or without marriage. If he was still in that immature mindset of "but I might want to be with other women later on" then he was welcome to explore his options, but not with me hanging around waiting for him. Sure, people change, and someday I might hear "I want to be with someone else", and the marriage will be over, but you can't always predict such things. Since we are grownups and we really do want to be together for each other and not because we had to hire someone to fill a culturally mandated role in our lives, it was easy to decide to get married. I can speak for him as well as myself because this is a subject about which we wanted complete agreement before we got married. We are old-fashioned enough to think of the institution as serious and permanent, even if we aren't religious. He's told me, "Divorce is what you do after you've tried everything else." I agree.

She may support you but it's conditional and it's on the clock.

F*ck that bullsh!t for a vicious slander.

Wibbs

Speedwell wrote: »

F*ck that bullsh!t for a vicious slander.

A) I don't think that means what you think it means and if you'd set down your outrage for a moment you would have noticed one of my first opening lines in that paragraph: I can pick them, not all are like this(I know a fair few who aren't).

In any event one could argue it's provable, or at least debatable. Which is the gender more likely to leave relationships/breakup/sue for divorce? Little hint, it's not men. Even in same sex marriages lesbian women sue for divorce at double the rates of gay men. IIRC in the US of A something mad like 70% of all "no fault" divorces are brought by women. So if you were of a betting nature or in the insurance game looking at stats, which gender would you think the lesser bet for long term marriage?

Speedwell

Wibbs wrote: »

A) I don't think that means what you think it means and if you'd set down your outrage for a moment you would have noticed one of my first opening lines in that paragraph: I can pick them, not all are like this(I know a fair few who aren't).

OK, understood, thanks. But you know people say that sort of thing without the caveats.

In any event one could argue it's provable, or at least debatable. Which is the gender more likely to leave relationships/breakup/sue for divorce? Little hint, it's not men. Even in same sex marriages lesbian women sue for divorce at double the rates of gay men. IIRC in the US of A something mad like 70% of all "no fault" divorces are brought by women. So if you were of a betting nature or in the insurance game looking at stats, which gender would you think the lesser bet for long term marriage?

If one sex seems to be the primary suers for divorce in heterosexual marriages, I would not assume off the bat that they are the ones causing the problems that lead to them suing for divorce, frankly. And I am not sure I would apply statistics for gay marriages to heterosexual marriages when the cultural experience of the different types of marriage is still so different.

Wibbs

Sure, but as I say if one is a betting man the stats show women more likely to leave relationships. And sure the men may well be the ones causing the problems that cause them to leave, but given the heavily skewed bias in favour of women doing the leaving, does this mean more men are **** in relationships and more women are saints? I doubt either are the case(though current feminism would favour the former). The gay marriage stats are interesting regardless and I'll further bet they'll continue to show this gender disparity.

Take a straw poll of straight women friends and family with average relationship histories and I'll bet the farm they did the leaving more than they were left in their pre marriage years(if they're married now of course).

Stealthfins

The reason I won't commit is because I don't want to end up in a damp bedsit while some other jocky is servicing my exe wife in a house I'm still paying for it.
It seems to be all the trend these day's.

I'm too independent and adventurous for any woman to be putting up with my spontaneity.

I wouldn't put her through that kind of marriage,as a woman deserves a man who'll share the qualities of a relationship and be responsible.

I'm not cut out for maintaining a relationship so am happy to be single.

Honesty sets men and women free.

Wibbs

Stealthfins wrote: »

The reason I won't commit is because I don't want to end up in a damp bedsit while some other jocky is servicing my exe wife in a house I'm still paying for it.
It seems to be all the trend these day's.

To be fair that's more a fear than reality for the majority. In Ireland anyway. This isn't America. Our divorce rate is far lower. It's much lower than our neighbour the UK with it. That's not to say that this doesn't go on and the man is the more likely to be screwed over when it does, but they are a minority. I do know a couple of marriages that have gone that way and painful they are, but TBH I know more marriages that are still going that would be harder to live with for me.

OldNotWIse

Do you guys think that men have a male equivalent to the biological clock, and if so, that this has any bearing on their decision/not to settle down?

Peist2007

No idea what makes a guy want to commit to be honest. All relationships are skewed with men expected to put up with plenty of crap doing things they really do not want to do and for what? Sex. Sex is what keeps most men in line. "A regular ride".

And this is all grand until you hit your 30s, have had a few relationships and dont spray your shorts at the sight of a pair of breasts. You take a step back and realise that all of this running around isnt worth it. Sex is great but not worth sacrificing your life for. You realise you have money of your own to do things that you want to do when you want to do them.

Have a look around Grafton Street or Henry Street at 1pm on a saturday. Lots of miserable male faces being dragged around the shops. I genuinely do not think i could ever sign up to that. You get one life folks. She better be worth it.

fits

I would just like to say OP, that you will get a certain type of response in here (often very cynical), and it only represents a small section of people. Good family life is a fundamental human need for most people and that includes men and women.

eviltwin

There's been a few threads of this nature in other forums and the happily attached tend to give the same answer regardless of gender - they've met the person they want to share their life with. It's as simple as that really.

OldNotWIse

Peist2007 wrote: »

No idea what makes a guy want to commit to be honest. All relationships are skewed with men expected to put up with plenty of crap doing things they really do not want to do and for what? Sex. Sex is what keeps most men in line. "A regular ride".

And this is all grand until you hit your 30s, have had a few relationships and dont spray your shorts at the sight of a pair of breasts. You take a step back and realise that all of this running around isnt worth it. Sex is great but not worth sacrificing your life for. You realise you have money of your own to do things that you want to do when you want to do them.

Have a look around Grafton Street or Henry Street at 1pm on a saturday. Lots of miserable male faces being dragged around the shops. I genuinely do not think i could ever sign up to that. You get one life folks. She better be worth it.

Never mind that, have a look at IKEA on a Sunday afternoon. Was there ever a more depressing sight than men wandering glumly around with flatpack furniture to make the inside of their 3 bed semi that's in negative equity look exactly like every other house on the road, the screaming 2.5 children hanging off them

Wibbs

eviltwin wrote: »

There's been a few threads of this nature in other forums and the happily attached tend to give the same answer regardless of gender - they've met the person they want to share their life with. It's as simple as that really.

Pretty much this really with the added hope that they feel and continue to feel the same.

I am cynical. Yep, guilty as charged, but I didn't lick it from a stone. I wasn't cynical starting out. Quite the opposite if anything, but I've been through and have seen others go through enough to be extremely wary about long term commitment. Don't get me wrong, I know some great long term relationships. I'd say they make up about a third of those I've known. Another third are OK with scattered showers and the final third are utter purgatories for one or both. Add in my not so stellar record at picking women that's a game of Russian roulette I'd be kinda thick to play.

It depends on one's personality too of course. My idea of hell are family get togethers, those aforementioned Denny ads with the clucking and the kids and all that. I must be autistic or somesuch but I find them cloying and deeply uncomfortable and have done since I was a small child. I like social gatherings, I'm not a hermit, I just don't like familial ones as a general rule.

OldNotWIse wrote:

Do you guys think that men have a male equivalent to the biological clock, and if so, that this has any bearing on their decision/not to settle down?

If you are rich/powerful/famous, then no. QV Mick Jagger recently becoming a father while looking like an extra from the Walking Dead. For average men? Yes, you have a biological clock. It's has more years in it than a woman's, but only about a decade extra in play. This also depends on the man's start point. If you're a wreck at 20 you ain't gonna be a lothario at 40. Yes women have a menopause, but men do to and it's judged by when you become invisible to women who can still have kids.

OldNotWIse

Wibbs wrote: »

If you are rich/powerful/famous, then no. QV Mick Jagger recently becoming a father while looking like an extra from the Walking Dead. For average men? Yes, you have a biological clock. It's has more years in it than a woman's, but only about a decade extra in play. This also depends on the man's start point. If you're a wreck at 20 you ain't gonna be a lothario at 40. Yes women have a menopause, but men do to and it's judged by when you become invisible to women who can still have kids.

See I don't know if this is something men need to concern themselves with. Many women prefer older men and there is no biological cut off point on men being able to father children. I'm 32, so will probably start to panic about kids in the next 3 years, can feel it simmering already. I probably wouldn't look twice at a man less than 40 tbh.

Wibbs

OldNotWIse wrote: »

See I don't know if this is something men need to concern themselves with. Many women prefer older men and there is no biological cut off point on men being able to father children. I'm 32, so will probably start to panic about kids in the next 3 years, can feel it simmering already. I probably wouldn't look twice at a man less than 40 tbh.

Sure O, but that would still be within that ten year difference. A guy of say 55 would be pretty much off your radar unless he was extremely well bolted together and preserved. Sure there are outliers like Jagger and other powerful old guys, but for most of the world… Even in societies where real oulfellas marry and have kids with what we'd see as not far off schoolgirls the men are top end tribal elders and the like.

OldNotWIse

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure O, but that would still be within that ten year difference. A guy of say 55 would be pretty much off your radar unless he was extremely well bolted together and preserved. Sure there are outliers like Jagger and other powerful old guys, but for most of the world… Even in societies where real oulfellas marry and have kids with what we'd see as not far off schoolgirls the men are top end tribal elders and the like.

Actually I've done a 27 year age gap (59) and it hasn't been an issue except for stares sometimes, but I suppose that wouldn't be the norm.

Speedwell

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure O, but that would still be within that ten year difference. A guy of say 55 would be pretty much off your radar unless he was extremely well bolted together and preserved. Sure there are outliers like Jagger and other powerful old guys, but for most of the world… Even in societies where real oulfellas marry and have kids with what we'd see as not far off schoolgirls the men are top end tribal elders and the like.

Men over 50 only consider themselves "off women's radar" because they don't think of women their own age as women.

OldNotWIse

Speedwell wrote: »

Men over 50 only consider themselves "off women's radar" because they don't think of women their own age as women.

This is true. Media spin would lead us to believe that a 50 year old woman is older than a 50 year old man.

Stealthfins

Wibbs wrote:

To be fair that's more a fear than reality for the majority. In Ireland anyway. This isn't America. Our divorce rate is far lower. It's much lower than our neighbour the UK with it. That's not to say that this doesn't go on and the man is the more likely to be screwed over when it does, but they are a minority. I do know a couple of marriages that have gone that way and painful they are, but TBH I know more marriages that are still going that would be harder to live with for me.

I wouldn't be fearful,I suppose I'm being honest realizing I'm not one to settle down.
I'd never put myself or someone else in an awkward position.

Free spirited is the way to go for me ðŸ˜

howamidifferent

Speedwell wrote: »

Men over 50 only consider themselves "off women's radar" because they don't think of women their own age as women.

As a man over 50 I'd have to agree with this...But I don't think its a concious decision. I think its nature. If I see a group of women I am naturally more attracted to the younger fitter members of the group despite the fact I am not an adonis myself. It must be a biological reproductive thing...

Wibbs

Speedwell wrote: »

Men over 50 only consider themselves "off women's radar" because they don't think of women their own age as women.

As I said a male "menopause" is when men no longer get attention from women who can still have kids. The plain biological fact is that men age far more slowly reproductively and barring illness remain technically fertile into their 90's, whereas it's game over on that score for the majority of women by their mid 40's(and is on the downward slope for at least a decade before that). Men heavily select for youth and signs of reproductive fitness in women and even though ideas of beauty change that particular set of traits is consistent across history and culture. When men are rich and powerful and single what choice of women do they make?

That's of course if a man still wants kids at that age. He probably doesn't for the most part, in which case age is far less a concern. Can depend on personality again too. EG I find difference attractive so would prefer non Irish to Irish, different life experiences etc so an age gap would be more attractive for me, whereas I know other men who specifically want women their own age with the same basic background and shared cultural memories. That would drive me bonkers(I hate nostalgia with a passion).

Speedwell

howamidifferent wrote: »

As a man over 50 I'd have to agree with this...But I don't think its a concious decision. I think its nature. If I see a group of women I am naturally more attracted to the younger fitter members of the group despite the fact I am not an adonis myself. It must be a biological reproductive thing...

Men prefer young, pretty women... news at 11. Women also prefer fit, strong, chisel-jawed pretty boys, you know. Would you let us get away with "oh, we're biologically programmed to not think of you beer-gut sad sacks as men"?

H3llR4iser

The posters above made excellent points.

The subject is however a bit "spiky", giving a straight answer requires a bit of cynicism, realism and some generalization.

First thing, there's a marked and undeniable difference in the relevance relationships and eventual family take in the "big picture of life" between men and women: for the latter, it's something that is forced to the center stage since early childhood. A quick look at toys immediately proves this - at least the ones of "my era": most of the girl-oriented lines featured heavily in the relationship / family department; Even Barbie, notwithstanding her 1000s of careers and endeavors, "needed" a Ken. Look at boys toys and there's absolutely none of it; Women actually rarely feature at all - like, for example, the few female characters in the G.I. Joe or Masters of the Universe franchises.

This is confirmed in modern times by things like the universal praise Frozen got for featuring a standalone female lead, one that wasn't defined by her pursuit of a love interest. Funnily enough, a lot if not most guys who watched the cartoon actually appreciated it and like the character of Elsa especially for her independence.

Even more interestingly, the few and far in between women that feature(d) in boys' toy lines usually take a strong, independent, as-though-as-the-guys role and almost never the "damsel in distress" one. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

So, for women having relationships, and specifically the "one" that is supposed to evolve in marriage, kids and house in the suburbs becomes a paramount; The ultimate goal. Even the language you use, OP, in your message exudes such - seems like you and your friends spend a lot of time and energy talking about it, and the whole "being strung along" concept outlines a plan that is trying to move on a schedule. So, for most women while a relationship inevitably involves some level of compromise, it still represents something they actively pushed towards for most of their adult lives. This has a lot of pitfalls of its own, like jumping into abusive and/or plain wrong arrangements.

For the majority of men, on the other hand, a relationship isn't a do-or-die, self defining, all encompassing goal; It's an unplanned life altering event that means a high level of compromise towards something they hadn't spent their youth dreaming about; It's only natural that we'd be one hell of a lot more cautious before taking the plunge, evaluating if it's actually worth doing so. When a woman asks the classic "why are men so reluctant to commit into relationships?" she is invariably forgetting that we're asking the opposite "why women push so hard to get into commitment?" - and vice versa.

The quick confirmation is provided by a specific group of women - the ones that maybe, as girls, didn't like dolls that much; that are focused on a career or personal projects and don't put marriage and kids in their list of priorities. Those women often have an attitude very similar to the men's in regards of long-term commitment.

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Each to their own and I understand the positives of a commitment. I think the reason some struggle with it is because they still want it all: to be able to do what they want while assuming their woman will happily sit by and be there when they come home.

I know lads with this attitude who have actually gotten married and not only are they miserable but they've made the lives of their other half miserable as well. On the other hand I don't hold much sympathy for the other half as they would have known what the other was like, yet still married them thinking a ring would magically change them

This is valid both ways - if their wives/girlfriends have nothing to do other than "sit by" and wait for bf/husband, it's their own fault and can't be offloaded. All of the very long term successful couples I know, including my 37-years-married parents, share one specific characteristic: both parties have their own interests and endeavours, and no one is even left nor expected to just sit by and wait for the other.

Wibbs wrote: »

...those that are like this tend to be those women who feel there will always be someone to take care of them and ultimate responsibility lays nebulously elsewhere. Daddy, brothers, BF/Hubby, society, god, horoscopes, dreamcatchers whatever. They've never been in the place where the buck stops here in their lives. Your purpose as a man is to support her unconditionally. She may support you but it's conditional and it's on the clock.

Met plenty of this type, unfortunately it's one of the biggest dangers on the "relationship road" for men, and one that doesn't get mentioned quite enough!

howamidifferent

Speedwell wrote: »

Would you let us get away with "oh, we're biologically programmed to not think of you beer-gut sad sacks as men"?

Yes. Aren't cougars applauded for going for the toyboys?

Speedwell

howamidifferent wrote: »

Yes. Aren't cougars applauded for going for the toyboys?

As someone who once had a long-term relationship with a guy twelve years younger (he was 24), I think that either I didn't get the membership card with all the benefits, or that idea is a myth. (Since I know you're wondering, he was immature, undereducated, dependent, and not that good in bed. Not worth it.)

Sleepy

I think this post would be best answered if Wibbs ever meets someone that makes him want to settle down and start a family!

In my own case, myself and Mrs. Sleepy were casually dating after meeting on a one night stand and about three months in had two forms of contraception fail. We agreed that we enjoyed each other's company enough to give a committed relationship "a go" and by the time our daughter arrived, had fallen in love with each other. A little over 5 years later I proposed. By that stage we knew we were happy together and we'd weathered enough storms together for me to feel secure enough in the relationship to formalise it. Perhaps somewhat perversely, a large part of me deciding to propose was actually in knowing that, although I knew she wanted to be my "wife", she was happy to stay together indefinitely as my "partner".

So, we did things entirely backwards in terms of the typical Irish couple (in fact we're only "getting the house" now, almost 8 years after having a kid together and 3 years after getting married) but it worked for us and we're happy.

Pat Mustard

Wibbs wrote: »

When men are rich and powerful and single what choice of women do they make?

To answer a rhetorical question:

mzungu

Pat Mustard wrote: »

To answer a rhetorical question:

All that money and he can't choose a decent toupee.

Outlaw Pete

mzungu wrote: »

All that money and he can't choose a decent toupee.

How dare you :P

Elliott S

Peist2007 wrote: »

Have a look around Grafton Street or Henry Street at 1pm on a saturday. Lots of miserable male faces being dragged around the shops.

Yeah, what is that about? It benefits nobody. I don't bring my OH shopping and it's as much for me as for him. I want to shop in peace without having to look at a sulky puss. :pac: He wouldn't go anyway. Why don't all those guys just say no?

Look at this: http://www.sadanduseless.com/2016/07/trapped-in-shopping-hell/ :pac:

Elliott S

Putting my cynical hat on here but I have always thought that we are not all that removed from our grandparents' generation in a lot of us having marriages of convenience.

People get to their late 20s and early 30s and realise they want that house that they won't be able to afford by themselves, or they want to be filled with babies or to have someone to provide them with decent meals et cetera et cetera. I'm engaged and I can honestly say the above isn't me because I cannot think of anything worse than being in a relationship just because. I wasn't really looking for a relationship when I found myself in one. I don't want kids and neither of us are bothered about being homeowners. I don't even have an engagement ring because I don't care about them so why would I ask my moderately-paid OH to drop thousands on something I care not for?

But there are soooo many blah couples out there. They get together because it's traditional and for the shared benefits of marriage. They want the hubbie. They want the wifelette. It's often thought that romantic love is much common in marriages now and honestly, I'm not so sure. And yes, I realise I'm being very judgy wudgy here. Guilty as charged.

One of my good friends really wanted the marriage and babies thing. Was quite open about that. But it made her have a less-than-discriminating screening process. She'd go out with anyone. She ended up with a guy with quite odious views. Quite racist, super stingy (I don't like golddiggers but miserliness is a terrible trait too) and very right wing. A lot of his views are at odds with hers especially on the issue of race. I just don't know how she can reconcile their differing viewpoints. How can she be happy with that? But she wanted the marriage and kids thing. They seem quite happy though and I think they'll go the distance but it just showed me how many people just settle because they have a goal in mind.

And, to be honest, I'm not all that convinced that love lasts forever. I think it can but I don't believe it always does. It was something that made me hesitant to get engaged. I decided to take a leap of faith in that regard. Anyone getting married is making that leap of faith, even if they are not one of the above-mentioned marriages of convenience.

cantdecide

Wibbs wrote: »

[they're] not all are like this.

You're 100% right. I say this all the time. The sheer fact that they're out there means you'd be a fool to put up with someone who doesn't have your wellbeing at heart. We're all meant to be so neat, cool and independent these days but IME, the best relationships are those where one takes care of the other unselfishly. If both are givers, then it can be beautiful thing in the context of long term relationships. Where one or both are takers, it can actually work (wouldn't appeal to me) but there will always be ego clashes.

Wibbs wrote: »

Your purpose as a man is to support her unconditionally. She may support you but it's conditional and it's on the clock.

I'd rather be loved sympathetically than assessed as a service provider. In the case of my relationship I mentioned earlier, I believe she threw the baby out with the bathwater by calling for a break.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How dare you :P

I get so angry when a politician's career is ignored in favour of their image.

bcklschaps

Letree wrote: »

I think more men are realising what a hugh commitment a long term relationship is one that may result in marriage, house, kids etc. Men are seeing other men in their social group/family really shafted when a marriage or relationship with kids, mortgage etc goes wrong.

Yep, the anecdotes of the blatantly sexist rulings from the family law courts in Ireland are finally waking men up to the fact that marriage is now a potentially ruinous endeavour for the man.

This may change in the future as there will be more female judges, politicians etc. (who quite obviously will be interested in a more equal society and seek to redress the gender bias in the rulings ....and pigs will fly!!!).

reminds me of the political adage.

"In a society that robs Peter to pay Paul ...don't expect to hear Paul demanding change " :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_

I'll start by prefacing the following with "does not apply to everyone", but no doubt it'll still be unpopular and somewhat rambling. This is not based entirely on my own experiences but also friends and colleagues over the years.

OK disclaimer out of the way, here goes...

In my opinion many guys just seem to "go along" with things for the most part... they go places they don't really want to go, do things they don't really want to do, and make compromises they're not entirely happy with - all to keep the lady in their life happy and because it's the expected or done thing, and yes maybe sex is a factor in that decision as well.. certainly in the early stages anyway.

Then the point arrives when it's time to get "serious" and more often than not it'll be the woman that's driving that - maybe because she wants that commitment, maybe it's peer pressure or her friends are settling down, or whatever but at that point our guy has a choice... does he again go along, or risk losing the girl. Sure he loves her but I'd wager that if you asked him honestly, many would say they're quite happy as things are.

Next comes the wedding, the house, the kids (not necessarily in that order) and I think again many go along with it rather than any real desire for those things themselves - or to put it another way, how many boys grow up dreaming of settling down and raising a family? I'm sure there's some, but overall I'd say they're in a minority.

Anyway next thing ya know our guy has a wife, family and mortgage with all the pressures that come with it (2016 or not I think many men still feel pressure to "provide" - maybe self-inflicted but it's there especially given our more material lifestyles generally) and finding themselves still more an accessory than equal partner and I think this is why you hear the "jokes" about the ball and chain, the "envy" towards their younger single/less down the road counterparts etc.

It's a way for them to admit these things without really confronting it - especially as by then, walking away from it all isn't really a realistic option due to the financial commitments, the kids and the potential fall-out of a divorce/split... so they just resign themselves to it, and these are the glum-faced guys you see being dragged around clothes shops and homeware stores at the weekends. Some will of course go further and try and find something/someone else as an "escape", but only casually and certainly not as along-term option - which is why there's so many older/involved men on dating sites etc.

Of course these days with the society changes and sexual freedom of both sexes, more are coming to realise that you don't HAVE to settle down and aren't, with the result being that kids, mortgages and the rest are being put off till their 30s or later (if at all), but ultimately I think it all comes down to the core ambitions between boys and girls, men and women being so fundamentally different in key areas.

Anyway this is more a theory based on some people I've known and shades of a few previous relationships I've had. Despite all I've said I do believe it IS still possible to have the "happy ending" AND BE HAPPY doing it... it's just getting that bit harder these days!

eeguy

Some lads will find a girl they connect with and truly love.

Other lads are quite happy to have a girlfriend or partner and not want the hassle and finality of marriage.
There seems to be more options available to lads well into their 30s, while the social pressure is on women to have settled down by late 20s.

Most of my 30 something friends just say "So what, I'll find a 25 year old and settle down when it suits me".

Patser

Just my 2 cents but watch High Fidelity, to me it summed up a lot if things in a simplistic way.

But to elaborate more, it's not really that complicated. Think of it this way, when you're 18 you can go out on serious session, have a hangover in the morning but by next night you're out again. By your mid-30s hangovers last a weekend, sessions are weighed mentally in terms of consequences and a few pints with comfortable craic with regular friends takes preference over wild sessions that frequently do little than wipe you out for a weekend.

If all this sounds unromantic it isn't really. Over time the vast majority will find someone they bond with, each through their own criteria, someone that becomes supportive, that they're comfortable with, that they click with, that in a million clichéd ways is their soul mate. For most it's slow - little of this love at first sight stuff - but insidious, they'll get inside you're psyche, become truly essential, your best friend, confidant as well as lover.

The stability of knowing exactly what is what, where everything stands, and how each of you work - recognising the signs for when your partner is tired/cranky and in need of support as well as playful/lively - will become second nature and essential to getting on. It'll simply work, and feel right.

Kids make that partnership all the more essential, but they're well after the main thrust of this debate.

So will this happen to everyone, No! But the exceptions make great gossip and headlines, so will garner more spotlight than the normality for most. Are they the norm, no, they just attract more attention for being irregular relationships. That's not in anyway to say that those in unconventional relationships are wrong, each to their own. But they will attract attention in the whole tall poppy way, not to mention the far away hills are green way - Johnny is having a threesome with 3 blonde triplets every night, I wish I was him (Johnny I'd also stressed and exhausted but you don't know that).

So why do the majority settle down, because of love.

Simple.

Love being a combination of friendship, companionship, support and stability.

Peist2007

Peist2007 wrote: »

All relationships are skewed with men expected to put up with plenty of crap doing things they really do not want to do and for what? Sex. Sex is what keeps most men in line. "A regular ride".

All relationships? Have you checked them all? Because you certainly are not describing the relationship I am in - nor any I am aware of in my circles.

Nor is sex used in my relationship as you describe. I am not held to ransom by it - nor does a desire for it drive what I do or what I consent to doing or not doing. And most certainly not to the degree that I am being "kept in line" somehow as if sex is some kind of tool or currency to be used to control me.

I can also not think of any "crap I am putting up with" in my relationship either - or where I am being coerced into "doing things I really do not want to do". The kind of relationship you describe does not sound very healthy to me at all.

Is it a possibility that you are merely looking at your own relationships and drives and extrapolating them to apply to everyone else purely because you want yours to be representative?

To answer the OP as to what made _me_ settle down to pursue my relationship - it was mostly a slow evolution of the relationship I was in to the point I could not see the rest of my life - or my path through life - without them in it.

When I pictured anything - building a home - forwarding my career - making a family - experiencing new things in life - travelling - growing old - or whatever - I could only envision those things with them by my side or behind me or somehow there on the journey with me. There was no one else I could imagine wanting to walk my life path with.

And in turn when I imagined their life path and future journey I could not do anything but imagine myself following them on it and being there with them or behind them all the way too. I am excited by and interested in and invested in their lives and achievements and experiences in and of themselves - because I am excited by them as people and not just sexual outlets or biological incubators.

If there are people who want sex so badly they are willing to enter into a relationship they do not want to be in - and do things with their short and long term lives that they do not want to be involved in - then so be it. There is little I can do except be glad within myself that I am not one of those people.

And when sex happens in my relationship it is when and because everyone involved wants to do it. Not because one person in the relationship has performed adequately and sex is being dangled over them like some kind of Doggie Treat when the animal does it's tricks. I would rather never have sex again than have it doled out to me - or by me - in such a fashion.

Stealthfins

There's a shopping center in Limerick called the Crescent.
If you want to see unhappy couples there's the best place in the Midwest for spotting unhappycopuolus.
They walk around in pair's he's looking like he's dying to go surfing or fishing,she looks all beautiful and demour looking ab fab,laden down with Brown Thomas bags full of rolled up paper.
He's like ffs there isn't even a Brown Thomas in The Crescent...

Anyhow as I said before I decided to take the happy road to destiny,rather than the dollybird, empty current account and resentment.

I'd prefer to be lonely living on my own rather be lonely in a shopping center full of people.

By the way it's a choice a guy makes his bed hell have to lie in it.

Luckily I am too honest with myself...

Speedwell

Newsflash to men: It is possible, nay, even desirable, to say to your woman, "That's OK, honey, you go on and have fun shopping by yourself" or "I'm going to go over here and look at stuff I want to look at and I'll meet you back at the food court at 2:30". If you are following her around like a mopey sheepdog with a fear of crowds, that's your choice. If she insists you do it even though you are plainly annoyed by it, then she needs to have a good think about how she treats you. If she spends all your money, you and she need to set some reasonable limits and boundaries.

Alf Veedersane

Speedwell wrote: »

Newsflash to men: It is possible, nay, even desirable, to say to your woman, "That's OK, honey, you go on and have fun shopping by yourself" or "I'm going to go over here and look at stuff I want to look at and I'll meet you back at the food court at 2:30". If you are following her around like a mopey sheepdog with a fear of crowds, that's your choice. If she insists you do it even though you are plainly annoyed by it, then she needs to have a good think about how she treats you. If she spends all your money, you and she need to set some reasonable limits and boundaries.

This.

You don't have to walk around together shopping to prove you're in a committed relationship.

I don't ask her to come play football with me and she doesn't ask me to go shopping. And as if by magic we're still together.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Never mind that, have a look at IKEA on a Sunday afternoon. Was there ever a more depressing sight than men wandering glumly around with flatpack furniture to make the inside of their 3 bed semi that's in negative equity look exactly like every other house on the road, the screaming 2.5 children hanging off them

I think that can be something you see from both sexes in a lot of places - not just Ikea. Shopping centres - super markets - clothes shops - the lot. Quite often people are dragging screaming bored kids around such places and they look miserable and drained.

The issue tends to be that they fail to keep the children involved and engaged. They view the outing as a chore and bringing the children with them as an additional chore on top of it.

Whereas if you keep the children entertained and engaged and involved in it then not only is bringing them less of (if at all) a chore - it can make the basic chore of being there enjoyable and fun too.

I have worked on this a few times with friends in my role as Supernanny in their lives when they asked me for help. And up front they felt that they simply did not have the energy to do the basic chore _and_ remain upbeat and involved with the kids.

But after I worked through it with them they realised pretty quickly that the energy requirement to do it "right" is actually a lot less than the energy drain of the alternative they had been living through. Because shouting and fighting a losing battle with bored kids is many times more draining. Up front it _seems_ like being upbeat and engaged will take more energy. But when they get home after doing so - usually a lot quicker than before and with a lot less stress and shouting and battling than before - it quickly becomes apparent which is less draining and energy demanding.

And Ikea is the best example. Going there and exploring it can actually be quite fun for kids if done right. Exploring all the areas - chips and meat balls and drinks - games - involving them in opinions on things and more. It can actually be a fun family day out when done "right".

But as Speedwell said above - there are healthy ways to communicate when you need to have a break or do your own thing or split up and "divide and conquer" with chores and kids - rather than staying passively glum and silent and miserable simply following each other around uselessly.

_Kaiser_

Speedwell wrote: »

Newsflash to men: It is possible, nay, even desirable, to say to your woman, "That's OK, honey, you go on and have fun shopping by yourself" or "I'm going to go over here and look at stuff I want to look at and I'll meet you back at the food court at 2:30". If you are following her around like a mopey sheepdog with a fear of crowds, that's your choice. If she insists you do it even though you are plainly annoyed by it, then she needs to have a good think about how she treats you. If she spends all your money, you and she need to set some reasonable limits and boundaries.

Speaking for myself, I tried that in a previous relationship. She would complain about being bored and wanting to go wander around the shops and I would say exactly that - go have fun and I'll see you later.

What would happen then is sulking because I wasn't overly enamored by the notion of dragging around shops for the afternoon - especially as we often didn't have the cash for more than window shopping anyway (this was at a time when I was out of work for a year having been made redundant and was trying to make what we had go as far as possible)

Eventually I more often than not would give in which I suppose was my own fault but from looking around at others when I got there, I wasn't the only one.

The same woman would complain that she never got to see the girls anymore, so I'd suggest that she give them a call and head up/out with them for the night - but nope, and then she'd wonder why they rarely contacted her either.

In the end I realised she lived solely for her relationship - or her idea of it. Me I've always felt that while of course you should do things together, it's vitally important to have your own life, interests and friends as well when involved with someone, but she wanted everything to be a "family day trip" as I came to think of it.
Even when things started going south, she refused to accept it because she was so committed to being in a relationship.

I will say one thing for her though.. She certainly made me realise what I want, like, and won't put up with whereas I would have been very naive in some ways previously, so I have that much to thank her for anyway.

Stealthfins

Deleted User wrote:

But as Speedwell said above - there are healthy ways to communicate when you need to have a break or do your own thing or split up and "divide and conquer" with chores and kids - rather than staying passively glum and silent and miserable simply following each other around uselessly.

You need to be in a healthy relationship first.
Too many people take the easier softer way,I know some women who got bored of their men and thought that there's better pickings out there.

Lol so they dumped him,thought someone flash with the cash was going to take on her and the three kids,I'm serious lol

In fairness there isn't many good looking fit single financially secure guys going to take on a superficial babe,3 kids and a 5 bed house and 08 merc....

These guy's will be looking for another financially attractive happy secure intelligent woman,single and ready to go......

eviltwin

Speedwell wrote: »

Newsflash to men: It is possible, nay, even desirable, to say to your woman, "That's OK, honey, you go on and have fun shopping by yourself" or "I'm going to go over here and look at stuff I want to look at and I'll meet you back at the food court at 2:30". If you are following her around like a mopey sheepdog with a fear of crowds, that's your choice. If she insists you do it even though you are plainly annoyed by it, then she needs to have a good think about how she treats you. If she spends all your money, you and she need to set some reasonable limits and boundaries.

So glad someone said it. I don't know if I'm weird or what but myself and my partner are one of the few couples I know who aren't joined at the hip. Our space is very important to us. I wouldn't expect him to come to something I know he's no interest in and vice versa. And we can say no without the other person taking offense. I think it's one of the reasons we are still happy after so long, there's no over familiarity and when we are together its because we actually want to be there. Going along with your partner to something you don't want or need to be a part of reduces you to an accessory. But if you're not going to assert yourself and set boundaries you're as much to blame.