Do men really need relationships?

Wibbs

I agree with much of what you wrote alright.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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.

Nope I didnt. Well not when I was in love. I could spot it coming a mile off, when I was in "fond" alright. Neither did anyone around me either and that goes for a fair few others I know too. A mate of mine had his fiancee tell him she loved him one evening when they were away on romantic weekend and by the morning she had met someone else. Mad but true. Ive had an ex tell me she loved me, three hours before she got bet into some other bloke.

Actually looking back it's not so much you didnt spot it, its that what you did spot wasn't something you would walk away from if you were in the same position. My experience? And obviously as a general thing? Men can be monumental bloody flakes, non commital and emotionally disconnected. But if one of my male mates tells me he's in love with a woman, I believe that is more consistent. If a woman mate tells me the same? I believe its equally true, but only at that moment. In a month or a week or even a few hours later, it can change. Women's definition of love is more conditional and more flexible. I've seen it many times as being the "other man" too. Funny my women mates have been better at spotting it from the outside.

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?

Oh yes I agree 100%, but there does come a time when one doubts ones own judgement on such things. Me, I'm far better at judging and advising others, than myself.

southsiderosie

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Hm, now that I think about it, I know a few guys like that; I've even received one of those "hey just thinking about you" emails from a now-married ex (whose mother loves me and dislikes the wife). And one of my best friends called me out of the blue (and I was living outside of the country) to tell me that breaking up with his long-term on-again-off-again ex was the stupidest thing he ever did. This was particularly shocking, because he never really divulged anything to me about their relationship because she is one of my best childhood friends. Plus he a a good looking guy who makes a lot of money and lives in Las Vegas (i.e. can shag three different girls every night of the week if he wanted to). I think living in such a vapid environment made him really miss what he had before. Interestingly, after years of him stringing her along, she had moved on and was in a serious relationship less than a year later.

From what I've seen however, while some women may fall in and out of love quickly (or whatever they define as love), I think others stay in relationships way too long, so it's not necessarily that they "quickly" move on, it's that the relationship was effectively over months (or years) earlier. That certainly seems to be the case with my friends I mentioned above. Personally, I have stayed in relationships waaaaay too long but when something triggers the "yeah, I'm outta here" response, it's usually something really minor. So from the male perspective, it may seem flaky, when it's really just the straw that broke the camel's back. That said, I don't move on quickly, but I see how others could if they mentally checked out months ago.

Wibbs

southsiderosie wrote: »

From what I've seen however, while some women may fall in and out of love quickly (or whatever they define as love), I think others stay in relationships way too long, so it's not necessarily that they "quickly" move on, it's that the relationship was effectively over months (or years) earlier. That certainly seems to be the case with my friends I mentioned above. Personally, I have stayed in relationships waaaaay too long but when something triggers the "yeah, I'm outta here" response, it's usually something really minor. So from the male perspective, it may seem flaky, when it's really just the straw that broke the camel's back. That said, I don't move on quickly, but I see how others could if they mentally checked out months ago.

Oh yea I agree. I've been saying that to guys in PI for ages . The "it's not out of the blue, something went unresolved, probably about 2 or 3 months ago and in an instant she looked at you differently" kinda thing. That and men miss the signs. A lot of women don't help by not being direct either, so that mix is not a good one. Or the other one I've seen in women mates, where a load of little things built up subconsciously and then literally out of the blue and often for something that looks trivial from the outside(even from within) triggers an "it's over" thought. The guy rarely sees that one coming. Hell often the woman doesn't.

Looking back, both those scenarios have happened for me and mates of mine. In the first scenario the guy has dropped the ball. In those cases of where it was the extreme turnaround, the second version above was defo the one in play and the guy would need to be mystic meg to spot it.

What can also confuse guys is where some women can't bear to be single/alone, so although they've checked out, they've got one eye open for a replacement. They'll still be all loving on the surface with the boyfriend, but when a replacement comes along, its bye bye baby. So in the examples I mentioned above, where a guys fiancee tells him she loves him and hours later she's met someone new. Or my example where at the start of an evening she loves me and future plans(after a few years together) were in play and hours later she's bet into someone else, is "confused" about how she feels etc. That's flaky and shabby behaviour and I'd put good money that you'll get a lot of men who've been on the receiving end of that one(even if not that extreme). If I was advising men on how to avoid that? I'd say look at her previous relationship history if you can. If she's never been single since her teens, that's a red flag. If she went from her ex to you overnight and especially if there was overlap, that's a big red flag attached to a huge firework with the blue touch paper lit. Though easy to be objective when you're not in love with them. If you are you could be walking around a red flag factory and refuse to see it.

A relationship where there's honest dialogue is great, but all too often the "flaky" one is in play. It can be hard to spot the differences too. Not tooting my own horn here, but I'm way better than most men at spotting this guff and I've thought I was in honest ones and I turned out to be very wrong. That's what would make me very wary in the future. I've been lucky in the past where "all" I got was a broken heart. I've seen mates lose much more.

fionav3

Wibbs wrote: »

That's what would make me very wary in the future. I've been lucky in the past where "all" I got was a broken heart. I've seen mates lose much more.

Makes you wonder why we bother putting ourselves in that awful position in the first place (was burned very badly last year and if I never see another relationship again it'll be too soon).

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

What can also confuse guys is where some women can't bear to be single/alone, so although they've checked out, they've got one eye open for a replacement. They'll still be all loving on the surface with the boyfriend, but when a replacement comes along, its bye bye baby. So in the examples I mentioned above, where a guys fiancee tells him she loves him and hours later she's met someone new. Or my example where at the start of an evening she loves me and future plans(after a few years together) were in play and hours later she's bet into someone else, is "confused" about how she feels etc. That's flaky and shabby behaviour .

Ayup, with a dose of self-deception thrown in as well I'd say.
Overcome with some self-analysis on her part.
You'd wonder was she truly really in love in the first place.

southsiderosie

Wibbs wrote: »

What can also confuse guys is where some women can't bear to be single/alone, so although they've checked out, they've got one eye open for a replacement. They'll still be all loving on the surface with the boyfriend, but when a replacement comes along, its bye bye baby. So in the examples I mentioned above, where a guys fiancee tells him she loves him and hours later she's met someone new. Or my example where at the start of an evening she loves me and future plans(after a few years together) were in play and hours later she's bet into someone else, is "confused" about how she feels etc. That's flaky and shabby behaviour and I'd put good money that you'll get a lot of men who've been on the receiving end of that one(even if not that extreme). If I was advising men on how to avoid that? I'd say look at her previous relationship history if you can. If she's never been single since her teens, that's a red flag. If she went from her ex to you overnight and especially if there was overlap, that's a big red flag attached to a huge firework with the blue touch paper lit. Though easy to be objective when you're not in love with them. If you are you could be walking around a red flag factory and refuse to see it.

Lord, yes. I had a recent housemate like this. Always drama with the boyfriend, but she always had a "friend" on reserve - then didn't understand why her ex-boyfriend of 18 months was so upset that she was with her "friend" the week after they split up (and she didn't understand why he hooked up with a girl on vacation the following week...and so on and so forth...God I'm glad I don't live in that house anymore!). I eventually realized that she had never been single for more than a week since she was 13 - and she's in her 20s. She was so unused to being alone, she had never even gone to sit in a coffee shop by herself before. And all of her ideas about love and relationships seemed to come from rom coms and Taylor Swift songs, and all of her ideas about single life came from Sex and the City. In other words, your typical nightmare. :P I would like to think that she was unique, but I'm getting the sense that that's not the case.

And, yes, I agree that it is shabby behavior.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

Ayup, with a dose of self-deception thrown in as well I'd say.
Overcome with some self-analysis on her part.

Nail on the head. Throw in a oft genuine need to not hurt the previous guy too. Though even there its more about how that will affect them fallout wise.

You'd wonder was she truly really in love in the first place.

I agree. I think they are in the early stages alright, but the second the shine goes off it and real work is required, its so much easier to just move on. If I had a time machine, I think the way to deal with that personality type is to keep an emotional distance. Make them do more of the running. That keeps the interest up. I think now that that types love is more of a "how does this make me feel" rather than "what do I bring to this that makes us better". Its all about their emotional stimulation. As well as one guy after another, that type is almost guaranteed to have an obvious pattern of boorish bad boys among them.

southsiderosie wrote:

Lord, yes. I had a recent housemate like this. Always drama with the boyfriend, but she always had a "friend" on reserve - then didn't understand why her ex-boyfriend of 18 months was so upset that she was with her "friend" the week after they split up (and she didn't understand why he hooked up with a girl on vacation the following week...and so on and so forth...God I'm glad I don't live in that house anymore!).

Yea. I think there can be a gender difference there too. Women like that are more likely to replace one relationship with another, with an overlap to smooth the transition. The "I'm confused/I don't want to lose you" bit leaves the door ajar slightly so the ex thinks "we can work it out", so sticks around for a while. All the while the transition to the new guy is helped. She gets to keep the support of one until the new relationship takes over. Then its bye bye to the old. In men I've noticed they're more likely to have a one off fling or series of them after a long termer. It depends on age though I reckon. I've known widowed men who try to do this replacement thing as soon as. Well the first relationship that kicks off and that's the one they put all their energies into.

I eventually realized that she had never been single for more than a week since she was 13 - and she's in her 20s. She was so unused to being alone, she had never even gone to sit in a coffee shop by herself before. And all of her ideas about love and relationships seemed to come from rom coms and Taylor Swift songs, and all of her ideas about single life came from Sex and the City. In other words, your typical nightmare. I would like to think that she was unique, but I'm getting the sense that that's not the case.

No it really isnt rare and a lot more women than men do it too IME. Why? I think its a number of factors. Social is a biggy: the single man is regarded as much more of a plus than the single woman. Even the words bachelor and spinster have majorly different perceptions attached. Other women can even look down on one of their own if she's single. They get way more static from friends and family over their relationship status. Well who am I telling! Then they have more opportunities especially in their 20's. So its easier for them to replace a relationship than it is for a man. I reckon if men found it as easy you would see a lot more of them doing similar. There may also be some evolutionary thing going on too. "In the wild" women on their own would be more vulnerable. So it made sense to have bloke in tow. It would also make sense not to píss off an ex in that context too, especially when you consider that the majority of our cavemen ancestors met violent deaths at the hands of others. So I can understand a lot of this behaviour.

And, yes, I agree that it is shabby behavior.

Yes, regardless of those possible reasons or not, it shows an incredibly selfish and calculating mindset. Even if its self delusion. If a relationship is dead, then leave it. OK try to work at it for a while, but they defo know when the jig is up, so essentially using the other person, sometimes for months and months until something better comes along is really shabby IMHO. Also IMHO unless a personality like that actually examines why they do what they do and seeks to change it, I pity the guy they end up with when the music stops. They may not leave them, indeed likely won't but that self centered behaviour nearly always comes out in other ways.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. I think they are in the early stages alright, but the second the shine goes off it and real work is required, its so much easier to just move on.

I don't know about that wibbs - I don't think it's so much a question of work as seeking the emotional stimulation and new thrill. Selfish and maybe emotionally immature. You need to be content in yourself in a way to be content in a relationship after the honeymoon period and if you're the type to flit about I'm guessing you aren't. Part of the self deception might come in there too, things you can gloss over or ignore in the partner at the start but not afterwards even if you try convince yourself.
Of course people do run off after the work comes in, but I think that's different.

If I had a time machine, I think the way to deal with that personality type is to keep an emotional distance. Make them do more of the running. That keeps the interest up.

Wibbs, I never thought of you as a game player! :eek:

I think now that that types love is more of a "how does this make me feel" rather than "what do I bring to this that makes us better". Its all about their emotional stimulation.

Ya, exactly. It should be less selfish and more considerate. Probably less respect involved in that too.

Eve_Dublin

Wibbs again a question for you. You talk a lot up here about your previous relationships and in a thread a month or so ago, we spoke about cultural differences in relationships (forget name and exact topic of thread). I mentioned how my first Spanish housemate would get phone calls from his girlfriend 5 times a night on average and how (a certain kind of) Spanish women would be more "dependent" in their boyfriends. I think you said you had an ex who'd do the same. This kind of behaviour would set off alarm bells from me. Has the girl no life? Thing is, I would never see my boyfriend as someone more than a person I would want to spend time with. I wouldn't depend on him for anything. I have friends who would be the very opposite to this and these are the same kinds of girls who couldn't be single and would move from one girl to the next. Exactly the type of girl you mention above. You said this is the type of girl you'd go for (girls who would be dependent on you perhaps a little more than average although maybe I'm getting this wrong).

If your ex was ringing so frequently, would you not be wondering what was up with this girl?? Is that normal behaviour?? Is that kind if intense (border line obsessive) relationship healthy and does it have longevity?

I'm only wondering because the way you were treated in the end by some of your exes is not the average. These are the actions of mentally unstable women. It's a certain kind of girl....like the girl Southsiderosie mentions in her previous post. How come I can spot them a mile off but men get burned by these types then wonder why?

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

How come I can spot them a mile off but men get burned by these types then wonder why?

Because it's a hell of a lot easier to judge from the outside than when you're emotionally invested!

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

Wibbs, I never thought of you as a game player! :eek:

That's serious game playing alright. I posted a thread up here earlier (and got it closed)...have been seeing a lovely guy since April but I guess I've been playing it cool. Not intentionally but I've never depended on anyone in my life and I guess as he's Latin, he's not used to that and now I'm getting a taste of my own medicine. Me no likey. It's going to have the opposite affect that be probably wanted...I can't start being someone I'm not, which probably means I'll cut off my nose despite my face.

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

Because it's a hell of a lot easier to judge from the outside than when you're emotionally invested!

True but to do it again and again?? How do people get burned repeatedly? i'm not specifically referring to Wibbs. I've had my heart broken once. Didn't like it. It won't happen again.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

That's serious game playing alright. I posted a thread up here earlier (and got it closed)...have been seeing a lovely guy since April but I guess I've been playing it cool. Not intentionally but I've never depended on anyone in my life and I guess as he's Latin, he's not used to that and now I'm getting a taste of my own medicine. Me no likey. It's going to have the opposite affect that be probably wanted...I can't start being someone I'm not, which probably means I'll cut off my nose despite my face.

I remember you mentioning it, but not what specifically is involved.
But some compromises aren't changing who you are any more than people change all the time.
Duno, I would be happy to make changes depending on what they were and if I thought they would help me grow as a person and our relationship too.
Indeed I think a good relationship has people who have positive influences on each other and grow together, rather than being good together now.
Which is all purely academic as I don't know your details :P

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

True but to do it again and again?? How do people get burned repeatedly? i'm not specifically referring to Wibbs. I've had my heart broken once. Didn't like it. It won't happen again.

I guess some people plunge into things heart first and have trust.
Guess you have to find a balance between that and common sense without building the walls too high.

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

I remember you mentioning it, but not what specifically is involved.
But some compromises aren't changing who you are any more than people change all the time.

Duno, I would be happy to make changes depending on what they were and if I thought they would help me grow as a person and our relationship too.
Indeed I think a good relationship has people who have positive influences on each other and grow together, rather than being good together now.
Which is all purely academic as I don't know your details :P

It's a tricky situation but I just can't be someone I'm not without coming across as disingenuous. I couldn't feign that kind of personality enough I suppose. I'm looking for a partnership, not some all consuming relationship that takes away part of my identity and the man becomes all I have. Been there, done that to some degree and learned from it. It's a definite cultural clash...he comes from a culture where men rule the roost and I don't.

I'm not sure if I'm willing to compromise on that front. I tried to a little bit. It felt ridiculous....to use a metaphor: it's like I was carrying two empty plastic bags down the street and not struggling in the slightest and some hunky man offered to carry one for me but I told him I was alright because I was but had to give him one and pretend I was very grateful just to appease him. I'm not trying to make some feminist stance here...I've just had to do everything for myself for a very long time and I became very good at it. Probably a little too good.

I guess some people plunge into things heart first and have trust.
Guess you have to find a balance between that and common sense without building the walls too high.

I know. I think it's sad that some men (and women) would consider never doing it again instead of really taking time out and seeing where it all went wrong, seeing a pattern and realising that was a TYPE of person that didn't work for you but it's not down to the sex of the individual, it's down to a personality type.

Wibbs

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Exactly the type of girl you mention above. You said this is the type of girl you'd go for (girls who would be dependent on you perhaps a little more than average although maybe I'm getting this wrong).

Well yes and no. I've been with some nice people over the years, not just that type Just pointing them out as examples of why a lot of men might get burned and then put off. What I would be looking for is equality. What I have found personally is either overly dependent or the other extreme. From the "Help help heeeeelp!" to "I'm an independent woman(translation "youre a small add on to my life"). Less in the middle balanced ground. Though I have gone out with women like that and though they may not have worked out it was for much healthier reasons. They in fact, would give me hope on that score, but I personally found them rare enough TBH.

If your ex was ringing so frequently, would you not be wondering what was up with this girl?? Is that normal behaviour?? Is that kind if intense (border line obsessive) relationship healthy and does it have longevity?

God no it doesnt. Hence the ex part TBH it helped me get over her a lot faster.

I'm only wondering because the way you were treated in the end by some of your exes is not the average. These are the actions of mentally unstable women. It's a certain kind of girl....like the girl Southsiderosie mentions in her previous post.

Like I say I've been around different women. I would say(and I will get slated for this ) that dependent is the default position more than its not, its just the question of degree. Of course you need dependence in a relationship to some healthy degree, otherwise why be in one if all your internal needs are met.

How come I can spot them a mile off but men get burned by these types then wonder why?

In the same way that men can usually spot bad boys/bastards better than women. We're both usually too driven by the area south of our navels to make better judgements It can also be dependent on what your first few relationships are like. If they were all nutters, then you think nutter is the average and normal. I was lucky in that regard. My first few were actually normal.

That's serious game playing alright.

Oh I just illustrated how one would deal with that type if that was your thing and wanted to stick around, I certainly couldnt be arsed doing so though. Life's too short and it would reflect badly on me.

True but to do it again and again?? How do people get burned repeatedly?

Well speaking for me I have been burned a few times. Usually when I invested more on an emotional level. I've rarely been burned in a casual setup. So its not all been woe

I also learned from them what to look out for. In me as much as them and the type most likely to follow that pattern.

Kid Curry

Most men just want an easy life and not have to put up with all the drama and sh1t.

donfers

Kid Curry wrote: »

Most men just want an easy life and not have to put up with all the drama and sh1t.

yes and now that tgc seems to have been tll-ified we're even having to put up with that drama and sh1t here...a fascinating thread though and of course that drama and sh1t is the essence of what good debate/discussion should be about, and more importantlly should be allowed to be about, so do not consider this post a criticism, the contrary in fact.

Vanolder

Kid Curry wrote: »

Most men just want an easy life and not have to put up with all the drama and sh1t.

Amen!

IrishEyes19

I think in fairness to the OP's girlfriend, if he doesn't want to be in a committed relationship, invest in a pack of quality condoms and think twice before asking a girl to be your girlfriend and sleep with her!

Honestly some people and it includes both sexes should spend more time trying to sort out their lives than posting silly comments here like "I have to now pay bills, I'm taking care of the baby, I don't have as much money,"

Truthfully and this in regard to the OP, buying a house, moving in with your girlfriend and having sex takes the risk of possibly having a child, and all that together is pretty much what many people in this country face as their ordinary lives, some people, in fact many having more than 2 kids and working more than one job to raise them.

If you don't feel committed to something, don't take the steps you have taken. Everything you have done to committing to her as a bf and creating a home together is just another step to a normal relationship. If you didn't want that, you should never have done it in the first place. Though I understand in hindsight thats a hard thing to forsee.

However to be honest, many people dont get married or commit to a relationship, but paying bills and working everyday to maintain your life is part of maturity and regardless of whether you feel tied down in a relationship, most likely as you get older, your friends will start pairing off too and getting married and committing, so regardless of whether you feel your "youthfull boy life" is now changing, its going to change anyway. you just have to figure out now if you can maintain all these commitments you gave to your gf in the first place and now the most important one to your new child. best of luck

Zanmato

28064212 wrote: »

I'd hate it too (at least at the moment). But the OP signed up for it, and is now trying to make out like he was 'tricked' into it, or it's someone else's fault

I disagree with that. I think OP had expected his current situation to be more self-rewarding. I think he feels stuck in a rut, and monotonous routine has gotten too much, especially now that he' in a situation where he must work just to keep his family.

2k disposable income a month, OP?

mood

Zanmato wrote: »

I disagree with that. I think OP had expected his current situation to be more self-rewarding. I think he feels stuck in a rut, and monotonous routine has gotten too much, especially now that he' in a situation where he must work just to keep his family.

2k disposable income a month, OP?

But he would have to keep working even if he was single! When did he ever have the option of jgiving up work!

IrishEyes19

Zanmato wrote: »

I disagree with that. I think OP had expected his current situation to be more self-rewarding. I think he feels stuck in a rut, and monotonous routine has gotten too much, especially now that he' in a situation where he must work just to keep his family.

2k disposable income a month, OP?

Sorry but that is laughable....the majority of ordinary women and men ALL have to work to keep their family! That's called life!!!

Distorted

Interesting thread. In my experience, its the men who pressure for kids, even more so than the women. If you don't want kids and are honest about it, they aren't interested. As a woman, I actually find myself thinking along the same lines as the OP! I kind of think what a man could bring into my life. Sometimes the answer is of course family, security, children, etc but I don't want that so I've purposely avoided it. To me it seems a bit late to be complaining about it now when you've let yourself come into that situation. Is it also not a case of wanting what you can't have? ie if OP didn't have wife and child and dull but reliable job, wouldn't he want that? And doing exactly the same thing in your forties and fifties as you did in your twenties isn't perhaps that great...

As for the failed contraception thing, I've kind of noticed that too. Best example was my friend at uni who got pregnant by accident in third year, married the father, had a "band aid baby" a few years later, got divorced, met a man and a few weeks was pregnant accidentally again with her third, in her late thirties. Amazing how as a pharmacist she hadn't worked out how to use contraception! But likewise, men know "accidents" happen, and have to take responsibility for contraception too.

tbh I also suspect theres a certain breed of man who blames his dissatissfaction in life on those nearest to him. Having recently re-entered the dating game, I find an awful lot of men out there boring and non-aspirational. I also avoid the married men who do the same sport as me but who have non-active partners that they always complain about not having the same interests as them -err, why not make sure you marry someone with similar interests in the first place!

Theres also the issue of ambition in life. I myself I would say am quite ambitious. I have several buy-to-lets which now, after years of investment, make me a reasonable income. And I'd love to get more and do more property development. If I didn't do that, I would be trying my damdest to climb up the career ladder in my profession, which is law. OP just doesn't sound that motivated. Why not energise your life by working harder, or setting up a small business, and aiming towards a totally fantastic house and lifestyle at some stage in the future? Unfortunately otherwise, whether you are single or married, you have to work for someone else for average pay as no-one really gives you a fantastic lifestyle for nothing.

stupidusername

Distorted wrote: »

Interesting thread. In my experience, its the men who pressure for kids, even more so than the women. If you don't want kids and are honest about it, they aren't interested. As a woman, I actually find myself thinking along the same lines as the OP! I kind of think what a man could bring into my life. Sometimes the answer is of course family, security, children, etc but I don't want that so I've purposely avoided it. To me it seems a bit late to be complaining about it now when you've let yourself come into that situation. Is it also not a case of wanting what you can't have? ie if OP didn't have wife and child and dull but reliable job, wouldn't he want that? And doing exactly the same thing in your forties and fifties as you did in your twenties isn't perhaps that great...

:eek: really? what age would these men be?

I'm fairly sure I don't want children, but wouldn't ever really have thought it'd be such a big thing to mention to a guy especially at the start of things. but then I suppose it probably depends on what stage he's at in his life.

Distorted

The answer is, the same age as their friends who have done the same! But anything from 28 ish onwards, with them becoming noticeably more frantic in their mid thirties. Some men can make you feel like walking incubator (in that anyone with a womb will do for them) and will quiz you to see if you are suitable material for having their children, but subtly.

Otis Driftwood

Distorted wrote: »

In my experience, its the men who pressure for kids, even more so than the women. If you don't want kids and are honest about it, they aren't interested.

Im sorry but thats a load of twaddle TBH.I know many guys in their late 20s and early 30s and Im in the same age bracket myself and the last thing myself or any of them look for in a potential mate is their desire to procreate.

If you are just meeting men that are looking for a "baby incubator" then maybe you should re-evaluate where you socialise.

stupidusername

nedtheshed wrote: »

Im sorry but thats a load of twaddle TBH.I know many guys in their late 20s and early 30s and Im in the same age bracket myself and the last thing myself or any of them look for in a potential mate is their desire to procreate.

If you are just meeting men that are looking for a "baby incubator" then maybe you should re-evaluate where you socialise.

I think saying men see women as incubators is a bit OTT but I wonder is it something that men do grow concerned about as they go into their 30's? I don't really plan on having children (I'm fairly sure about this anyway) so I know I'm not concerned with settling down to start a family...

IrishEyes19

nedtheshed wrote: »

Im sorry but thats a load of twaddle TBH.I know many guys in their late 20s and early 30s and Im in the same age bracket myself and the last thing myself or any of them look for in a potential mate is their desire to procreate.

If you are just meeting men that are looking for a "baby incubator" then maybe you should re-evaluate where you socialise.

You guy's should stay out of relationships unless you've stated you dont want a family so, because a lot of women in late twenties or early thirties want to settle down and have a family eventually. I don't think women are looking for a "baby incubator" nedtheshed, but it's not fair either to keep a long relationship going with a women or vica versa, up until she's hitting thirty, and then drop the bomb shell..."ooh I don't want kids, or to get married," Fair enough if you state this at the beginning of the relationship and talked about it. But don't be a time waster. Ever hear of the biological clock for women.....sadly nedtheshed unlike men, we can't keep going in the reproduction cycle till we're near ninety. So time wasters aren't appreciated.

force majeure

Some guys do some don't is that the story to-date here?
As far as I can say however is almost every one at some stage in their life well want be with some one, its just a matter off waiting for the moment to come and my last pound says it well come when you do not expect it to.

stupidusername

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

You guy's should stay out of relationships unless you've stated you dont want a family so, because a lot of women in late twenties or early thirties want to settle down and have a family eventually. I don't think women are looking for a "baby incubator" nedtheshed, but it's not fair either to keep a long relationship going with a women or vica versa, up until she's hitting thirty, and then drop the bomb shell..."ooh I don't want kids, or to get married," Fair enough if you state this at the beginning of the relationship and talked about it. But don't be a time waster. Ever hear of the biological clock for women.....sadly nedtheshed unlike men, we can't keep going in the reproduction cycle till we're near ninety. So time wasters aren't appreciated.

But why assume either does want to have children? it's up to both people to discuss it in that case, not just up to the person that's decided they don't want children to bring it up. Is it assumed all women want children?

IrishEyes19

stupidusername wrote: »

But why assume either does want to have children? it's up to both people to discuss it in that case, not just up to the person that's decided they don't want children to bring it up. Is it assumed all women want children?

I agree, however I did say a couple should discuss it together, if you read back on what I said. However, I think if someone doesnt want children, yes they should bring it up, rather than shocking their OH years down the line. But in relation to the OP, they have a child, and it's not his OH's fault she got pregnant, or her responsibility to be in charge of BC either, sex carries the risk of pregnancy, and condoms are available everywhere.

Denerick

I don't know if it has been cited already, but a study recently found that single men past the age of 30 have far superior mental health than single women past the age of 30. Furthermore single men tend to be significantly healthier (mentally) than married men (Due to the additional responsibilities of parenthood, leading to a Freudian battle of the ego that most men are never able to overcome...)

In short, single men have the optimum level of mental stability, married men do not. Married women have optimum levels of mental stability, whereas single women do not (They are craziest by all pyschological measures )

So what does this prove? Women require the trappings and security of relationship much, much more than men. Maybe this is a maternal instinct or something, but I found it rather telling.

Or maybe this is just my way of intellectualising my lack of sex

stupidusername

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

However, I think if someone doesnt want children, yes they should bring it up, rather than shocking their OH years down the line.

But what I'm saying is why is it up to the person who doesn't want children to bring up the subject? It doesn't make sense to assume your partner wants children. If neither of you bothered to discuss it you deserve a 'shock' years down the line TBH.

Denerick wrote: »

So what does this prove? Women require the trappings and security of relationship much, much more than men. Maybe this is a maternal instinct or something, but I found it rather telling.

You're saying that women are happier when in a relationship? ok I get that but I don't make the connection between that and the maternal instinct..?

IrishEyes19

stupidusername wrote: »

But what I'm saying is why is it up to the person who doesn't want children to bring up the subject? It doesn't make sense to assume your partner wants children. If neither of you bothered to discuss it you deserve a 'shock' years down the line TBH.

Ive already said, you should discuss it in the beginning!!! thats my point Im trying to get across....:)

opinion guy

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know if it has been cited already, but a study recently found that single men past the age of 30 have far superior mental health than single women past the age of 30. Furthermore single men tend to be significantly healthier (mentally) than married men (Due to the additional responsibilities of parenthood, leading to a Freudian battle of the ego that most men are never able to overcome...)

In short, single men have the optimum level of mental stability, married men do not. Married women have optimum levels of mental stability, whereas single women do not (They are craziest by all pyschological measures )

So what does this prove? Women require the trappings and security of relationship much, much more than men. Maybe this is a maternal instinct or something, but I found it rather telling.

Or maybe this is just my way of intellectualising my lack of sex

But don't men in relationships live longer than single men ?

IrishEyes19

opinion guy wrote: »

But don't men in relationships live longer than single men ?

Depending on who is the cook in the relationship, lol

Denerick

stupidusername wrote: »

You're saying that women are happier when in a relationship? ok I get that but I don't make the connection between that and the maternal instinct..?

Single women have no outlet in which to perform basic maternal instincts, women in a relationship do (Their partners)

This is all quasi freudian/amateur pyschology, I must warn you...

Wibbs

opinion guy wrote: »

But don't men in relationships live longer than single men ?

Some debate on that one apparently. More men than women die by their own hand after divorce for example. 3 times more in fact. They're lumped in with the single men. Men are more prone to take risks anyway, which bumps the death stats. They do this less in relationships. Gay men are also added to the stats as they are "single", but in reality usually arent. Gay men also have a slightly lower life expectancy, though its thought because of higher HIV rates. Plus the longest lived men today are gonna be in their 80's and beyond. They grew up in a very different environment, where the majority of men(and women) would expect to settle down and have a family, usually at a young age. It could be argued that in the "old days" men had more power in the relationship stakes, mainly because they had more power full stop. So a guy who was a lifelong bachelor, who wasnt gay, may have had something that precluded him from attracting a woman(financial/physical) and that could skew the stats. Was he single by choice or because he had none?

Men growing up in the last 30 years are growing up in a very different social, sexual and reproductive environment. They have more avenues for emotional expression single or in a couple. They have more avenues for sexual release. They can even reproduce and be relatively hands off if they so chose. It could be also argued that men today have more to lose if long term relationships go south. It's already the case that their suicide stats reflect this. So the stress of that, or the frustration of remaining in a bad relationship, because it's better than the alternative, may turn out to be worse for the health of many men.

Its hard to say yet. In 50 years time the results may be very different. I suspect a man who is offically single, but who has a succession of happy enough long termers, but leaves when they become stale or unhealthy, maybe has kids with a couple of women, but keeps a good relationship with exes may live longer than current stats suggest.

stupidusername

Denerick wrote: »

Single women have no outlet in which to perform basic maternal instincts, women in a relationship do (Their partners)

This is all quasi freudian/amateur pyschology, I must warn you...

oh right, I see what you mean. as in she can take care of a man while waiting to have a baby?

I don't have any maternal instincts, so I should be happier single?

Denerick

stupidusername wrote: »

oh right, I see what you mean. as in she can take care of a man while waiting to have a baby?

I don't have any maternal instincts, so I should be happier single?

I don't know. I don't have a PHD in pyschiatric medicine...

southsiderosie

Wibbs wrote: »

Its hard to say yet. In 50 years time the results may be very different. I suspect a man who is offically single, but who has a succession of happy enough long termers, but leaves when they become stale or unhealthy, maybe has kids with a couple of women, but keeps a good relationship with exes may live longer than current stats suggest

Not to get all Mrs. Lovejoy, but I feel like this is everything that is wrong with modern relationships.

Wibbs

I agree, that is the problem with a lot of relationships. Now for the vast majority of folks out there they go about things the "old fashioned" way, or at least appear to on the surface. Changing society, people living longer, people delaying reproduction(especially women) people having life options our great grandparents could only dream of(or have nightmares about) have put different pressures on relationships across the board. In many ways the old gender contract and our contract to society has changed. You could argue that these changes have brought to the fore our more "natural" instincts, but have taken away many of the social and physical consequences. We're a lot less restricted. It is a time of change in many ways and in a some areas we're struggling to keep up.

ash23

But the more I think about it, it appears to me that the whole relationship/marriage scenario is designed to provide security for women and to contain men.

Sorry but this line jumped out at me as one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

My mother was in a relationship. The only thing she got out of it was 5 kids, no maintenance, no house, nada. And the occasional beating.

I was in a couple of relationships. First one, the only thing I got out of it was a baby. Meaning I had to drop out of college and work my ass off to provide for my child. While the father disappeared.
Relationship number 2, no marriage, no kids. I walked away with the stuff I had bought over the years we were together. Minus the stuff we bought together. Like the house, the stereo system and flat screen tv. He has all that.


Men my age (from my own personal experience) have NOTHING. They are mainly living at home with the parents, spending their cash on boozy weekends with the lads and the latest Paul Smith shirt. Good for them. A lot are unemployed,(tradesmen were minting it when we were making our career choices), living off ma and da and claiming the dole. Good for them.

I'm the one with my own house, car, good job and a fantastic network of family and friends (having been through the lowest points in my life, I know who will be there for me. The friendships have been tested and have lasted).

A man cannot provide me with security. I have far more to offer most guys my age than they have to offer me. Not that they know or realise that.

I have yet to meet a wealthy, 30 year old who didn't have his head stuck up his own arse and with the expectation of having a pretty woman at his beck and call.
Most men I have dated have had nothing. Because they aren't egotistical.
I want nothing more from a man than companionship, happiness and loyalty. Nothing that can be bought and sold.

TheBardWest

ollie cahill wrote: »

But the more I think about it, it appears to me that the whole relationship/marriage scenario is designed to provide security for women and to contain men.

When you're willing to start taking 100% responsibility for your life instead of blaming your misery on someone else (your GF) or something else (failed birth control), you'll see your life change in dramatic ways for the better.

Until that time, you'll continue to be miserable, continue to shirk your responsibilities, continue to be an absent father to your child (who will grow up and exhibit similar behavior), and continue to add to the stereotype that young men are foolish, self-centered, and irresponsible.

Best of luck. Having a great life as a father, husband, and man in the world isn't easy. But as far as I'm concerned it is the only game worth playing. The world is filled with lazy men, unwilling to accept their responsibilities and move beyond narcissism into greater service in their families, communities, and the world.

Des Carter

Research has proven that men who get married live longer than men who dont because men will tend to talk/open up to their wives and let out their emotions and share their feelings etc while men who are single will bottle it up which is unhealthy.

TitoPuente

Some serious misandry dripping from this thread.

Wibbs

Des Carter wrote: »

Research has proven that men who get married live longer than men who dont because men will tend to talk/open up to their wives and let out their emotions and share their feelings etc while men who are single will bottle it up which is unhealthy.

The jury is still out on this for many many reasons. A simple one. Men who are very old now, got married in a very different time. They could expect not to get divorced, there was a clear role set out for both genders and there was less expectation or even selfishness. Marriage was far more stable a condition than it is now.

One could also argue the other way that some men are nagged into an early grave. I can think of a few candidates for that. Looking back at my past relationships, some were ok, some were more than OK. I have to say though, some were so much bloody hard work, whining from one drama to the next. Thank god I got more experience of better women and I didnt get those muppets knocked up, or god forbid end up married to them. :eek: I know a few men who werent so lucky and now spend their lives at work or in the garden shed to avoid listening to the low level whine.

TheBardWest

TitoPuente wrote: »

Some serious misandry dripping from this thread.

None from me. I am an equal opportunity hater of all who complain about their life and relationships yet are too lazy to do anything about it.

donfers

TitoPuente wrote: »

Some serious misandry dripping from this thread.

yup but thank god at least in this forum we don't get all uppity about it and allow the debate to take place, always a sign of strength, security and self-confidence....let the idiots be exposed for all to see rather than having some kind of nanny state moderation that seeks to protect the poor weak vulnerable forum users whereby the real offense is the admission of the need for protection (not here I pray)

I have a bad habit of throwing the odd shakespearianism into my posts, if you hath any compassion, let it be so

TitoPuente

donfers wrote: »

yup but thank god at least in this forum we don't get all uppity about it and allow the debate to take place, always a sign of strength, security and self-confidence....let the idiots be exposed for all to see rather than having some kind of nanny state moderation that seeks to protect the poor weak vulnerable forum users whereby the real offense is the admission of the need for protection (not here I pray)

I have a bad habit of throwing the odd shakespearianism into my posts, if you hath any compassion, let it be so

*cringe* I don't even know how to respond to that.