Anyone else enjoy being single?

Stacksofwacks

quickbeam wrote: »

Well, I don’t have much choice in the matter so I make the best of being single.

Sometimes I wish it was otherwise. Sometimes I don’t. But at the end of the day, it is what it is.

why dont you have a choice? Ive seen people with faces like a chipmunks butt happily married

JohnnyFlash

When I broke up with my vile and contemptible ex-wife I couldn't believe how much I enjoyed the single life. It was like taking off a pair of shoes that were two sizes too small - that freedom. In the pub most Friday and Saturday nights, sinking the pints, up to me conkers in clunge most weekends. My ideal relationship started around 2.30am in the morning, and finished the next morning by 11.30 at the latest. I suppose it helps that I'm relatively attractive for my age, and extremely outgoing almost to the point of arrogance. Chicks tend to like me.

I think I'm looking for something a bit more permanent at this stage. My preference is for birds in their mid to late 30's, maybe 41 to 42 max. But that's a dangerous game to be playing, as the biological alarm clock is very loud in most of them. I'm 54 and the thoughts of becoming a father again fill me with horror - 2 of the bastards is more than enough. Might get the snip just to be sure.

Allinall

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The state does not compell the woman to get all she can but will facilitate if called upon

Similarly for men.

Mad_maxx

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

If thats the law thats the law. Marriage is a legally binding contract. Like any contract you should read the small print before getting into it

And its why I'm advocating staying single

FTA69

Jesus there seems to be a ferocious amount of people here who spend their time alone playing computer games.

Mad_maxx

Allinall wrote: »

Similarly for men.

No not remotely similar, men are the pre determined losers in these situations, anyone who claims otherwise is an ideologue or hopelessly naive

quickbeam

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

why dont you have a choice? Ive seen people with faces like a chipmunks butt happily married

I’m better looking than a chipmunk. It must be my personality so.

Allinall

Mad_maxx wrote: »

No not remotely similar, men are the pre determined losers in these situations, anyone who claims otherwise is an ideologue or hopelessly naive

Any evidence to support that?

Gimme A Pound

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

If thats the law thats the law. Marriage is a legally binding contract. Like any contract you should read the small print before getting into it

It's a crap law to be fair though. I do agree that men get the raw end of the deal - especially if their ex is an unreasonable person. It's the using it as a stick to beat all women with that I object to.

Mad_maxx

Allinall wrote: »

Any evidence to support that?

Oh please

.......

Mad_maxx wrote: »

No not remotely similar, men are the pre determined losers in these situations, anyone who claims otherwise is an ideologue or hopelessly naive

Still waiting on
(1) a definition of what you mean by this and
(b) evidence to support same.

.......

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Oh please

So if all you can repeat is:

"the state sides with De Wimmins" without any examples or evidence of same then you are not making for much of a discussion.

You hate women - we get it.

But mindlessly repeating unsubstantiated nonsense doesnt make it true.

Mad_maxx

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

It's a crap law to be fair though. I do agree that men get the raw end of the deal - especially if their ex is an unreasonable person. It's the using it as a stick to beat all women with that I object to.

It's not possible to highlight the unfairness of what can happen to men in the event of break - ups without referring to women, it's hysterical and dishonest ( aswell as intellectually lazy) to infer a hatred of women from these points

Mad_maxx

....... wrote: »

So if all you can repeat is:

"the state sides with De Wimmins" without any examples or evidence of same then you are not making for much of a discussion.

You hate women - we get it.

But mindlessly repeating unsubstantiated nonsense doesnt make it true.

Reductive reasoning but sure you enjoy it

Stacksofwacks

Mad_maxx wrote: »

No not remotely similar, men are the pre determined losers in these situations, anyone who claims otherwise is an ideologue or hopelessly naive

While thats cynical, I do think men can sometimes get the raw end of the stick in these scenarios. Depends on the circumstances. I dont think men going there own way culture has come from nowhere. I think it comes down to being in a healthy trusting relationship where both parties are willing to give ground on certain issues. If one partner is dominant and controlling and dosent listen to the other thats where the problems start. The marriages that seem to last are the ones where both are on the same page and who genuinely like and respect each other. But that dosent always work out so hence the risk

.......

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Reductive reasoning but sure you enjoy it

So you dont have any evidence or examples then?

Ok - whooosh......thats the sound of your unsubstantiated misogynistic nonsense whizzing past on its way to the bin.......

If this is how you behave in real life its no wonder you have experienced such negative interactions with women.

Blanket sexist generalisations with no rationalisation do not make for much of a catch.

Beta Ray Bill

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The quarell is with the state, got nothing to do with broad brush generalisations, reality is though that any woman can chose to cripple a male partner financially and will be celebrated for it

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

Ah who's going to celebrate them for it apart from the lunatic fringe? And no, plenty of men are not better off single.

....... wrote: »

How exactly?

And celebrated? What?

What he means is, women don't set out to destroy men, but (generally speaking) they're an awful lot better at standing up for themselves and arguing than men are when it comes to this stuff.
So in order for a woman to get what she wants, it might mean she's to "financially cripple" her ex but she's not thinking about that. She's thinking about getting what she wants, if that makes sense. (IE she doesnt give a sh*t about what happens him)

The state absolutely does favour the woman when kids are involved.
You can be the sh*ttest mother in the world and the state will still give you custody. (It's nearly impossible for a man to get primary custody of his kids. It's even extremely difficult to get 50%.)
And even if my some miracle you get custody, maintenance is payable to the mother of the kids ONLY.
IE a judge can not legally award any maintenance payments to the father from the mother in the event he has custody.
Then when this crap goes to court, the mother inevitably gets legal aid, the man doesn't.

Because Mother 95% of the time gets custody, that's where most of the assets go when there is a split. (Hence the financial crippling thing)

It is absolutely stacked up against the Father and does favour the Mother.
I've been/am going through this, I know what I'm talking about.

In terms of celebration, Women are great at supporting one another on Social media, and you see all those motivational style posts about a single mother doing it on her own..... gets about 12.8 billion likes.

I've learned an expensive (financially/mentally) lesson when it comes to this.
Men are better off single or perhaps in a casual dating relationship, unless they are absolutely 100% sure they are with the right woman (And he needs to be the perfect man for her).
And they only get one shot at making that commitment. (If this Sh*t I'm going through now happened a second time I actually don't know what I'd do.)

Charles Ingles

....... wrote: »

Still waiting on
(1) a definition of what you mean by this and
(b) evidence to support same.

Women automatically granted custody of children and family home.
Family law courts treat men as second class citizens.

SusieBlue

By the same token you could take it that any man not interested in fatherhood can effectively abandon their children and get away with it, leaving the mother to raise the children.
In the very worst case scenario, he would be court ordered to pay maintenance, but even that isn't strictly enforced and takes years to prosecute for. There is no enforced custody agreements put on men who aren't interested.
The very worst outcome is a financial hit.
The statistics on the amount of single mothers vs. single fathers in this country backs this up.

It was a thought that crossed my mind about 10 pages ago but I didn't bring it up because I know it isn't reflective of the behaviour of all men - but seeing as we're all throwing out total generalisations, why not add this one to the mix too.

Allinall

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Women automatically granted custody of children and family home.
Family law courts treat men as second class citizens.

This does not happen.

You're just making things up to suit your agenda.

Stacksofwacks

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

It's a crap law to be fair though. I do agree that men get the raw end of the deal - especially if their ex is an unreasonable person. It's the using it as a stick to beat all women with that I object to.

Well its the same in most western countries afaik. Ironically, these laws were devised by men to protect women but are based on the sexist premise that a woman should always be entitled to the kids and assets because the man would be out working and the woman would be unable to look after her kids otherwise. It needs looking at again in light of the modern world where there is more women in the workforce

RWCNT

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

When I broke up with my vile and contemptible ex-wife I couldn't believe how much I enjoyed the single life. It was like taking off a pair of shoes that were two sizes too small - that freedom. In the pub most Friday and Saturday nights, sinking the pints, up to me conkers in clunge most weekends. My ideal relationship started around 2.30am in the morning, and finished the next morning by 11.30 at the latest. I suppose it helps that I'm relatively attractive for my age, and extremely outgoing almost to the point of arrogance. Chicks tend to like me.

I think I'm looking for something a bit more permanent at this stage. My preference is for birds in their mid to late 30's, maybe 41 to 42 max. But that's a dangerous game to be playing, as the biological alarm clock is very loud in most of them. I'm 54 and the thoughts of becoming a father again fill me with horror - 2 of the bastards is more than enough. Might get the snip just to be sure.

Do there be a lot of single mid-late 30s/early 40s women out for the ride on a given weekend? A bit surprised at that to be honest!Anyone I know that age that's single get their casuals off dating apps and says everyone their age they meet when they're out is taken.

EmmetSpiceland

Dial Hard wrote: »

When my marriage ended (at his behest, I might point out) I walked away and left my ex with the house, the contents, the dogs and his extremely lucrative army pension.

Incredibly brave thing to do. I have a friend going through a divorce and wanted to do the same thing but as there’s a kid involved she was advised not to.

Her ex is a nasty piece of work. A real sociopath type. He’s done nothing but underhanded things since the proceedings began, it’s a complete nightmare for her. I hope to god he gets nothing out of it as that’s exactly what he deserves.

Charles Ingles

Allinall wrote: »

This does not happen.

You're just making things up to suit your agenda.

It absolutely does.
I work in this area I know what I'm talking about.
A mother will automatically be awarded custody of children unless she has addiction or mental health issues.
Or if Tulsa has child protection issues.
There is no equality in the family law courts for men

ArchXStanton

Paulie Tortell wrote: »

Why are you being hostile and insulting people?

Shaming language

Beta Ray Bill

SusieBlue wrote: »

By the same token you could take it that any man not interested in fatherhood can effectively abandon their children and get away with it, leaving the mother to raise the children.
In the very worst case scenario, he would be court ordered to pay maintenance, but even that isn't strictly enforced and takes years to prosecute for. There is no enforced custody agreements put on men who aren't interested.
The very worst outcome is a financial hit.
The statistics on the amount of single mothers vs. single fathers in this country backs this up.

That's very true.
But if a Father isn't interested in his kids, they are better off without him anyway though. Usually broke Dead beats anyway, wouldn't even be worth pursuing them for maintenance.

But in the event they are well off, it is most certainly worth while pursuing them, even if it does take a year or two.

dazed+confused

buried wrote:

Yes. Yes I do enjoy it. Would like to be with someone but the rural area I live in its difficult to get any sort of new relationship going. I love living out in the wild countryside but at the same time I also like listening to electronic music that sounds like a drone computer is eating/$hitting itself alive, I love to read books about the history of the world that concerns the most weird and darkest occult aspects of it. That's my craic. But that sort of craic don't exactly fly if you go out on a first date here and a lady asks ya - "So, what sort of stuff are you into?" Unless you enjoy listening to Nathan Carter and watching 'Dancing with the Canteen staff of RTE' out here, prepare to enjoy being single. And as long as I can listen to the sounds of a computer $hitting itself alive, those sounds turned up to 11 at 1am of a Friday night, then get up the next morning spending the day reading about the history of witchcraft drinking coffee and eating a rasher sandwich, I'm going to continue to enjoy the Hell out of it.

I don't think anyone has ever summed up the average Boardsie so eloquently in a single post before.

KungPao

Man in 20 being single? Normal.
Man in 30s being single? Okay if independent, not living with mammy etc.
Man in 40s being single? Oh, that a bit sad.
Man in 50s single all his life? Jimmy Savile alert.

Deebles McBeebles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It absolutely does.
I work in this area I know what I'm talking about.
A mother will automatically be awarded custody of children unless she has addiction or mental health issues.
Or if Tulsa has child protection issues.
There is no equality in the family law courts for men

That is true tbf. That's nothing against women or men for that matter but I've seen it myself. Then, most of the time the kids are better off with the mother.

This thread has made me thankful that I don't have kids but I'm still waiting for being single to be a bed of roses.

Allinall

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It absolutely does.
I work in this area I know what I'm talking about.
A mother will automatically be awarded custody of children unless she has addiction or mental health issues.
Or if Tulsa has child protection issues.
There is no equality in the family law courts for men

So there's three examples to prove your statement that

"Women automatically granted custody of children and family home"

is wrong.