Dial Hard wrote: » It's mostly a one-way street to be fair, T.
Augeo wrote: » There's bucketloads of seriously unattractive people in relationships.
dd973 wrote: » Couply people have always given me the impression that they'd be married or hooked up with someone else if they weren't with their current partner, there's loads of these types especially among the baby boomer generation, married at 22, divorced at 45, hook up again, stepkids, split up again, meet someone else then end up back with the person they married at 22. It's as if being in marriages/relationships is inbuilt into their personality and DNA whilst with other people, myself included, I could quite conceivably be single for 300 years and this soulmate never turns up no matter how many pubs or public places you walk into, statistically there probably is 'someone for everybody' but that's no use if they're living in Chile or New Zealand and you're never going to meet them!
Ramona Shrilling Matchmaking wrote: » ...not that I could just swap my partner out for another willy...
dd973 wrote: » Couply people have always given me the impression that they'd be married or hooked up with someone else if they weren't with their current partner, there's loads of these types especially among the baby boomer generation, married at 22, divorced at 45, hook up again, stepkids, split up again, meet someone else then end up back with the person they married at 22.
Deleted User wrote: » Not in my experience. Tiny handful of both on both sides is all really ever see - but a lot of that "butt hurt" from them. But I admit I have never kept stats on it.
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.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » By god, I think we have our new Aongus Von B!
Mad_maxx wrote: » Use of the term "Patriarchy" Classic! Even the courts overwhelmingly side with the woman, the system is still mysogonist :rolleyes: Feminists loose even when they win
Tucker Hot Bell wrote: » No they're not fighting it but I guess that's because it's a men's rights issue (and yes I know feminists now claim to fight for any gender equality but we all know that's not true). But you're in a relationship or marriage as far as I know? Which makes your posts kinda strange. I mean yes there are certainly awful inequalities against men in family law (And elsewhere) but it seems to be very personal for you Depends. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. A person's own perspective isn't always the one everyone has. You most certainly have not.
Zorya wrote: » As a related aside I find that word clunge to be gruesome sounding. I don't get out much so I read it on boards for the first time, and I hope it is not commonly used. C*nt is a much nicer word, frankly. Clunge. Ughhhh.
Tell me how wrote: » Not sure I ever thought I'd see someone describing c*nt as a nice word. The other one originated largely from the inbetweeners I think and anyone using it in real life probably isn't that different (in personality or succes with the ladies) than Jay.
Tell me how wrote: » That's like comparing Geordie Shore to Made in Chelsea.
DoozerT6 wrote: » 44F single my entire life. It just never happened for me. Would like to have a relationship so I could actually KNOW whether I'd prefer being single or coupled up. I think it's hard to tell when you haven't experienced both sides.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Clunge and Johnny’s tale in general reminds me of: :pac:
Charles Ingles wrote: » Completely different for a man to choose to be single than a woman. A man can arse around until his fourties then settle for any woman once she is capable of conceiving. Women on the other hand miss the boat after 35 childbirth is dangerous and the woman is actually referred to as a geriatric mother.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Would you mind taking your weird anti-women soapbox somewhere else please? I was hoping the thread wouldn't turn into a sh*tshow.
Deleted User wrote: » I'm willing to wager Charlie isn't a day over 20. Brings to mind the empty posturing of a frustrated undergraduate.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Sorry I'm not anti woman at all. I'm pointing out biological differences where I feel women get the short end of the stick. Trying to balance career etc and having children
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » You’re a charmer Charles. A charmer. Actually we men have to worry about a decrease in sperm quality as we age.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
