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.
Mad_maxx wrote: » The state does not compell the woman to get all she can but will facilitate if called upon
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
Allinall wrote: » Similarly for men.
Stacksofwacks wrote: » why dont you have a choice? Ive seen people with faces like a chipmunks butt happily married
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
Allinall wrote: » Any evidence to support that?
Mad_maxx wrote: » Oh please
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.
....... 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.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Reductive reasoning but sure you enjoy it
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?
....... wrote: » Still waiting on (1) a definition of what you mean by this and (b) evidence to support same.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Women automatically granted custody of children and family home. Family law courts treat men as second class citizens.
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.
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.
Allinall wrote: » This does not happen. You're just making things up to suit your agenda.
Paulie Tortell wrote: » Why are you being hostile and insulting people?
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.
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.
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
