Anyone else enjoy being single?

jimgoose · 03-04-2019 10:58am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's exactly the situation I'm in, and tons of other people I know too. What's so bad about it?

I couldn't have bought the place with her anyway!

There's nothing bad about it, unless the relationship goes titsup.com and one, if not both, end up looking for somewhere else to live.

TomasMacR · 03-04-2019 10:58am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's exactly the situation I'm in, and tons of other people I know too. What's so bad about it?

I couldn't have bought the place with her anyway!

That's what I thought also. I've no basis for it but I was under the impression that it was far worse if you are married if things go south and you both co-own a house names on deed etc.

Beta Ray Bill · 03-04-2019 11:00am

TomasMacR wrote: »

what are the implications married versus a cohabiting couple owning a property?

When a divorce happens all the assets are split after 2 years of living apart (This is a legal thing), assets is everything (Property, vehicles, savings, pensions, etc)

When not married one needs to buy the other out or sell and agree how to split.
There is no legal provision for it, (IE Anything can happen). A judge would be hard pushed to force my Ex to leave the house as she's taken on the mortgage payments on her own and is managing cause now her new man is living there.
They can well afford it, and the Bank are also happy. It's also a "Family Home"

Only one who isn't happy is me as my name is still on the mortgage and I've now got to get my investment into that property back somehow. I cannot get a 2nd mortgage while my name is on that one.

MESS!!!!

Like jimgoose said, buy your own and then what's yours is yours unless you Marry

TomasMacR · 03-04-2019 11:03am

grahambo wrote: »

When a divorce happens all the assets are split after 2 years of living apart (This is a legal thing), assets is everything (Property, vehicles, savings, pensions, etc)

When not married one needs to buy the other out or sell and agree how to split.
There is no legal provision for it, (IE Anything can happen). A judge would be hard pushed to force my Ex to leave the house as she's taken on the mortgage payments on her own and is managing cause now her new man is living there.
They can well afford it, and the Bank are also happy. It's also a "Family Home"

Only one who isn't happy is me as my name is still on the mortgage and I've now got to get my investment into that property back somehow. I cannot get a 2nd mortgage while my name is on that one.

MESS!!!!

Like jimgoose said, buy your own and then what's yours is yours unless you Marry

wow...that is messed up and very unfair.

Beta Ray Bill · 03-04-2019 11:04am

TomasMacR wrote: »

wow...that is messed up and very unfair.

Lesson: Life is unfair.

A difficult lesson, but a lesson none the less.

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 11:09am

Not only that but after your divorced in Irish law your ex can still in theory come back looking for assets. I know a friend of mine was saying that his solicitor advised that there's actually no way to have an entirely 'wipe the slate clean' divorce here, even when both parties are in full agreement, have drawn that up in paper and the are no kids or disputed assets, your ex can still come back to court claiming hardship etc etc

I'd be a bit of a stretch to get the judge to reopen the divorce but it's theoretically possible.

Basically Irish law doesn't currently allow clean break divorces. Something worth bearing in mind before you ever get married.

Irish divorce law is like something that was designed by a slightly open-minded Catholic nun. It's just about complying with the definition of divorce and requires a 4 of 5 years purgatory period to punish you for having a failed marriage too.

Beta Ray Bill · 03-04-2019 11:14am

Anteayer wrote: »

Not only that but after your divorced in Irish law your ex can still in theory come back looking for assets. I know a friend of mine was saying that his solicitor advised that there's actually no way to have an entirely 'wipe the slate clean' divorce here, even when both parties are in full agreement, have drawn that up in paper and the are no kids or disputed assets, your ex can still come back to court claiming hardship etc etc

I'd be a bit of a stretch to get the judge to reopen the divorce but it's theoretically possible.

Basically Irish law doesn't currently allow clean break divorces. Something worth bearing in mind before you ever get married

I know someone that "came into money" early 2011, having completed the divorce process 7 years previous.

Her Ex found out and got a solicitor involved as he felt he was entitled to some of that given that she got a good bit of his pension.... And I think he got a good bit of it (Not 100% sure)

Gimme A Pound · 03-04-2019 11:15am

I know it's great being in a good relationship and obviously it's natural to want to meet someone - also it's horrible for a while after a break-up. But i really don't get this "I am unhappy single" stuff. It comes across as kinda needy. It's not healthy not to be happy in yourself alone. Do you have friends? Maybe it's the folk who don't have much of a social life that are the ones who "hate"/are unhappy being single.

Also, it's crazy talk to be saying 29/30 is getting on in years. Do you think you'll just curl up for the rest of your 55 or so years, or what?!

I get that someone in that age bracket doesn't like the feeling of growing older, but it makes no sense to have yourself convinced that you may not meet anyone ever because of being single at 29/30.

Also most of my friends with children met their husbands/partners at that age or after.

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 11:17am

grahambo wrote: »

I know someone that "came into money" early 2011, having completed the divorce process 7 years previous.

Her Ex found out and got a solicitor involved as he felt he was entitled to some of that given that she got a good bit of his pension.... And I think he got a good bit of it (Not 100% sure)

Basically, just don't get married. Seems to be the reasonable conclusion to any dealings with the Irish system. Mistakes aren't allowed and couples are bonded for life.

We didn't even have divorce until 1995 and then it was only barely passed by the skin of its teeth and has resulted in the most conservative divorce regime imaginable.

Even the fact that it's dealt with in the circuit court is ludicrous. Most divorces should be done by mediation, unless there are very serious disputes. It's a total waste of resources and stress bringing couples divorcing by mutual consent to court at all.

jimgoose · 03-04-2019 11:19am

grahambo wrote: »

I know someone that "came into money" early 2011, having completed the divorce process 7 years previous.

Her Ex found out and got a solicitor involved as he felt he was entitled to some of that given that she got a good bit of his pension.... And I think he got a good bit of it (Not 100% sure)

I think that's quite reasonable and equitable actually, the idea that the wealth and asset redistribution of a divorce can be revisited after some time, in the event of a significant development in financial circumstances.

....... · 03-04-2019 11:22am

TomasMacR wrote: »

what are the implications married versus a cohabiting couple owning a property?

Cohabitation act - can effectively try to be treated as same as married after 2 years if there is a child, 5 if there isnt.

....... · 03-04-2019 11:23am

grahambo wrote: »

When a divorce happens all the assets are split after 2 years of living apart (This is a legal thing), assets is everything (Property, vehicles, savings, pensions, etc)

When not married one needs to buy the other out or sell and agree how to split.
There is no legal provision for it, (IE Anything can happen). A judge would be hard pushed to force my Ex to leave the house as she's taken on the mortgage payments on her own and is managing cause now her new man is living there.
They can well afford it, and the Bank are also happy. It's also a "Family Home"

Only one who isn't happy is me as my name is still on the mortgage and I've now got to get my investment into that property back somehow. I cannot get a 2nd mortgage while my name is on that one.

MESS!!!!

Like jimgoose said, buy your own and then what's yours is yours unless you Marry

Yeah - it was a bad move to buy a house and have a child in it with someone you werent married to (no **** sherlock says you).

As regards the house, can you not force sale?

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 11:24am

jimgoose wrote: »

I think that's quite reasonable and equitable actually, the idea that the wealth and asset redistribution of a divorce can be revisited after some time, in the event of a significant development in financial circumstances.

In what way is that reasonable? Let's say you've a couple who broke up cleanly, had no mutual assets and no kids.

How is it in anyway reasonable that one of them could then go after the other after they've divorced?!

That's basically saying that there's no such thing as divorce at all and you cannot dissolve a marriage here.

It's even worse if someone has left an abusive or manipulative relationship or has an ex with a vendetta. They basically could be trapped for life or forced to emigrate.

jimgoose · 03-04-2019 11:26am

Anteayer wrote: »

In what way is that reasonable? Let's say you've a couple who broke up cleanly, had no mutual assets and no kids.

How is it in anyway reasonable that one of them could then go after the other after they've divorced?!

That wouldn't necessarily be the case. In a case such as you describe, one or other of them coming into money later would probably make no odds. But consider a divorce where the judge awards significant alimony to the ex-wife. She then comes into money some time later. The material facts of the case are now significantly different, that is to say, the judge would have made quite different provisions had her financial circumstances been thus at that time.

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 11:28am

Revising alimony is a different issue as that's an on going legal relationship.

The law as it stands could reopen a case that's been long closed and where the two parties are total strangers to each other without any financial connections at all.

If someone's in receipt of alimony payments it would seem reasonable that that is open to review as either party's circumstances could change.

The issue I'm seeing is where you've had a divorce were there were no alimony issues at all. That can still, in theory, be reopened.

Gimme A Pound · 03-04-2019 11:30am

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I'm not single, and its way better than being single tbh.

Down to the individual really. There are arguments easily for the reverse. In my opinion a relationship is only better than being single when you're crazy about the person/they about you.

Just needing to be "part of a couple" - can't relate.

jimgoose · 03-04-2019 11:30am

Anteayer wrote: »

Revising alimony is a different issue as that's an on going legal relationship.

The law as it stands could reopen a case that's been long closed and where the two parties are total strangers to each other without any financial connections at all.

That still wouldn't preclude revisiting the arrangements made at the time of the divorce - property, lump-sum payments, etc. - where financial circumstances change significantly.

Mad_maxx · 03-04-2019 11:30am

....... wrote: »

You seem very uninformed and bitter about the reality of relationship break ups. Or maybe you just hate women, there used to be another poster around here with similar views and it turned out he had gotten himself involved with some woman who was denying him access to his child - but if his behaviour in real life was anything like his postings it was no surprise really.

The state doesnt side with the woman. If you are at a point that the state are making decisions then one of you has been spectacularly ignorant and unfair in your dealings with the other person when a fair deal could have been hammered out in mediation.

I know lots of divorced people and more cases where the woman has been left in a worse off situation than the other way.

Anyway, I loved it when I was single and I love being married to my husband because we are good pals and our personal freedoms have not been curtailed by being married. But I know if we broke up or he died tomorrow that once Id gotten over the sadness/loss I would be grand on my own again.

Can you confirm one line of your post

Are you saying that " the state doesn't side with women" in the event of marriage break-up?

sbsquarepants · 03-04-2019 11:31am

jimgoose wrote: »

There's nothing bad about it, unless the relationship goes titsup.com and one, if not both, end up looking for somewhere else to live.

Makes little or no odds that I can see - especially if there are kids involved. The kids, their Mammy and their new uncle Sergio get the house no matter what it says on the deeds!

It's worse in fact if you're married. You are legally obliged to provide for your wife, not so for your girlfriend. If things go tits up you'll not only have to pay maintenance for the kids (which is only right) but also for your wife (cos Sergio likes nice things;))

Tell me how · 03-04-2019 11:31am

North of 30's and long term single.

I enjoy many elements of my life which would likely be different if I was in a relationship but I also think life could be better and more fulfilling in a meaningful relationship. Part of me is excessively paranoid however about ending up in the the wrong relationship so I am not doing myself any favours in trying to be optimistic about finding the right one.

Most likely going to move abroad in coming months for a period and if I was in relationship I likely wouldn't be doing that but then, if I was in a relationship, maybe I wouldn't feel the need to do it.*

* There are no hard and fast rules, just because someone is in a relationship, it doesn't mean their life is on hold or they won't emigrate but they are generally less likely to do so.

Charles Ingles · 03-04-2019 11:32am

Any woman over 30 that's single with no children is absolutely miserable.
I know a few they become very angry and bitter

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 11:34am

jimgoose wrote: »

That still wouldn't preclude revisiting the arrangements made at the time of the divorce - property, lump-sum payments, etc. - where financial circumstances change significantly.

So let's say a couple marry in their 20s. They break up and have no significant assets, debts or kids and they agree not to use pension provisions etc and go their separate ways without any fuss. A completely uncomplicated divorce by consent.

How would it be reasonable if say the ex wife 10 years later had built up say an IT company and then sold it, that her ex partner who had absolutely no involvement could then demand a share?

That makes no sense. It doesn't seem fair or reasonable at all.

If the ex partner subsequently remarried do those rights even extinguish?! Or can they just legally have a sort of almost bigamous claim to two or more people's assets for the rest of their lives?

ancapailldorcha · 03-04-2019 11:36am

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Any woman over 30 that's single with no children is absolutely miserable.
I know a few they become very angry and bitter

So you know a few women and have made a mass generalization of billions of women based on that.

Tell me how · 03-04-2019 11:36am

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Any woman over 30 that's single with no children is absolutely miserable.
I know a few they become very angry and bitter

I think you mean 'some' women rather than 'any' woman.

I know plenty who are just as comfortable within their own skin as those with children, I also know women with children who simultaneously love them and feel somewhat trapped by their responsibilities.

Same goes for men. Some are extremely bitter about not having created a family and look to blame an ex for making them distrust women.

JohnnyFlash · 03-04-2019 11:38am

I’d say a lot of single lads have the mickey nearly pulled off themselves with all the **** they are doing.

jimgoose · 03-04-2019 11:41am

Anteayer wrote: »

So let's say a couple marry in their 20s. They break up and have no significant assets, debts or kids and they agree not to use pension provisions etc and go their separate ways without any fuss. A completely uncomplicated divorce by consent.

How would it be reasonable if say the ex wife 10 years later had built up say an IT company and then sold it, that her ex partner who had absolutely no involvement could then demand a share?

That makes no sense. It doesn't seem fair or reasonable at all.

If the ex partner subsequently remarried do those rights even extinguish?! Or can they just legally have a sort of almost bigamous claim to two or more people's assets for the rest of their lives?

What I'm saying is, a scenario such as you describe probably wouldn't happen - there would be no sense, meaning or equity in reopening such a divorce. There would be nothing to correct, regardless of any changed circumstances.

Tell me how · 03-04-2019 11:42am

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’d say a lot of single lads have the mickey nearly pulled off themselves with all the **** they are doing.

Single in this context implies not in a long term relationship, not that someone doesn't casually date.

Also, you really believe those that are married never treat themselves? Male or female?

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 11:43am

jimgoose wrote: »

What I'm saying is, a scenario such as you describe probably wouldn't happen - there would be no sense, meaning or equity in reopening such a divorce.

That's what he was warned could happen, if the law were stretched to its theoretical limits.

I assume you would have to convince a family law judge that the reason for reopening it was reasonable and equitable and it's not just an automatic right to do so without any need to make a case?

....... · 03-04-2019 11:44am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Can you confirm one line of your post

Are you saying that " the state doesn't side with women" in the event of marriage break-up?

No.

Can you give some examples as to how exactly it does?

If a man and a woman are married with no children and break up they come out equally.

If a man and a woman are married with children and they break up then it is decided who is going to be the main carer for the children with the other person being awarded access or shared custody etc... Maintenance is also agreed.

Usually the woman ends up with custody (but not always), but whoever does then also stays in the family home - which makes sense for the children. Is this what you perceive as the state siding with the woman?

jimgoose · 03-04-2019 11:46am

Anteayer wrote: »

...I assume you would have to convince a family law judge that the reason for reopening it was reasonable and equitable and it's not just an automatic right to do so without any need to make a case?

I'd be fairly sure this is the case. I know one particular judge socially - a great big bear of a man like Albus Dumbledore gone wrong - and he doesn't hesitate to use the "fuck off out of my court and don't you dare come back with this shite!" legal maxim. :pac::pac::pac:

JohnnyFlash · 03-04-2019 11:48am

Tell me how wrote: »

Single in this context implies not in a long term relationship, not that someone doesn't casually date.

Also, you really believe those that are married never treat themselves? Male or female?

Listen, there’s no doubt that most lads treat themselves to an auld ‘party with Palm and her 5 sisters’ the odd time, or a bird spends a bit of time ‘ringing Satan’s doorbell’. All I’m saying is that a lot of single lads mightn’t have the desire to go out and meet someone as they are emotionally exhausted from all the **** they are doing - probably to gonzo porn.

Charles Ingles · 03-04-2019 11:52am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you know a few women and have made a mass generalization of billions of women based on that.

No just the women I know through work.
Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf.
Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man.
We are here to reproduce

ancapailldorcha · 03-04-2019 11:53am

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No just the women I know through work.
Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf.
Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man.
We are here to reproduce

That's a pile of nonsense to be honest. There are plenty of women who are more than happy to remain childless.

Deebles McBeebles · 03-04-2019 11:53am

Charles Ingles wrote: »

We are here to reproduce

Resistance is futile.

03-04-2019 11:56am

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No just the women I know through work.
Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf.
Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man.
We are here to reproduce

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

03-04-2019 11:56am

pumpkin4life wrote: »

.........
I've seen a lot of people do this in an effort to rationalize away the fact that they're unattractive...............

There's bucketloads of seriously unattractive people in relationships.

Charles Ingles · 03-04-2019 11:57am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a pile of nonsense to be honest. There are plenty of women who are more than happy to remain childless.

No I don't agree.
They end up getting a cat or dog calling themselves the pet's mommy.
Married women with children in general are much happier

SusieBlue · 03-04-2019 11:58am

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No just the women I know through work.
Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf.
Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man.
We are here to reproduce

Not remotely true. Most people find themselves single in their 30's because they spent most of their 20's in a relationship with the wrong person, which subsequently ended.
I can't think of one person I know, male or female, over the age of 30, who spent their whole 20's (a decade) purposely avoiding any and all kinds of relationships in order to focus on their career.

Plenty of people decide not to have children and lead happy, content lives. Your post is full of wildly inaccurate baseless claims.

BeerWolf · 03-04-2019 11:59am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIatII19R_U

Stacksofwacks · 03-04-2019 12:01pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No I don't agree.
They end up getting a cat or dog calling themselves the pet's mommy.
Married women with children in general are much happier

I have to agree with you. My mother's aunt was a spinster and let me tell you she was the most spiteful person Ive ever come across. She resented my mother for having kids and made her life a misery.

Mad_maxx · 03-04-2019 12:01pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You aren't one of these red pill / blue pill gobshítes are you?

I think there is too much bolloxology about "power" in relationships - if your goal in a relationship is to attain power to use over the other person, it's a dysfunctional relationship and you'd be much better off out of it - whether you are the one with the power or not.

Thinking like that is the sign of an unhealthy mind in my opinion.

I have no desire to control my missus, I'm sure as fúck not going to let her control me. That doesn't mean you just go do whatever the hell you want, same as you just don't go take whatever you want in a shop - there are consequences to actions, the price of the action is the payment of the consequence.

I would very much like to bang the one across the road with the porn star body - but not at the expense of hurting my missus, or possibly upending my kids lives. It's a price I wouldn't be willing to pay - that's just reality, not control.

I choose to not do it, my hand is not forced!

I didn't refer to infidelity once

Deebles McBeebles · 03-04-2019 12:01pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No I don't agree.
They end up getting a cat or dog calling themselves the pet's mommy.
Married women with children in general are much happier

What about single men? Have you found this with them too or is it just women?

Charles Ingles · 03-04-2019 12:02pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not remotely true. Most people find themselves single in their 30's because they spent most of their 20's in a relationship with the wrong person, which subsequently ended.
I can't think of one person I know, male or female, over the age of 30, who spent their whole 20's (a decade) purposely avoiding any and all kinds of relationships in order to focus on their career.

Plenty of people decide not to have children and lead happy, content lives. Your post is full of wildly inaccurate baseless claims.

Just what I've experienced in my life, sorry if my opinion is different to yours

Berserker · 03-04-2019 12:02pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Any woman over 30 that's single with no children is absolutely miserable. I know a few they become very angry and bitter

I know a few and they've great lives. They are the type of people who don't take life too serious, work 9-5 and spend the rest of their time travelling, going to fitness classes etc. Really nice people.

Women who focus on their careers and hit a brick wall in their thirties when they realise that they want to have a relationship and family are a different kettle of fish. They tend to be intense people by nature, who want it all now and most men are going to steer clear of that. One of my OH's friends falls into this category. Late thirties now and she's set herself the goal of finding a husband and having kids by the age of 40. She started dating, kicking guys to the curb for silly reasons and the supply chain has dried up now. She a right pain to be round.

Gimme A Pound · 03-04-2019 12:03pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No just the women I know through work.
Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf.
Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man.
We are here to reproduce

Which is it? Miserable, angry and bitter or panicking? Do they tell you they have been wasting their lives and are going to be left on the shelf?

Of course they don't. What you wrote is just generic and is to goad.

Having a career is run of the mill nowadays - I think it's something to do with that whole needing to earn an income thing. What defines "only interested in themselves"? Not being in a relationship?

And early 30s nowadays is a standard age at which people settle down. You're talking about it as if it's late 30s/40s - are you very young?

But anyway, people with a particular bias and hostility will see whatever they want to see.

Mad_maxx · 03-04-2019 12:03pm

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

You should clarify that. Saying men are better off single and women have all the power in relationships (depends, but you specifically mean legally) is a bit woman hatey. Also, you're married/in a relationship aren't you?

I forgot that stating facts constitutes " hate" these days.

Mad_maxx · 03-04-2019 12:06pm

grahambo wrote: »

What he means is, if the relationship goes south and there are kids involved the Man is generally screwed if he is someone that's put a lot of time and effort into his career.

He's stuck paying maintenance for each kid until the youngest kid is 18 (21 if they go to college)

Ultimately the combined wealth of the relationship is split, with the Lions share going to whoever has the kids. If there is a mortgage etc involved then getting that sorted is difficult too.

Men tend to go for Jobs that pay more where as women tend to go for job that they like more which is a big factor in pay disparity.

I'm going through this right now (wasn't married), but bought a house and had a kid with a woman, she ended up being with someone else and now I'm stuck with less than 36 hours a week with my kid and I'm handing over €600 a month, plus it's costing me €150 a month in logistics just to see him.

I don't hate women, but I defo won't ever get into a serious relationship with one ever again. Given what can go wrong, there is to much risk involved and I don't see the point.

I've a son and a daughter, genuinely hope my son is gay as the state is openly prejudiced against straight men and its a celebration according to many

Gimme A Pound · 03-04-2019 12:06pm

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I have to agree with you. My mother's aunt was a spinster and let me tell you she was the most spiteful person Ive ever come across. She resented my mother for having kids and made her life a misery.

You "have to" agree with that woman hater because of ONE woman you know?!

I know several very happy, attractive, easy-going, well adjusted women over 30 also, but no - let's just view women negatively here.

Again.

....... · 03-04-2019 12:07pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No just the women I know through work.
Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf.
Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man.
We are here to reproduce

You sound like a bloke I used to work with.

He thought all women were just baby mad too. Funny.

SusieBlue · 03-04-2019 12:07pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Just what I've experienced in my life, sorry if my opinion is different to yours

Any thoughts on why the men over 30 all find themselves single? Are they bitter and twisted too or is that behaviour just found in the women?

Anyone else enjoy being single?

Comments