Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
MGTOW = “men going their own way”
Comments
-
thats a good article, many times a week i would think, God maybe im missing out on something by not having a girlfriend, then i have a think of the freedoms i would have to give up straight away ad realise at the minute I have abolutly no hunger to do that. i suppose going to the odd dinner or barbecue it might be handy and less awkward talking to people in that stiff setting but really would be a pain having to cater for someone else in my life at the minute, a friend with benefits prob best. have a bit of fun, then maybe see the again in a few weeks.
Personally, I think there is something to be said (a lot) for a good functioning, healthy relationship, but the State has weighed in heavily against men, particularily married men, this may have been some rebound from limited or no rights on womens side, but it has gone too far, the State weighing in since and further. I did not even see or know about the cohabitating couples law when t was introduced, not so much regarding unmarried couples with children, but how it affects unmarried people, without children, a partner could it seems legally make a claim to their boy/girlfriends assets/property etc after the 5th year, possibly even the 4th year.
if Id have known what I know now, Id just date people and feel imposed upon the State about what relationship I can have with them outside of having children. imo outside of children, when two people part ways, they should take with them what they owned when they started out.
There was a thread here on boards, that suggested if a girlfriend moved in with her boyfriend, posters were suggesting she not contribute financially as it is wrong somehow or that if she did, she could claim it all back upon leaving, neither of those scenarios stands up because if a person was in a similar situation renting, they couldnt claim back what they put in financially nor not contribute as that wouldnt be reasonable.
imo, the timing is significant, (2009) the state introduced these laws to shift the cost away from the state and towards the main earner or maybe even specifically just towards the man even in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship after a set duration.0 -
pre nup? signed by solictor. One thing about being single is tax, christ i got srewed this year dont even want to think of how uch the accountant gave revenue or how he came up with thenet profit figure eitherm ill have to set something up for that a mortgage or land loan any good to off set tax? might as well be paying into something like that than paying it to revenue.? must ask on the finaaance thread0
-
pre nup? signed by solictor. One thing about being single is tax, christ i got srewed this year dont even want to think of how uch the accountant gave revenue or how he came up with thenet profit figure eitherm ill have to set something up for that a mortgage or land loan any good to off set tax? might as well be paying into something like that than paying it to revenue.? must ask on the finaaance thread
Pre nups have no legal basis in this Country, the reality is, if they were, terms would be more favourable, thats not in the interest of those that make the rules, otherwise it would be difficult to have an inequitable distribution of wealth, I doubt it ever will be a thing.
tax, forget about it imo, if 2 people who are in a legal relationship and both work, there is no real tax advantage, the only situation where there is anything to benefit from tax is if one person earns significantly less than the other, ie they earn zero or they earn well under the Standard rate cutoff point, in which case they can transfer some (most I think, but not all of) their tax credits.
The reality is, as a couple, where both work and earn above the SRC you may be taxed no different seperately than jointly.
For those that benefit from it, the advantage is worth taking if you are eligible, but it is marginal, certainly not worth getting married for when the amount you can lose that way is significant.0 -
I was surprised there wasn’t more discussion at the time on the rights and responsibilities of cohabitees part of that law. I had heard of palimony before in the US but I don’t think the term was ever used in the discussions here. I actually wrote to my TDs complaining but because it was such a minority view, they maybe saw my views as very fringe on it. Most of the discussions there were were about how this was a good initiative to support dependent partners. It showed again to me how society is often more focused on women than men, despite all the claims we live in a patriarchy.Personally, I think there is something to be said (a lot) for a good functioning, healthy relationship, but the State has weighed in heavily against men, particularily married men, this may have been some rebound from limited or no rights on womens side, but it has gone too far, the State weighing in since and further. I did not even see or know about the cohabitating couples law when t was introduced, not so much regarding unmarried couples with children, but how it affects unmarried people, without children, a partner could it seems legally make a claim to their boy/girlfriends assets/property etc after the 5th year, possibly even the 4th year.
if Id have known what I know now, Id just date people and feel imposed upon the State about what relationship I can have with them outside of having children. imo outside of children, when two people part ways, they should take with them what they owned when they started out.
There was a thread here on boards, that suggested if a girlfriend moved in with her boyfriend, posters were suggesting she not contribute financially as it is wrong somehow or that if she did, she could claim it all back upon leaving, neither of those scenarios stands up because if a person was in a similar situation renting, they couldnt claim back what they put in financially nor not contribute as that wouldnt be reasonable.
imo, the timing is significant, (2009) the state introduced these laws to shift the cost away from the state and towards the main earner or maybe even specifically just towards the man even in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship after a set duration.0 -
There is nothing funny about this particularly for the first partner.
I read studies about this years ago and will post links if I can find them.
A lot of women choose partner number #1 to be a good provider, good career, someone who will get the nest together and provide the first one or two kids. He could have a more squarish head I don’t know why, a metro sexual perhaps.
So with the home set up she gets the wandering eye and now choose some one with tattoos, rough and probably more masculine, a motor biker, a bad boy. He can run faster and jump higher than partner #1 and so will his kids. Earning power isn’t important as she has the house. She is looking for different seed. It’s good for evolution.
If tried with reverse partners .... the kids may have ended up homeless and she may never met the nest builder. Wiser to get the nest built first with the safe bet partner #1
She may not have set out with the ex convict in mind as partner #2, it wasn’t a master plan but now she has options ....
The sexy son hypothesis..0 -
Advertisement
-
I think a lot of men can get frustrated by the rules of the transaction: they can feel they are sticking to their side of the bargain but still aren’t benefiting e.g. with sex. So it’s different to many simpler transactions.
You've hit on something there, a lot of men are still operating from the 1950s manual... That often gets them chewed up and spit out nowadays0 -
Doctor Roast wrote: »You've hit on something there, a lot of men are still operating from the 1950s manual... That often gets them chewed up and spit out nowadays
The problem is that there is no manual, or standardized/accepted practice for dating anymore. Men are hit with conflicting signals and standards all the time, and not even from different people, but quite often from the same person. The truth is that women themselves can't decide what they want from dating or relationships, expecting men to be everything and nothing at the same time.
Oh.. and the 1950s manual for dating works really well. As long as you don't step into marriage or start living together. Being a gentleman and respectful towards women, remains the most successful manner of dating for me. You just need the confidence in yourself to pull it off.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »The problem is that there is no manual, or standardized/accepted practice for dating anymore. Men are hit with conflicting signals and standards all the time, and not even from different people, but quite often from the same person. The truth is that women themselves can't decide what they want from dating or relationships, expecting men to be everything and nothing at the same time.
Oh.. and the 1950s manual for dating works really well. As long as you don't step into marriage or start living together. Being a gentleman and respectful towards women, remains the most successful manner of dating for me. You just need the confidence in yourself to pull it off.
Reminds me of a good article :
"If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant as "good guys," they may get a "relationship partner." However, due to women's social vs. biological double-bind, these compliant men may also not be "attractive" to those same relationship partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). As a result, they may be punished by their girlfriend's/wife's lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a "pushover." These men may further be regarded as "just friends"—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits (see here).
In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be "nice" and follow what is biologically attractive, they have a higher likelihood of getting "sex partners." However, these men are often punished by being socially labeled as "jerks," "players," or even "creeps," unfit for socially-defined relationships. Furthermore, their tactics are often designated as "sexist" (Hall & Canterberry, 2011). Therefore, these men may get sex, but they often do not get love and respect."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201204/why-are-men-frustrated-dating%3famp0 -
Doctor Roast wrote: »Reminds me of a good article :
"If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant as "good guys," they may get a "relationship partner." However, due to women's social vs. biological double-bind, these compliant men may also not be "attractive" to those same relationship partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). As a result, they may be punished by their girlfriend's/wife's lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a "pushover." These men may further be regarded as "just friends"—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits (see here).
In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be "nice" and follow what is biologically attractive, they have a higher likelihood of getting "sex partners." However, these men are often punished by being socially labeled as "jerks," "players," or even "creeps," unfit for socially-defined relationships. Furthermore, their tactics are often designated as "sexist" (Hall & Canterberry, 2011). Therefore, these men may get sex, but they often do not get love and respect."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201204/why-are-men-frustrated-dating%3famp
Oh, I've read a lot of such research.. at the same time, I prefer to judge life based on the people I've known, whether that be Irish people, or those I've met abroad. As a lecturer and teacher, I've come to know many people, as adults, but have also seen how their relationships develop over time.
The one constant is that people get lazy and allow themselves to decline (the important factor is whether they bounce back from it, or allow it to continue). Men and women get into relationships, are active for the first year or two, and then the waistlines expand, the skin quality declines, and the romantic attitudes dry up. They don't find their partners terribly attractive anymore from a physical pov, and while they rely on "love", they're still lacking the passion that was so present at the beginning of the relationship. So they cheat, split up or limp along in agony.
Whereas I've known a variety of people to communicate regularly, exercise together, share their needs, etc and they've kept the passion alive.
For example, I have a close friend, male, in his late 50s. His wife is 20 years younger than him, and is a damn good looking woman.. she's also wealthier than he is. He romances her everyday. He pays attention to her needs, and wants, surprising her with little gestures all the time. He doesn't spend much on her, because that's not what she needs. She needs attention.. and she gets it. I know for a fact that she could have slept around easily enough, since I know guys who have tried seducing her. Playboys, young, handsome, etc... and they got nowhere.
The point being that if you continue to make an effort.. then likely she won't go looking elsewhere. Some women are simply built to cheat.. as are some men, but by the time a serious relationship is happening, you should know what your partner is..
I'm a "good guy". Oh, I was a bastard for a year but it didn't suit me. I enjoy being a good guy, a gentleman, but, I have zero tolerance for being played.. There is nothing wrong with being a good guy, but there needs to be a balance. Anything taken to extremes is a negative.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Oh, I've read a lot of such research.. at the same time, I prefer to judge life based on the people I've known, whether that be Irish people, or those I've met abroad. As a lecturer and teacher, I've come to know many people, as adults, but have also seen how their relationships develop over time.
The one constant is that people get lazy and allow themselves to decline (the important factor is whether they bounce back from it, or allow it to continue). Men and women get into relationships, are active for the first year or two, and then the waistlines expand, the skin quality declines, and the romantic attitudes dry up. They don't find their partners terribly attractive anymore from a physical pov, and while they rely on "love", they're still lacking the passion that was so present at the beginning of the relationship. So they cheat, split up or limp along in agony.
Whereas I've known a variety of people to communicate regularly, exercise together, share their needs, etc and they've kept the passion alive.
For example, I have a close friend, male, in his late 50s. His wife is 20 years younger than him, and is a damn good looking woman.. she's also wealthier than he is. He romances her everyday. He pays attention to her needs, and wants, surprising her with little gestures all the time. He doesn't spend much on her, because that's not what she needs. She needs attention.. and she gets it. I know for a fact that she could have slept around easily enough, since I know guys who have tried seducing her. Playboys, young, handsome, etc... and they got nowhere.
The point being that if you continue to make an effort.. then likely she won't go looking elsewhere. Some women are simply built to cheat.. as are some men, but by the time a serious relationship is happening, you should know what your partner is..
I'm a "good guy". Oh, I was a bastard for a year but it didn't suit me. I enjoy being a good guy, a gentleman, but, I have zero tolerance for being played.. There is nothing wrong with being a good guy, but there needs to be a balance. Anything taken to extremes is a negative.
It blows my mind that some men can't figure this out. The courting never ends. It's vital to keeps things fresh and exciting and, again, it doesn't have to be overly grand gestures or anything.
In most instances where relationships/marriages end, the man or indeed the woman, simply stopped putting the effort in, got too comfortable and let a malaise set in.
Forget about women/relationships for a second; you really want to be taking good care of your mental and physical health in any event for yourself, naturally enough this will be an attractive trait in itself.0 -
Advertisement
-
MGTOW like wearing a leather jacket or smoking or driving a cool Mustang or shooting a .45 Colt or earning loads of money or drinking whiskey etc only matters if you are ridiculously good looking.
Otherwise women will not care.0 -
this pandemic has really brought home how much i really love doiing my own thing and so grateful i am not in any sort of relationship.0
-
I wasn't sure which thread to post this to; possibly none are a good fit.
Anyway, I just came across the following today and thought the bolded bit was interesting.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/36/3/351/5688045
Is the End of Educational Hypergamy the End of Status Hypergamy? Evidence from Sweden
Margarita Chudnovskaya, Ridhi Kashyap
European Sociological Review, Volume 36, Issue 3, June 2020, Pages 351–365, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz065
Published: 27 December 2019 Article history
Abstract
The reversal of the gender gap in higher education has been a major social transformation: women now outnumber men in higher education in nearly all OECD countries. Patterns of assortative mating have also changed as highly educated women increasingly form relationships with men who have less education (hypogamous unions). In this article, we draw on rich register data from Sweden to ask whether the emergence of hypogamous unions signals the emergence of a new female status dominance in unions. We also consider how the status distribution in these unions compares to homogamous (both highly educated) or hypergamous (he highly educated) unions. We use Swedish register data and study couples who have their first child together. We refer to a multi-dimensional view of status and use indicators of social class background, income, and occupational prestige. We find that in hypogamous unions, women tend to have a higher social class background and occupational prestige, but lower income than their partners. The income gap between partners is not simply a consequence of the gender wage gap, but driven by selection into different union types. Men and women who form hypogamous unions are negatively selected in terms of their income.
0 -
See. . . thats the core of the issue right there, people generalising about the opposite sex will inevitably lead to misinformed confusion for someone listening who's never had a close relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
Why? . . . Because its not always true! Generalising or stereotyping is feeding unwarranted falsehood and speculation which in turn brings about fear, insecurity, distrust and resentment of the as yet 'unknown' members of the opposite sex.
It would benefit society immensely if sexual communication and relationships, especially nonverbal sexual communication were standard subjects in all secondary schools.
0 -
There is also a different between stereotypes and generalisations that are "not always true" or are false often enough to be misleading - - - and sweeping statements that appear not to be true whatsoever.
When I hear a claim like "women like money but working for it is the last thing they'll do" the best I can do is notice that this appears to be true of not just few - but literally no - girls or women I know. In my life. In my relationship. In my social circles. In my working circles. It is simply not a description I can map onto anyone or anything in my life experience.
If anything it has - occasionally - been the opposite. In that the girls and women I know have been working on some few occasions harder and are less distracted by things in their life such as their sexual pursuits or their plans to go out on the beer.
I am sure there are many lazy ass people - parasites - and bluffers all over the place. I have seen nothing at all to justify any gender breakdown or expectations in this.
0 -
I've always been single. Have gone on many dates etc but love being single.
Anytime I go on a date with someone who ticks all the right boxes, I think, is this the way it'll be all my life? I went on a date the other evening and she was great but I felt like I just gave up my whole evening compared to what I normally do.
There would be positives to a partner. For example, I'm living away from family so if anything goes wrong, I'm on my own. My car breaks down I have no one to call to pick me up or things like that. Running a house also would be easier with someone else, sharing costs, sharing cleaning, sharing cooking, them having the heating on when I am out or having the oven on in advance of coming home.
0 -
Sorry, what are you on about?
I don't have any agenda, you appear to have got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't dissing your post . . . rather I was emphasising your point.
Apologies if I didn't explain myself well but I am allowed to have an opinion.
0 -
a funny episode happened me back in early december, in a local enough pub, lively place on saturday nights and myself and friend ran into a group of 3 girls we knew in early 20s, spent an hour or 2 having drinks with them, 12 midnight shutting, we went back to one ther houses in the town and the houseowner basically proposes to me, says im 37 and should be settled down now and that we would make a nice couple and i have a house now and all so everything is set up.... shes about 35 i was like .....ok... had a another drink and slipped away as quietly as i could. very embarrasing for all. this is happening quite a bit the last 2 years. anyone else get this in mid 30s? most of these women i have never before even kissed .
1 -
No I haven't personally but it's quite a common thing you read online about how the "balance of power" between men and women switches around mid 30's.
Women in their 20s have lots of attention from men their own age and older.
Then when they're single in their mid 30's and up, the men their own age are still going after the ones in their 20s as women mature earlier than men generally.
Even myself I have noticed it wasn't easy get women in my early/mid 20's. Now it would be easy enough get a mid 30s woman. I feel I'm better looking now too despite weighing the same and not doing anything different. I think men age better.
So not surprising to hear your story as some women can be tetchy about wanting kids at a certain age.
2
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
