Do men really need relationships?

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

In a relationship, especially with children, both sides compromise and lose out, as well as gain. The problem for men is not the price of a relationship, but the price of a relationship failing.

Perhaps. I'm a romantic though and never go into a relationship believing it will ultimately fail (you'd think I'd know by now :rolleyes:) How many people would think think like that? Would that be a genuine deterent among men? Are men more pragmatic entering a relationship that they'd consider this?

This is a genuine question and not rhetoric.

Seems to me the problems that would lead to a relationship failing is each partner not seeing it from the other person's perspective.

opinion guy

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Women also looses out on her social life, even the social side to the work environment. It's generally the woman who stays at home and minds the kids. Some men believe because they are the ones out earning the money that they have the right to go out with their mates for pints while their wife stays at home. Staying at home minding a kid with no adult company is hardly a laugh a minute I'm sure. I know this has caused lots of problems in relationships and this is most definitely the biggest deterent for me...

The man looses out, the woman also looses out as well but that's life. When you have a kid, sacrifices need to be made, at least 'till the kid gets a bit older. It's a case of sucking it up and getting along with it and both of them seeing it from each other's perspectives and coming to some sort of compromise. (renting a babysitter more often?) At the end of the day, moaning up here on Boards will achieve nothing....he needs to talk to his partner...the child is here to stay.

And the OP is accusing his friends' wives of entrapment. He says Ireland must have the highest rate of contraception failure in the world...I think it's more of a case of Ireland having little or no sex education in schools.

To be honest I think you missed my point here.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Perhaps. I'm a romantic though and never go into a relationship believing it will ultimately fail (you'd think I'd know by now :rolleyes:) How many people would think think like that? Would that be a genuine deterent among men? Are men more pragmatic entering a relationship that they'd consider this?

This is a genuine question and not rhetoric.

Seems to me the problems that would lead to a relationship failing is each partner not seeing it from the other person's perspective.

Honestly - I used to go into things all starry eyed. But bitter experience has taught me otherwise and I'm now a total cynic.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Perhaps. I'm a romantic though and never go into a relationship believing it will ultimately fail (you'd think I'd know by now :rolleyes:) How many people would think think like that? Would that be a genuine deterent among men? Are men more pragmatic entering a relationship that they'd consider this?

This is a genuine question and not rhetoric.

I think that men are increasingly becoming more pragmatic because of the imbalance in the law and social attitudes and that is reflected in a general decline in marriage in the West. More depressingly is the increase in men trapped in unhappy marriages because they could well lose their children and become financially destitute if they did.

Seems to me the problems that would lead to a relationship failing is each partner not seeing it from the other person's perspective.

It doesn't matter how a relationship ends, also because I doubt anyone who does marry or, now thanks to the change in the law, cohabitates long term would do so if they could see an end to it.

What matters is that it can and the price that is paid when it does and for many men those odds and that price are simply too high.

Eve_Dublin

opinion guy wrote: »

Honestly - I used to go into things all starry eyed. But bitter experience has taught me otherwise and I'm now a total cynic.

I'm talking about failed marriages with kids involved, which according to people here is the inevitable route of relationships. Corinthian argues that men loose out more than women after failed relationships with kids involved.

If were talking about relationships minus kids and marriage, then I'd say both sexes are equally likely to loose out and would deter both sexes from taking that risk again. They say men take longer to get over a broken heart though...women are supposedly more resiliant on that front.

Eve_Dublin

And would you (men) honestly not get involved with someone just in case you get married, have kids and it fails? Jesus you're awful pessimists altogether!

opinion guy

Personally I don't know that one ever gets over a truly broken heart. To "get over" implies to return to your former state. That never happens. People change instead. Or they stay stuck in pain. They don't ever go back to how they were.

metrovelvet

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

And would you (men) honestly not get involved with someone just in case you get married, have kids and it fails? Jesus you're awful pessimists altogether!

I wouldn't and I'm apparantly in the consituency that has less to lose.

Wibbs

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

How many people would think think like that? Would that be a genuine deterent among men? Are men more pragmatic entering a relationship that they'd consider this?

This is a genuine question and not rhetoric.

Like opinion guy and The Corinthian I would be very cautious. For a number of reasons. Personal experience. Like OG I would have been once very much the heart on sleeve emotionally open guy, full of trust. Now? No way, or at least I can't see myself doing so for a very long time and she would want to be one special bunny. It wasn't just a one off thing that soured the milk of human kindness for me either. I've put in the time and emotional energy into a fair few relationships in the past only to be right royally shafted on what at times looked like and were fickle whims. In some cases looking back, I dropped the ball. Actually, no, in all cases I did. Sometimes because I wasn't putting enough in, but more often because I didnt spot the signs of upcoming betrayal. I've helped a few exes above and beyond the call of duty. Helped them emotionally and practically and didnt look for much back beyond simple loyalty and I got little thanks for it, save lip service. Now is it because I'm picking emotionally disloyal women from the get go? Quite possibly, but even if that is the case, I'm clearly not good at spotting them.

Like TC I have also seen enough of my male friends get seriously shafted too, or others in dead, stressful, sexless, loveless unions afraid to leave, because of the very real consequences of doing so.

Against that I do know good couples and partnerships out there. I've also seen some of my women mates get shafted too. But for me, I seriously doubt I would be prepared to risk a legal union like marriage any more. Of the ones who did shaft me? I'm thank my lucky stars it never got to that point.

Wibbs

opinion guy wrote: »

Personally I don't know that one ever gets over a truly broken heart. To "get over" implies to return to your former state. That never happens. People change instead. Or they stay stuck in pain. They don't ever go back to how they were.

I would agree with that. Each emotional insult tends to harden the heart more. Of the truly great couples I know the majority are those with their "first loves". Not the teen puppy love, the first fully adult loves. Some can and do make bloody great relationships while not being of that type, but IMHO and IME its rarer.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree with that. Each emotional insult tends to harden the heart more. Of the truly great couples I know the majority are those with their "first loves". Not the teen puppy love, the first fully adult loves. Some can and do make bloody great relationships while not being of that type, but IMHO and IME its rarer.

You know what. Now that you mention it. I have absolute trust in friends I met before I was 25. Anyone I met after that, friend or other, I have and am always circumspect. Weird.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

If were talking about relationships minus kids and marriage, then I'd say both sexes are equally likely to loose out and would deter both sexes from taking that risk again.

It's more equal, but that does not mean that both sexes are equally likely to loose out. I've seen guys who married and the moment they did their wives just stopped working. And then there are accounts of judges being automatically biased in favour of the ex-wife, even where there are no children.

Then again those are just anecdotal and hearsay, and I would say that without children there is at least a much more level playing field.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

And would you (men) honestly not get involved with someone just in case you get married, have kids and it fails? Jesus you're awful pessimists altogether!

Would you blame us?

For example, if you were to get pregnant, you'd get an abortion, as you said - yet you've not suggested that you might just get the snip yourself, despite it having been suggested for men. We ultimately have very little control if something goes wrong and if it does, we're basically in indentured servitude for life.

Even if it doesn't all we need do is be in a relationship with someone who can't hold down a job, or earns less or is otherwise financially irresponsible and after living with them for five years we'll owe them an income for life.

Certainly that works the other way too, but society's norms are such that it is far more socially acceptable if the woman is at home, taking care of the house. If a man were to do that, most would consider him a parasite.

It is pessimistic, but that's the World we live in. Just as I don't like the odds of a one night stand with a woman from a country with 40% HIV rates, neither do I like the odds of marriage (one-in-six failure rate in Ireland) and now even long term cohabitation. I'd love to, but I know that I'll almost certainly get screwed if it goes bad.

Ironically those odds on a marital breakup are the same as losing a game of Russian roulette, btw.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

For example, if you were to get pregnant, you'd get an abortion, as you said - yet you've not suggested that you might just get the snip yourself, despite it having been suggested for men.

My understanding was that it was less severe a procedure for men than women? And reversible?

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would you blame us?

For example, if you were to get pregnant, you'd get an abortion, as you said - yet you've not suggested that you might just get the snip yourself, despite it having been suggested for men. We ultimately have very little control if something goes wrong and if it does, we're basically in indentured servitude for life..

Ah give me a break! In indentured servitude?? As if it's completely our fault! Believe it or not, some men like children and want to have them. Just because you see it as a death sentence doesn't mean all men do. You're putting all the blame on women and taking absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. That's childish. Grow a pair. Not all women are that unreasonable.

I never suggested a man getting the snip?? You did.I think that's too extreme a step...what if he changed his mind?? I would never make someone do that. It's not my place. I suggested doubling up and taking the risks that go with contraception . Don't forget women have got pregnant even after the man got a vesectomy. Would I get the snip? No because of medical reasons and I might change my mind down the line.

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

My understanding was that it was less severe a procedure for men than women? And reversible?

Vasectomies are certainly less severe in terms of the actual procedure, although they arguably have a greater effect post-op. Both are very difficult to reverse.

Of course, she did say she had no intention of ever having children, so I would have thought it would make sense and save a lot of money and risk where it comes to contraception. Unless she wants to keep her options open...

Not really my point though. What I was illustrating is that such a drastic procedure as sterilization is a pretty insulting thing to suggest is such a cavalier manner as some have in this thread.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Ah give me a break! In indentured servitude?? As if it's completely our fault! Believe it or not, some men like children and want to have them. Just because you see it as a death sentence doesn't mean all men do. You're putting all the blame on women and taking absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. That's childish. Grow a pair. Not all women are that unreasonable.

You don't want kids and if you got pregnant, you'd have an abortion - your words and your choice ultimately, regardless of what the father would want.

A man on the other hand has no such choice, no option and so if he were one who did not want to become a parent, who would have - like you - had an abortion had he not been burdened with a Y-chromosome, then he will be forced to by law to accept financial responsibility at the very least, and that is indentured, by definition.

I never suggested a man getting the snip?? You did.I think that's too extreme a step...what if he changed his mind??

I didn't suggest you did, and neither did I - others did in this thread, generally the one's who will fight tooth an nail to have their options to choose, I find.

Would I get the snip? No because of medical reasons and I might change my mind down the line.

What medical reasons out of curiosity?

donfers

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

And I'm also talking about relationships here...your boyfriend is obviously not single. There's more acceptance in society for a man to remain single than a woman.

wrong......There's more acceptance in society for a man aged 30 or over to remain single than a woman aged thirty or over for a patently obvious evolutionary fact.

Deny it, reject it, say you're fine without it but that's life my friends

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Indentured servants can't leave. Men can. And do.

They cannot. They are legally bound. End of.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

They cannot. They are legally bound. End of.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Poor men. Boo hoo.

What do you bring to a pity party?

Metro, TC, we thank you for your contribution - please do not post in this thread again.

The topic on the table, in my opinion as mod , is the pros and cons of being in a relationship. This is not a discussion about who gets the easier time when a relationship fails.

Any comments on this decision, feel free to vent at me by pm, otherwise, it's not open for discussion.

thanks all.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

You don't want kids and if you got pregnant, you'd have an abortion - your words and your choice ultimately, regardless of what the father would want.

Nope. I'd take his opinion into account and if he wanted it, I'd definitely reconsider. I'm not talking hypthetically here...I'm going out with a guy since April...things are not that serious yet...I'm guessing he doesn't want to have a kid with me just yet :rolleyes:

I'd have an abortion AFTER discussing it with him...I'm going with the presumption that that's what he'd want at this stage of our relationship. This would be the decision I'd presume we'd both want after 4 months of going out PLUS he's 44 years old. I'm guessing if he wanted to have kids he already would've at this stage. I could be wrong.

Eve_Dublin

donfers wrote: »

wrong......There's more acceptance in society for a man aged 30 or over to remain single than a woman aged thirty or over for a patently obvious evolutionary fact.

Deny it, reject it, say you're fine without it but that's life my friends

That's what I said

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

What medical reasons out of curiosity?

Absolutely none of your business. How dare you ask that question.

LegacyUser

For various reasons I have an insight into both sides of this argument. Generally we all benefit from good relationships but they're not that easy to find. Men would be better off not in a relationship if it doesn't make them happy but for all kinds of reasons many stay with someone until it's too late to get out easily. Regular sex without too much effort would be high up on the list.

As for offspring it does appear that most guys aren't that interested in having kids. There are exceptions of course but generally groups of men don't gather around planning how many children they're going to have.

My advice to any man is not to go into a long term relationship unless you actually love the person you're with. Otherwise you'll end up feeling trapped. There's a surprising amount out there in that situation.

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Nope. I'd take his opinion into account and if he wanted it, I'd definitely reconsider. I'm not talking hypthetically here...I'm going out with a guy since April...things are not that serious yet...I'm guessing he doesn't want to have a kid with me just yet :rolleyes:

I'd have an abortion AFTER discussing it with him...I'm going with the presumption that that's what he'd want at this stage of our relationship. This would be the decision I'd presume we'd both want after 4 months of going out PLUS he's 44 years old. I'm guessing if he wanted to have kids he already would've at this stage. I could be wrong.

So as of right now you have no desire to have children, yet if you did become pregnant and your boyfriend wanted to keep it you would then consider accepting motherhood with all the emotional and financial burdens and responsibilities that would entail and forever changing your life forever?

Eve_Dublin

Maguined wrote: »

So as of right now you have no desire to have children, yet if you did become pregnant and your boyfriend wanted to keep it you would then consider accepting motherhood with all the emotional and financial burdens and responsibilities that would entail and forever changing your life forever?

I have no desire to have children. If it was 100% up to me I would have an abortion. If my boyfriend wanted to keep it then I'd be open to discussion. It takes two to tango and it would be his decision as well. I'm a reasonably person believe it or not and I don't hate children, I really like them in fact...particualrly other people's...I just value my independence more right now. I'm talking about my own situation...I don't know for sure but I doubt he'd want to have a kid with me after 4 months of going out. He's not religious and as far as I know, he's not opposed to abortion.

Really, what has this got to do with anything though? How is this related to the original topic?

fionav3

opinion guy wrote: »

Personally I don't know that one ever gets over a truly broken heart. To "get over" implies to return to your former state. That never happens. People change instead. Or they stay stuck in pain. They don't ever go back to how they were.

Well said and very true. I think this applies to both men and women. Maybe at the end of the day, it's not about your gender, it's about your experiences in past relationships. Mine have certainly made me very cynical and wary, and not altogether inclined to do the whole romance thing again.

sam34

Once off. wrote: »

For various reasons I have an insight into both sides of this argument. Generally we all benefit from good relationships but they're not that easy to find. Men people would be better off not in a relationship if it doesn't make them happy but for all kinds of reasons many stay with someone until it's too late to get out easily. Regular sex without too much effort would be high up on the list.

As for offspring it does appear that most guys aren't that interested in having kids. There are exceptions of course but generally groups of men don't gather around planning how many children they're going to have.

My advice to any man person is not to go into a long term relationship unless you actually love the person you're with. Otherwise you'll end up feeling trapped. There's a surprising amount out there in that situation.

fixed that for ya

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I have no desire to have children. If it was 100% up to me I would have an abortion. If my boyfriend wanted to keep it then I'd be open to discussion. It takes two to tango and it would be his decision as well. I'm a reasonably person believe it or not and I don't hate children, I really like them in fact...particualrly other people's...I just value my independence more right now. I'm talking about my own situation...I don't know for sure but I doubt he'd want to have a kid with me after 4 months of going out. He's not religious and as far as I know, he's not opposed to abortion.

Really, what has this got to do with anything though? How is this related to the original topic?

The point is that once that sperm fertilizes the egg the man really has no decision making power anymore and men should always be aware of this fact when entering a relationship as to me it is the biggest issue with a relationship, nearly anything else you have a say in, if a couple buy a house or a car and they break then you still have control in what happens, if one of the parties wants to keep it and the other wants to sell it then you either have to buy your partner out or else it gets sold on the market so both parties have control.

This is not the case with pregnancy, from what you have told us your boyfriend does not want children, you do not want children and I will assume he knows this, and this might be a reason why he enjoys a relationship with you, because you do not want children, however in the case of an accidental pregnancy you could completely change your mind and decide to want to keep the child, he would have no say what so ever, you may "choose" to listen to his opinion and it may influence yours but only because you "chose" to listen to him, he has no direct say. If you decide to keep the child you can sign him up to 18+ years of child support all on your choice and more importantly if you were living together then there is the potential he would be supporting you for the rest of your life as well.

Eve_Dublin

Maguined wrote: »

This is not the case with pregnancy, from what you have told us your boyfriend does not want children, you do not want children and I will assume he knows this, and this might be a reason why he enjoys a relationship with you, because you do not want children, however in the case of an accidental pregnancy you could completely change your mind and decide to want to keep the child, he would have no say what so ever, you may "choose" to listen to his opinion and it may influence yours but only because you "chose" to listen to him, he has no direct say. If you decide to keep the child you can sign him up to 18+ years of child support all on your choice and more importantly if you were living together then there is the potential he would be supporting you for the rest of your life as well.

Fair enough. The woman has the final say at the end of the day but some people on this thread are making out like we are somehow guilty of something. We can't really help it if men can't give birth. If this stops men from entering a relationship with a woman, then that's their call. I don't think that's a very common deterrent though in fairness. At least not on a scale where I'm in any way worried.

Perhaps the fact that I have no desire to have kids would put MORE men off?

Edit: I've no idea if my boyfriend wants to have kids or not...we've been going out four months. This hasn't come up. Really, in all seriousness, how would you feel if your girlfriend brought this up even before you told her you loved her?? Tenner bets you'd run a mile.

LegacyUser

sam34 wrote: »

fixed that for ya

Thanks but there was no need to fix it, the title of the thread is.... Do men really need relationships?

My advice to women would be different!

Eve_Dublin

and just to add, my point that contraception is the responsibility of both the man and woman still remains. If a woman falls pregnant, it's not 100% her fault but yes she makes the final decision because a) she carries it for 9 months which is no easy feat b) the man, in theory, can do a legger never to be seen again and it happens regularly. A woman can't really do this.

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Fair enough. The woman has the final say at the end of the day but some people on this thread are making out like we are somehow guilty of something. We can't really help it if men can't give birth. If this stops men from entering a relationship with a woman, then that's their call. I don't think that's a very common deterrent though in fairness. At least not on a scale where I'm in any way worried.

No one is directly blaming women, what they are saying is that men have to be more careful of a relationship then women do because pregnancy is always a possibility in a sexual relationship and since men have no control if that happens it is more of a significant risk to bear in mind than a woman has to be concerned with as from a womans point of view she has control over that possibility.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Perhaps the fact that I have no desire to have kids would put MORE men off?

Edit: I've no idea if my boyfriend wants to have kids or not...we've been going out four months. This hasn't come up. Really, in all seriousness, how would you feel if your girlfriend brought this up even before you told her you loved her?? Tenner bets you'd run a mile.

But thats the point, if I start a relationship with a woman we do not immediately start discussing what sort of house we would potentially buy because it is not an issue, I can't wake up in the morning and find that my girlfriend has co-signed me into an 20 year long mortgage whether I wanted to or not. A girlfriend cannot have control over my life in any way that I do not let her except the second she gets pregnant then I have no say.

Also it is not expressly worth talking to her over, she could tell me for months she would not want a child and would definitely get an abortion but the second she gets pregnant its still her choice, she can turn around to me and tell me she is keeping it and I have to pay child support for the rest of my life, I cannot say thats not fair she always told me she would get an abortion, it simply does not factor in.

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

and just to add, my point that contraception is the responsibility of both the man and woman still remains. If a woman falls pregnant, it's not 100% her fault but yes she makes the final decision because a) she carries it for 9 months which is no easy feat b) the man, in theory, can do a legger never to be seen again and it happens regularly. A woman can't really do this.

Actually she can, she can choose to have an abortion, she can choose to give the baby up for adoption, thus ending any more role or responsibility in the child's life.

It's not really a fair point to say that a man in theory can do a legger, it is illegal to not pay your child maintenance so breaking the law is not really a great choice, its the equivalent of suggesting that a man has the option of abortion open to him because he could kill the mother of his unborn child.

Eve_Dublin

No one is directly blaming women, what they are saying is that men have to be more careful of a relationship then women do because pregnancy is always a possibility in a sexual relationship and since men have no control if that happens it is more of a significant risk to bear in mind than a woman has to be concerned with as from a womans point of view she has control over that possibility.

In fairness, I think Corinthian was doing a fair amount of blaming actually.

But thats the point, if I start a relationship with a woman we do not immediately start discussing what sort of house we would potentially buy because it is not an issue, I can't wake up in the morning and find that my girlfriend has co-signed me into an 20 year long mortgage whether I wanted to or not. A girlfriend cannot have control over my life in any way that I do not let her except the second she gets pregnant then I have no say.

Also it is not expressly worth talking to her over, she could tell me for months she would not want a child and would definitely get an abortion but the second she gets pregnant its still her choice, she can turn around to me and tell me she is keeping it and I have to pay child support for the rest of my life, I cannot say thats not fair she always told me she would get an abortion, it simply does not factor in.

[/QUOTE]

Well that's the risk you have to take I guess...that's how life has been since human kind began only nowadays men have more pressure on them to stick around and that's a good in thing in my opinion. Yes, I could change my mind, absolutely and I have every right to but I really would take the man's opinion into account. I don't want kids and I've even less desire to be a single mother.

For me it comes down to men and women presuming The Pill is 100%. Double up ladies and gentlemen...triple up if you're really paranoid...if either one of the couple insist they don't want to, put your foot down and don't let yourself be bullied.

Eve_Dublin

Maguined wrote: »

It's not really a fair point to say that a man in theory can do a legger, it is illegal to not pay your child maintenance so breaking the law is not really a great choice, its the equivalent of suggesting that a man has the option of abortion open to him because he could kill the mother of his unborn child.

Ah really? You think both of those things are on par?

Grand. I'm finishing up this debate now. If men want to avoid a relationship with a woman because she could potentially fall pregnant, then go for it but if he does enter a relationship with a woman and sleeps with her, he has to be aware of the risks and take responsibility if something happens. They both do. Seems like the OP is somehow blaming his wife of entrapment. I've little sympathy for him to be honest. They need to talk.

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

In fairness, I think Corinthian was doing a fair amount of blaming actually.

Personally I did not view any of Corinthians posts as blaming women, merely pointing out the differences between the fallout and options open to men and women in a potentially failed relationship with women.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Well that's the risk you have to take I guess...that's how life has been since human kind began only nowadays men have more pressure on them to stick around and that's a good in thing in my opinion. Yes, I could change my mind, absolutely and I have every right to but I really would take the man's opinion into account. I don't want kids and I've even less desire to be a single mother.

For me it comes down to men and women presuming The Pill is 100%. Double up ladies and gentlemen...triple up if you're really paranoid...if either one of the couple insist they don't want to, put your foot down and don't let yourself be bullied.

True these are the risks today however these are vastly different to how things were yesterday and this is the point of the thread as many of the social and legal reasons why a man would have a relationship with a woman have changed dramatically so it's worth looking at what you get out of a relationship these days and what are the big risks that you should be aware of, contraception and pregnancy being the most important in my mind.

I know from my personal experiences that I take contraception and the continuation of a failing relationship extremely seriously as I have seriously considered being trapped in a relationship I did not want.

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Ah really? You think both of those things are on par?

Grand. I'm finishing up this debate now. If men want to avoid a relationship with a woman because she could potentially fall pregnant, then go for it but if he does enter a relationship with a woman and sleeps with her, he has to be aware of the risks and take responsibility if something happens. They both do. Seems like the OP is somehow blaming his wife of entrapment. I've little sympathy for him to be honest. They need to talk.

I do not consider them on par with their severity or human cost, I consider them on par with their legitimacy as a viable option for someone to consider according to the laws of the land.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that men avoid relationships with women altogether, but merely that they are properly aware of any consequences and as a result take more serious interest in contraception as a man has more to fear from an unwanted pregnancy due to his total lack of choice should that arise.

Eve_Dublin

Maybe men should consider having a relationship with a non-human then. Maybe a dog wearing make up, heels and a dress or something. I really can't think of any solution to this.

To be honest, if this was the reason a man would avoid a relationship with a woman, particularly if she's sane (only loonies would intentionally get pregnant to trap a man), then that's their choice. I'll say it again, if they do choose to have sex with a woman, they need to be aware of the risks and educate themselves. Too many complacent people out there who act dumb when something happens.

I'm glad you hear you take contraception seriously though because many men (and women) don't. No one with any self respect would continue a failed relationship. Depressing beyond belief.

Eve_Dublin

Maguined wrote: »

I do not think anyone is suggesting that men avoid relationships with women altogether, but merely that they are properly aware of any consequences and as a result take more serious interest in contraception as a man has more to fear from an unwanted pregnancy due to his total lack of choice should that arise.

Women are pretty limited on their choices in this country as well though. The sooner they legalise abortion and make the Morning After Pill available over the counter, the better.

Edit: And just to add, if you don't morally agree with abortion or don't want to go through the trauma, then you've even less choice.

LegacyUser

Maguined wrote: »

I do not think anyone is suggesting that men avoid relationships with women altogether, but merely that they are properly aware of any consequences and as a result take more serious interest in contraception as a man has more to fear from an unwanted pregnancy due to his total lack of choice should that arise.

If a man is foolish enough to have sex with a woman who would refuse to let him have a say in a possible resulting pregnancy, then he has to deal with the consequences whether he agrees with them or not. There has to be warning signs beforehand that the woman is so completely deranged that she refuses the father of the baby to have any say. Same for women who are at the mercy of a man physically stronger than them. Don't make excuses.....get out of there and find someone who'll treat you the way you want to be treated!!!!

Nobody can assume a whole sex is out to get them just because they made bad choices when picking partners.

Maguined

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Maybe men should consider having a relationship with a non-human then. Maybe a dog wearing make up, heels and a dress or something. I really can't think of any solution to this.

Come on was there any need for that? there is no universal solution, this thread is discussing all the pros and cons of relationships, especially the cons as everyone knows the pros but few really think about the cons, the answer is different for every person but the more we discuss all the different cons then people can make more informed decisions rather than reactionary blame like the OP situation that he created for himself.

Basically if I knew back when I was 21 what I have learned the hard way at 28 I would have behaved very differently in my relationships, and I am always open to hear other peoples issues with relationships so that I can learn from their experiences without having to go through it myself.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

To be honest, if this was the reason a man would avoid a relationship with a woman, particularly if she's sane (only loonies would intentionally get pregnant to trap a man), then that's their choice. I'll say it again, if they do choose to have sex with a woman, they need to be aware of the risks and educate themselves. Too many complacent people out there who act dumb when something happens.

I'm glad you hear you take contraception seriously though because many men (and women) don't. No one with any self respect would continue a failed relationship. Depressing beyond belief.

Exactly, thats what we have been discussing, I don't propose a man shun relationships with women, I and others have pointed out the very little control you have in the event of a pregnancy so you need to be extremely aware of this risk and factor it into your decisions such as contraception. I know which I am more afraid of and would change my life more dramatically between getting and STI and getting a girl pregnant, and it is the latter that motivates me when I do use a condom.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Women are pretty limited on their choices in this country as well though. The sooner they legalise abortion and make the Morning After Pill available over the counter, the better.

Edit: And just to add, if you don't morally agree with abortion or don't want to go through the trauma, then you've even less choice.

Agreed abortion and the morning after pill should be available options. I am not saying women have it easy and an unwanted pregnancy is a walk in the park for them, but this thread was specifically about mens roles and risks in relationships and as such you cannot argue that they have less choice when a pregnancy occurs because as little choice as a woman has because of abortion laws or moral reasons men have absolutely no choice in the matter and so it is a greater risk they should be aware of.

Eve_Dublin

Come on was there any need for that? there is no universal solution, this thread is discussing all the pros and cons of relationships, especially the cons as everyone knows the pros but few really think about the cons, the answer is different for every person but the more we discuss all the different cons then people can make more informed decisions rather than reactionary blame like the OP situation that he created for himself.

I was joking man. A comedy interlude to break the serious chat. I'm done with this debate. Good night.

Kid Curry

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

and just to add, my point that contraception is the responsibility of both the man and woman still remains. If a woman falls pregnant, it's not 100% her fault but yes she makes the final decision because a) she carries it for 9 months which is no easy feat b) the man, in theory, can do a legger never to be seen again and it happens regularly. A woman can't really do this.

…and therein lies the paradox in your post. Ultimately, the woman is always left holding the baby and a man can just walk away. Women with any sense should make contraception their 100% responsibility because ultimately they are the ones who will bear the responsibility of raising a child with or without the father.

Women who argue that contraception is 50/50 responsibility are silly because they are effectively cutting off their nose to spite their face. So what happens when you get pregnant on a one night stand? Will you draw comfort from the fact that it wasn’t 100% your fault even though you will have 100% responsibility.

Eve_Dublin

Kid Curry wrote: »

…and therein lies the paradox in your post. Ultimately, the woman is always left holding the baby and a man can just walk away. Women with any sense should make contraception their 100% responsibility because ultimately they are the ones who will bear the responsibility of raising a child with or without the father.

Women who argue that contraception is 50/50 responsibility are silly because they are effectively cutting off their nose to spite their face. So what happens when you get pregnant on a one night stand? Will you draw comfort from the fact that it wasn’t 100% your fault even though you will have 100% responsibility.

If you read back on my posts, I made the very point you made above...other posters disagreed.

Jenneke87

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

Jenneke87 wrote: »

If that were the case, why did you decide to engage in a relationship and even got married and having a baby? Surely, if you felt that that would only "contain" you, you could have stayed single?

He's not married ! and was the point about the pill lost on you? he's in the relationship cause of the kid !!

No, but nowhere in the post does he says that his girlfriend deliberately did not take the pill. He is merely suggesting some women do this, therefore he has no valid point about that IMO.

Contraception is not 100% If you´re solemly relying on the woman to take contraception there is a chance she might end up pregnent. If you don´t want that, use a condom.

And I presume he was in the relationship before having a baby. So if he didn´t want one, why continue the relation? Why didn´t he break up? Usually, you´re together for quite a time before having a baby,long enough to know you prefer to be single..

opinion guy

Jenneke87 wrote: »

And I presume I was in the relationship before having a baby.

Um you're his other half ?!

Jenneke87

opinion guy wrote: »

Um you're his other half ?!

Haha thank heaven not, simple case of a spelling error! Which has been fixed, to prevent further confusion:P

southsiderosie

Do men need relationships - maybe, maybe not, but I think a lot of married men with children would like a different relationship with their partner than the one they have right now (and, frankly, we could say the same think for a lot of women). However, in terms of longevity and happiness, marriage is better for men in terms of life expectancy, but there is increasing evidence (in the UK anyway) that divorce raises female happiness and satisfaction after the age of 50 (so presumably children are grown, or at least are semi-self sufficient). So as other posters have noted, being in a stable, long-term relationship may actually benefit men more, but divorce (after a lengthy relationship anyway) may benefit women more.

That said, as a single 30-something woman with no kids, I think this thread is kind of depressing. I know I'm veering into old-fashioned territory here, but it just seems like so many people want all of the good parts of having a relationship (i.e. generally accessible sex; not having to go to weddings solo) without doing any of the work (sacrificing time, money and energy; working through problems rather than jumping ship; starting a family, etc). I think there is some truth to the "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" sentiment - I know so many guys in their 30s who feel no need to make a serious commitment because they get the benefits without the work. And it is a 30-something phenomenon - I also know a fair amount of divorced people in their 50s who never want to be married again, but at least have a sense of what it takes to make a long-term relationship work. As someone who would like to be married someday, and would never have kids outside of marriage, I despair of ever finding a partner my own age, in part because I think my generation is somewhat warped by parental divorce, but also because (and I know I'll get reamed for this) a lot of men my age seem to lack emotional maturity.

LegacyUser

Wibbs wrote: »

Like opinion guy and The Corinthian I would be very cautious. For a number of reasons. Personal experience. Like OG I would have been once very much the heart on sleeve emotionally open guy, full of trust. Now? No way, or at least I can't see myself doing so for a very long time and she would want to be one special bunny. It wasn't just a one off thing that soured the milk of human kindness for me either. I've put in the time and emotional energy into a fair few relationships in the past only to be right royally shafted on what at times looked like and were fickle whims. In some cases looking back, I dropped the ball. Actually, no, in all cases I did. Sometimes because I wasn't putting enough in, but more often because I didnt spot the signs of upcoming betrayal. I've helped a few exes above and beyond the call of duty. Helped them emotionally and practically and didnt look for much back beyond simple loyalty and I got little thanks for it, save lip service. Now is it because I'm picking emotionally disloyal women from the get go? Quite possibly, but even if that is the case, I'm clearly not good at spotting them.

Like TC I have also seen enough of my male friends get seriously shafted too, or others in dead, stressful, sexless, loveless unions afraid to leave, because of the very real consequences of doing so.

Against that I do know good couples and partnerships out there. I've also seen some of my women mates get shafted too. But for me, I seriously doubt I would be prepared to risk a legal union like marriage any more. Of the ones who did shaft me? I'm thank my lucky stars it never got to that point.

But Wibbs, that's how all of us feel after the ending of at least one relationship. The only relationship you don't go into cynical and bitter is your first one. Love hurts, and there is no-one that hasn't experienced heartbreak.

Wibbs

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do men need relationships - maybe, maybe not, but I think a lot of married men with children would like a different relationship with their partner than the one they have right now (and, frankly, we could say the same think for a lot of women).

I agree.

However, in terms of longevity and happiness, marriage is better for men in terms of life expectancy,

Well the bald stats do bear this out, but it also depends on what singe men you're looking at. The longest lived of these men would have grown up in a culture where marriage was a given, so being outside that norm may well have marked them out as different even more unhealthy outa the box. Plus as single men also include divirced men, who have a suicide rate 3 time higher than either married or single men of the same age, that's gonna skew the stats. Many of these men may be gay and some studies show gay men have lower life expectancy http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499 Though the relatively recent emergence of HIV is gonna skew the stats. I strongly suspect if you could narrow it down to single men who have successive, but overall happy long termers, possibly with children, but who dont settle down with just one woman the stats may be quite different.

but there is increasing evidence (in the UK anyway) that divorce raises female happiness and satisfaction after the age of 50 (so presumably children are grown, or at least are semi-self sufficient).

Yep I'd agree there from my own experience. I think other factors may be at play here too. Among the most balanced and together and basically alive people Ive ever known were women beyond the menopause. IMHO the monthly hormonal oft madness has passed, the oft times very strong social pressure and competition felt by women, based on their reproduction(and as much by other women as men) has also passed. Women's minds deteriorate slower than mens as they age. IME a woman of 60 in general, tends to be less set in their ways than the equivalent mans. An uncle of mine in his late 70's decided to take up computers, so figured he'd do a course aimed at older people and he was the only man on it.

So as other posters have noted, being in a stable, long-term relationship may actually benefit men more, but divorce (after a lengthy relationship anyway) may benefit women more.

Yep.

That said, as a single 30-something woman with no kids, I think this thread is kind of depressing. I know I'm veering into old-fashioned territory here, but it just seems like so many people want all of the good parts of having a relationship (i.e. generally accessible sex; not having to go to weddings solo) without doing any of the work (sacrificing time, money and energy; working through problems rather than jumping ship; starting a family, etc). I think there is some truth to the "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" sentiment - I know so many guys in their 30s who feel no need to make a serious commitment because they get the benefits without the work.

I dunno. Honestly? I think a lot of men out there don't acknowledge to themselves or others how much emotional trauma they may feel, associated with LTR's that have gone wrong. Nor how such injuries may affect their future relationships. I think women are more resilient in this. I've known many men and women who have been badly burned after the fallout of a relationship, but IMHO and IME more men suffer it for longer and harder than more women. I've known men pining after some ex or other years after she's not around. I know two men who still hold a small candle for the ex and they're married. I've known far fewer women to be like that. You hear more talk of women's baggage and some are carrying suitcases, but I've known more men with it and with amounts that would have michael O leary retiring from ryanair on the overweight profits. Maybe because such emotional stuff men feel they can't speak of. The other love that dare not speak its name, so to speak. I've been with both male and female mates who have felt this and its so muh easier with the women. With the guys all too often its down to looking at them and saying "I know man, I know". There's a helluva lot of power in that male stoicism and in practical terms male mates tend to be more.. well practical and there for you, but sometimes you just wanna get through to them and you want them to get through to you.

The sex part? Look sex for a man is pretty easy to get. Many men don't think it is, but it really bloody is. You've got 50% of the population with the bits you want to get into and they want to get some of the other 50%'s bits into them(the gay ladies aside and no you won't change their mind ). You think you're ugly? I know a guy who if he went to notre dame, Quasimodo would hand him the bell rope, yet the chap must have friction burns at this stage. Speaking for myself and plainly, given the choice of fcuking a different woman every night or feeling deep intimacy and connection with the same woman once a week, I'll take the latter Ted. I doubt I'd be alone in that either.

The work part? I've put my fair share of work into relationships in the past. I've been there for girlfriends above and beyond the call of duty. Both in practical matters and emotional. Even the ones I was very fond of. The ones I loved? Double that. And I got burned. More than once. I would be very wary of being burned again. IMHO show me a 35 year old man that is a "player" and who won't commit and I'll show you a man who has been hurt badly at least once when he did. I'll also show you a man who has found that holding more back is often more advantageous.

As someone who would like to be married someday, and would never have kids outside of marriage, I despair of ever finding a partner my own age, in part because I think my generation is somewhat warped by parental divorce, but also because (and I know I'll get reamed for this) a lot of men my age seem to lack emotional maturity.

Oh there are many men who do. NO debate there. Like I said though there are many men who have been burned and how that comes out is in self protection and keeping their distance.

I dunno what the solution is though.

Sheesh that was a long one even for me. Missus!!

Eve_Dublin

Nice to hear a post from the heart instead of a post on the defence. Thanks for the insight. Everything you said makes a lot of sense.

Jesus I was seeing a guy for a few months last year before moving to Spain...late thirties...girl broke his heart 7 years before. Was trying to convince me to make it official with him but it was very clear he was still recovering from his ex. It was like she only ended it yesterday. He'd get ****e-faced and talk about her and sometimes get very upset. He was still completely mad about her. He even told me when he was very, VERY drunk one night that he was the one love of his life. Probably not the line you want to use when you're attempting to "woo" someone but there ye go. I had to end it for our sake. I was happy to lend an ear though. Sounds like he never discussed it with anyone, the poor fella...strange it turned out to be me but he really needed to get it out of his system. I really felt sorry for him actually.

Thing is, I understand you keep it all in but I feel we women get the brunt of it as a whole. Some woman fecked you over and now we're all paying...women do the same I know but we tend to take the gamble again easier than you lot...you're more stubborn in standing your ground on that front but I think to your own detriment. Fair enough. I guess you have to vent it somehow but it's not going to make you popular with the chicks, let's face it. You say you'd prefer to be free and single from relationships but I don't believe it. Maybe now it suits you but not long term. No man is an island and all that but I think you have to let your guards down and take a risk again. It's cowardly not to. That's what life is all about. And Wibbs, you've spoken about how some girls have treated you like muck in the past....I don't believe you never saw any of it coming or no one around you didn't.

Is it not better to learn from your mistakes, know what to look out for an avoid next time round and not make the same mistakes again?