Afraid of marriage/divorce - 21 y/o

Fukuyama

I should mention first off that I'm only 21 and getting married is probably a decade away, if not more. I'm not even with anyone right now.

Anyways for like the last year I've been constantly thinking about my life when I'm like 40. One scenario I can see is being divorced. It happens a lot and can't see why it wouldn't happen to me. Marriages fall apart for many reasons.

But it put me off even thinking about a relationship. Half your possessions go out the window. Not only that but let's say I had a kid I'd probably never really see them or anything. Even if I could it'd be for something stupid like an afternoon per week. And I'd be paying money to support the mother and kids.

I guess I'm looking at marriage as the **** life that would await me post-divorce.

Does anyone else think about this much? I've always wanted to get married or whatever someday but now I feel it could be the stupidest thing I could ever do.

cruais

Dean0088 wrote: »

I should mention first off that I'm only 21 and getting married is probably a decade away, if not more. I'm not even with anyone right now.

Anyways for like the last year I've been constantly thinking about my life when I'm like 40. One scenario I can see is being divorced. It happens a lot and can't see why it wouldn't happen to me. Marriages fall apart for many reasons.

But it put me off even thinking about a relationship. Half your possessions go out the window. Not only that but let's say I had a kid I'd probably never really see them or anything. Even if I could it'd be for something stupid like an afternoon per week. And I'd be paying money to support the mother and kids.

I guess I'm looking at marriage as the **** life that would await me post-divorce.

Does anyone else think about this much? I've always wanted to get married or whatever someday but now I feel it could be the stupidest thing I could ever do.

No one knows what lies ahead for them, and if we were to go through life with our what ifs and maybes, we wouldn't get very far.

Don't think the way you are thinking. Life is there for enjoyment. Enjoy it!

qz

As a child of divorce I can say that yeah it's pretty shít. But I'm a very happy person. If my parents never bothered getting married in the first place for fear of divorce then I wouldn't even be here.

cantdecide

Don't worry about other people's lives. Just focus on your own story and just make sure if/ when you get married, it's for all the right reasons and you're both in the same frame of mind and you both have your eyes wide open. You can do no more than that, IMO. As above, if you thought about everything that could wrong in life, you'd never get out of bed in the morning.

py2006

When you meet somebody you really like those fears may go out the window.

Although, having said that, I too would have reservations about marriage and divorce and what that means for men. Maybe the laws will change some day.

iptba

Upset at how men are treated after divorce, in terms of their financial assets and access to their children, some men are deciding to avoid marriage. The acronym MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way, is sometimes used.

rannerap

My parents are divorced, and my grandparents might as well be due to how unhappy they are. It does make you think about things, but you never know how things are going to turn out. I still want to get married even thought I've seen how badly it can end.

knucklehead6

I wouldn't be worrying about something like that at 21.

You have your whole life ahead of you and you never know what it will bring. If you decided that marraige isn't for you in 10 years time that would be different, but making a decision like that at such a young age might end up costing you in the long run. What's to say you don't meet someone today, someone who you realise makes your life that bit more fun, that bit more enjoyable, someone to share the good times with......as well as the bad times. You could end up losing someone that you might have 50 or 60 years of blissful happiness with if you make this call now and stick to it.

The country has changed drastically in the past 2 decades. Now people renting property as opposed to buying it outright seems to be more prevalent. The fear of loosing half your house simply won't be there for a lot of young people in the future, as their house will be on a long term lease as opposed to a long term debt to the bank.

Life is for living and enjoying. Don't worry about whether or not you meet someone, don't worry about whether or not you'll get married, don't worry about whether or not he/she could eventually take you to the cleaners.

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I wouldn't be worrying about something like that at 21.

I disagree.

It's precisely this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that has resulted in men being at the short end of the stick where it comes to both marriage and parental rights. It's not your problem then, suddenly, one day you wake up and it is - but then it's too late.

And it can happen very suddenly. An unplanned pregnancy can happen at any stage, and will leave you with no rights to your own child and potentially in and out of court for twenty years. You don't even have to get married; all you need do is cohabitate for a few years and legally you're liable as you would be if you were married.

OP, I certainly wouldn't obsess about it, but I do think you're doing the right thing to consider these implications. Perhaps you'll be bother forward thinking and lucky enough meet the right person in the future, that you can trust in the long term and allay these fears, or perhaps you'll not and never marry (an option that is increasingly being chosen a generation of men unwilling to submit themselves to a life of indentured servitude), but either way you'll be better off than the many idiots who find themselves in such situations because they didn't 'worry' and now are wondering how it happened.

But being responsible is not the same as being obsessed, so do keep such concerns in perspective.

knucklehead6

The Corinthian wrote: »

I disagree.

It's precisely this 'I'm all right Jack' attitude that has resulted in men being at the short end of the stick where it comes to both marriage and parental rights. It's not your problem then, suddenly, one day you wake up and it is - but then it's too late.

And it can happen very suddenly. An unplanned pregnancy can happen at any stage, and will leave you with no rights to your own child and potentially in and out of court for twenty years. You don't even have to get married; all you need do is cohabitate for a few years and legally you're liable as you would be if you were married.

OP, I certainly wouldn't obsess about it, but I do think you're doing the right thing to consider these implications. Perhaps you'll be bother forward thinking and lucky enough meet the right person in the future, that you can trust in the long term and allay these fears, or perhaps you'll not and never marry (an option that is increasingly being chosen a generation of men unwilling to submit themselves to a life of indentured servitude), but either way you'll be better off than the many idiots who find themselves in such situations because they didn't 'worry' and now are wondering how it happened.

But being responsible is not the same as being obsessed, so do keep such concerns in perspective.

I wouldn't say it's an alright jack attitude at all.

I just wouldn't worry my head about it at 37, and didn't worry my head about it at 21.

As a matter of fact, at 37 i find myself kind of missing out on the companionship and relationships that the OP is talking about denying himself.

As for being on the short end of the stick, i can't say its something i have ever experienced. I am friendly with unmarried parents of both sexes and maybe it's just my circle of friends, but there is no animosity between the women and their ex's or the man and theirs.

The men have access to their kids pretty much when they want to see them, and have taken them on holidays as well.

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's an alright jack attitude at all.

I just wouldn't worry my head about it at 37, and didn't worry my head about it at 21.

That's what an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude is though - not your problem until you're faced with it. You won't be worried about it, until and unless you end up on the wrong side of it. You don't think that a little irresponsible, at the very least?

As a matter of fact, at 37 i find myself kind of missing out on the companionship and relationships that the OP is talking about denying himself.

I never said he should deny himself anything. And I don't think he should deny himself such a relationship, and said so. But going into the wrong relationship, oblivious to the dangers, because you find yourself missing out on the companionship is just as bad.

As for being on the short end of the stick, i can't say its something i have ever experienced. I am friendly with unmarried parents of both sexes and maybe it's just my circle of friends, but there is no animosity between the women and their ex's or the man and theirs.

Again with the 'I'm all right Jack' - as you've not experienced it, it's not a problem. It doesn't exist. Until it does, of course.

I've known a few guys like you over the years. It's not a big issue and they've never seen a problem, then they wake up at 40, divorced, seeing the kids once a fortnight and forced to move back into their parents home. Without exception, I've heard each bitterly complain into their pints how they never knew the cards were so stacked against them and why don't other guys realize this, yadda, yadda, ad nauseam.

Thing is, it was in front of of them all along. They just chose to ignore it, because it didn't affect them directly. And ignoring it is one of the reasons that these laws have not been addressed or reformed. Ignoring it is also one of the reasons that guys do end up in these situations, because they don't think about the downside and rush into sex without a condom or commitment without really thinking about who the person they're with will be like in ten, or even two, years time.

Don't let such fears dictate your life, but don't ignore them either.

knucklehead6

and i think you might be reading too much into my replies.

The OP himself has said that the possible potential for him to get involved in a relationship that then breaks up is enough to put him off having a relationship. I think that's the wrong attitude to have, and wouldn't worry about it.

You think that my opinion is symptomatic of the "it'll be alright on the night" attitude, whereas i don't.

And i never said it's not a problem until ive experienced it, i just said i've never experienced it myself, and in my circle of friends there is no animosity between ex partners. Stop trying to twist my words to suit your agenda.

Please Kill Me

He shouldn't worry about it or let it determine the path of his life, but no harm having it in the back of your mind either. I'm 42 and did the whole judicial separation/divorce thing 7 years ago. The bitch got EVERYTHING! House worth €750,000 (at the time) a brand new car, both SSIA's, full custody of the kids....everything. There was a period I didn't see my kids at all because she's just so spiteful that way. I've been dragged in and out of courts over the years, it has affected other relationships I've had since then, I've been suicidal a number of times. So if I could turn back the clock to when I met her, I would change it and not have bothered asking her out in the first place. It's the biggest regret I have, next to having to leave the kids.

So don't dismiss the possibility, but don't let it rule your life either.

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

and i think you might be reading too much into my replies.

Not really. You've consistently dismissed any danger or concern; repeatedly advising the OP not to even think about it. It's a pretty black and white viewpoint, even if you don't realize it.

I can understand this; you're in your late thirties, most of your friends are probably well settled down with kids, the big 4-oh is round the corner. So you're probably looking at the topic with somewhat more rose tinted glasses than before. It's not unusual, I've been through it myself, as have the many men who suddenly in their mid thirties meet a girl and are already married or have a kid on the way within 18 months of meeting them.

But ultimately you are still doing the 'I'm all right Jack' bit, whether it's because of denial or some other reason, simply because you have at no point even suggested that this is a concern. You've actually gone out of your way to do the opposite, as a matter of fact.

The OP himself has said that the possible potential for him to get involved in a relationship that then breaks up is enough to put him off having a relationship. I think that's the wrong attitude to have, and wouldn't worry about it.

I've advised him to keep it in mind, be careful, but not to let it rule him either.

If this causes him to be put off some relationships, then this could well be a good thing - there's plenty of such relationships that one would be better off never having, but ended up in them because they didn't consider the possible consequences.

However, neither should it put him off all relationships or make him too paranoid, and keeping that context is all important. Just because there are bad eggs out there, doesn't mean that you won't find a good one - there's far more good ones out there than bad ones.

And i never said it's not a problem until ive experienced it, i just said i've never experienced it myself, and in my circle of friends there is no animosity between ex partners. Stop trying to twist my words to suit your agenda.

Yet neither have you admitted that it is or can be a problem. Not even once. All you've done is go out of your way to say how it's not. Not terribly objective, is it?

SoapMcTavish

" Half your possessions go out the window "

LOL - get a life .....

Maybe half of your spouses possessions will go out the window also ?
Maybe your spouse will have paid for ALL the possessions ?
Maybe ...... maybe ..... maybe ...

The Corinthian

SoapMcTavish wrote: »

Maybe ...... maybe ..... maybe ...

Maybe, but as a fairly recent study of divorce in Ireland showed, 99% of the time (no exaggeration) it'll be the man that loses out.

This is not to suggest that the reverse cannot be true, especially if there are no kids in the marriage, but if you think that divorce is a level playing field in Ireland, I think you probably need to 'get a life' yourself.

grames_bond

Dean0088 wrote: »

I guess I'm looking at marriage as the **** life that would await me post-divorce.

Does anyone else think about this much? I've always wanted to get married or whatever someday but now I feel it could be the stupidest thing I could ever do.

I really don't get this outlook on life. Yes there are always risks involved but there are risks with everything in life.

This out look is akin to saying:
"I am not going to apply for that job - as there is a chance I will get fired!"

This outlook is more detrimental to you in the long run imo!

Also at 21 - while it is good to weigh up options and think seriously about your future - there is no need to get too bogged down with it all!

Also:

The Corinthian wrote: »

perhaps you'll not and never marry (an option that is increasingly being chosen a generation of men unwilling to submit themselves to a life of indentured servitude)

This IMO is a extremely disrespectful viewpoint to have - how can you have such a fog eyed "tar all women with one brush" viewpoint? I know many many married people that under no circumstances does this fit! (In fact I would be inclined to say 100% of them)

listermint

Jesus Corinthian your posts make for very depressive reading.

Its not fair to say that its an 'all right jack attitude' when advising a 21 year old not to be worrying about divorce.

Praytell why in the hell should a 21 year old be obsessing about divorcing someone they havent even met yet ?

This poster isnt even in a relationship. There is nothing mentally healthy about obsessing about this.

Passing off an open attitude to life as 'all right jack' is also very dismissive of other posters opinions.

Saddening reading tbf

Sleepy

OP, tbh, it's not something you need to worry about until you're in a relationship when you're considering (or your other half is pressuring you to) cohabit.

Be aware of it, and factor it into your politics: e.g. question candidates about their stance on a child's right to know their father / separation of aseets in a marital breakdown etc. before voting for them. Sign petitions if you agree with them. Even go out and march in a protest if one's organised for issues that are close to you.

Question potential lovers about their positions on such topics (and judge for yourself if their answers are honest) but don't let the potential of things going to ****e put you off trying them. At the top of a ski slope do you think about what life in a wheelchair would be like? Or do you just push off and take the slope as best as your skill level allows you to?

Don't set yourself up to lose but don't let fear rule your life either.

The Corinthian

grames_bond wrote: »

This out look is akin to saying:
"I am not going to apply for that job - as there is a chance I will get fired!"

Poor analogy. A better example would be something like LSD. If you take it, you probably won't have any problems. Or you could have a bad trip and have a flashback at some stage in your future. It'll cause some people not to try it. Others will anyway. However, it should cause them to pause and think before they do.

This outlook is more detrimental to you in the long run imo!

If you allow it to rule your life, certainly, but no one has suggested it should - everyone who has counselled caution has underlined this. What gets me is this attitude that we should apparently ignore it. Pretend it isn't there. That's just as bad as letting it rule your life, just as any extreme is.

Also at 21 - while it is good to weigh up options and think seriously about your future - there is no need to get too bogged down with it all!

He probably doesn't have to worry about marriage for a while, but life isn't that simple. Just as people seem to gloss over the potential consequences of marriage, they gloss over the potential consequences of cohabitation or even sex. If the OP moves in with a girl and lives with her, he will be financially on a par with a married man by age 26. Or by age 23 if they have a child together. No marriage necessary.

Same goes for sex; many men are blissfully unaware of the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. Again because of this prevailing attitude not to 'worry' about these things.

This IMO is a extremely disrespectful viewpoint to have - how can you have such a fog eyed "tar all women with one brush" viewpoint? I know many many married people that under no circumstances does this fit! (In fact I would be inclined to say 100% of them)

I was citing that as an extreme view, not as a balanced on. It can happen (regardless if you recognise it or not), but to not marry because of such a fear is not a rational approach.

listermint wrote: »

Its not fair to say that its an 'all right jack attitude' when advising a 21 year old not to be worrying about divorce.

It's irresponsible to advise anyone to ignore the potential consequences of any kind of relationship.

Praytell why in the hell should a 21 year old be obsessing about divorcing someone they havent even met yet ?

Again, I wasn't suggesting he should worry about divorce, if you bother to read what I wrote to him.

Passing of an open attitude to life as 'all right jack' is also very dismissive of other posters opinions.

I didn't dismiss what he said, I actually pointed out why I believed this was his attitude. If anyone is dismissing anything, it appears to be the almost desperate need to dismiss any criticism of modern relationships.

Saddening reading tbf

Apparently any criticism of the nature of modern relationships is, and better left unsaid, according to some.

Sleepy wrote: »

OP, tbh, it's not something you need to worry about until you're in a relationship when you're considering (or your other half is pressuring you to) cohabit.

Exactly; it's not just about marriage. That there are even legal implications to cohabitation is almost a taboo subject for some. It's frightening how many men are completely ignorant of this law.

Don't set yourself up to lose but don't let fear rule your life either.

Completely. That's a far more healthy attitude than 'don't even think about it'.

knucklehead6

So you're comparing marriage or living with someone to taking LSD?

Riiiiiiiiiggght. You accuse me of not being impartial or objective (despite the fact that i have stated all along that i am only speaking from my experience) and you compare marriage to taking an illegal drug. Yep. That's objective, that is.

grames_bond

Corinthian does your OH agree with your stand point? It just seems like you have a very negative view on relationships in general!

I mean this statement:

It's irresponsible to advise anyone to ignore the potential consequences of any kind of relationship.

Can also be flipped as letting yourself think too much about it could stop yourself from getting into a happy and fulfilling relationship!

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

Poor analogy. A better example would be something like LSD. If you take it, you probably won't have any problems. Or you could have a bad trip and have a flashback at some stage in your future. It'll cause some people not to try it. Others will anyway. However, it should cause them to pause and think before they do.

If you allow it to rule your life, certainly, but no one has suggested it should - everyone who has counselled caution has underlined this. What gets me is this attitude that we should apparently ignore it. Pretend it isn't there. That's just as bad as letting it rule your life, just as any extreme is.

He probably doesn't have to worry about marriage for a while, but life isn't that simple. Just as people seem to gloss over the potential consequences of marriage, they gloss over the potential consequences of cohabitation or even sex. If the OP moves in with a girl and lives with her, he will be financially on a par with a married man by age 26. Or by age 23 if they have a child together. No marriage necessary.

Same goes for sex; many men are blissfully unaware of the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. Again because of this prevailing attitude not to 'worry' about these things.

I was citing that as an extreme view, not as a balanced on. It can happen (regardless if you recognise it or not), but to not marry because of such a fear is not a rational approach.

It's irresponsible to advise anyone to ignore the potential consequences of any kind of relationship.

Again, I wasn't suggesting he should worry about divorce, if you bother to read what I wrote to him.

I didn't dismiss what he said, I actually pointed out why I believed this was his attitude. If anyone is dismissing anything, it appears to be the almost desperate need to dismiss any criticism of modern relationships.

Apparently any criticism of the nature of modern relationships is, and better left unsaid, according to some.

Exactly; it's not just about marriage. That there are even legal implications to cohabitation is almost a taboo subject for some. It's frightening how many men are completely ignorant of this law.

Completely. That's a far more healthy attitude than 'don't even think about it'.

Ouch.

I tended to go out on dates hoping to learn more about the other person and enhance my understanding of them and maybe make myself a little happier along the journey.

Thinking about all the permutations of what can / could happen to everything in life just dilutes choice. I seriously worry if you think that the OPs concerns are healthy because they arent really healthy at all.

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So you're comparing marriage or living with someone to taking LSD?

I'm comparing one choice with potential long-term consequences, with another choice with potential long-term consequences, as opposed to your analogy that compared one choice with potential long-term consequences, with a choice that had short-term consequences and, most likely, a zero-sum gain.

So unless you want to get into some pointless argument about how I used an analogy based upon drugs while you compared it to employment, I really don't see what your point is. Unless you don't actually understand what an analogy is.

grames_bond wrote: »

Can also be flipped as letting yourself think too much about it could stop yourself from getting into a happy and fulfilling relationship!

I've repeatedly said that such concerns should not rule you and end up doing precisely this. Is there some reason you have missed this in pretty much every post I've made? Do you deny that I have actually made this very point numerous times? If not, why are you just agreeing with it as if it's something I oppose?

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

Thinking about all the permutations of what can / could happen to everything in life just dilutes choice.

Why is that bad? Should we all behave irresponsibly because otherwise we would dilute our available choices?

I seriously worry if you think that the OPs concerns are healthy because they arent really healthy at all.

I do think he's probably overly concerned about it for his age, but at the same time, neither should he ignore it as some would like him to do.

grames_bond

Firstly I was the one that made the job analogy - not knucklehead. Don't want him to get grief over something I said!

Secondly I really think you are getting a bit agro with your responses here - we have differing opinions and we are discussing them - no need to take pot shots at anyone here!

thirdly you have mentioned a few times that you are critiquing "the nature of modern relationships" - what do you mean by this - what difference does relationships have in a generational sense? aren't they all looking for the same thing? For example in your relationship - which I am assuming is a "modern one" - does your OH agree with this stand point!?

Playboy

I agree with Corinthian. If you are worried about it then try and do something about it now rather than just waking up to find yourself in that situation. Otherwise be very very careful in your choice of long term partner. Make sure she is a) sane b) not vindictive c) is able to provide for herself and contribute financially to the cost of any kids. If she is going to get half then make sure she pays half first.

The Corinthian

grames_bond wrote: »

Firstly I was the one that made the job analogy - not knucklehead. Don't want him to get grief over something I said!

Fair enough, but seriously, if the subject of an analogy is taken literally, you do have to ask if the person doing so understands the concept of an analogy.

Secondly I really think you are getting a bit agro with your responses here - we have differing opinions and we are discussing them - no need to take pot shots at anyone here!

Last I checked, I was the one getting attacked for daring to compare relationships to an 'illegal drug'.

thirdly you have mentioned a few times that you are critiquing "the nature of modern relationships" - what do you mean by this - what difference does relationships have in a generational sense?

By modern relationships, I mean in the context of modern legal framework and biases.

aren't they all looking for the same thing? For example in your relationship - which I am assuming is a "modern one" - does your OH agree with this stand point!?

Absolutely she does and she's significantly more cynical about these sort of things than me. Not sure how her opinion makes the arguments I've put forward here stronger or weaker, BTW. Could you explain that to me?

knucklehead6

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm comparing one choice with potential long-term consequences, with another choice with potential long-term consequences, as opposed to your analogy that compared one choice with potential long-term consequences, with a choice that had short-term consequences and, most likely, a zero-sum gain.

So unless you want to get into some pointless argument about how I used an analogy based upon drugs while you compared it to employment, I really don't see what your point is. Unless you don't actually understand what an analogy is.

I've repeatedly said that such concerns should not rule you and end up doing precisely this. Is there some reason you have missed this in pretty much every post I've made? Do you deny that I have actually made this very point numerous times? If not, why are you just agreeing with it as if it's something I oppose?

What analogy are you referring to? I made no such analogy.

I just picked up the fact that you seem to think marriage and children are comparable to taking LSD.

Can things go wrong? Of course they can. But you can put your foot down on an upturned plug when getting out of bed in the morning. And that will ruin your whole day.

knucklehead6

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but seriously, if the subject of an analogy is taken literally, you do have to ask if the person doing so understands the concept of an analogy.

Last I checked, I was the one getting attacked for daring to compare relationships to an 'illegal drug'.

Grames analogy compared going for a job interview, where there is the potential to have a life changing experience with a relationship where there is the potential to have a life changing experience.

There is also the potential for those life changing experiences not to be good ones i.e. losing the job/losing the relationship.

You twisted it into something comparing a thing that the majority of people don't want to experience (taking LSD) with having a relationship.

Sounds to me like you have a very balanced view here...... a massive chip on each shoulder

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

What analogy are you referring to? I made no such analogy.

I know. grames_bond already corrected me.

I just picked up the fact that you seem to think marriage and children are comparable to taking LSD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Can things go wrong? Of course they can. But you can put your foot down on an upturned plug when getting out of bed in the morning. And that will ruin your whole day.

This is the first admission that something could go wrong, by you or any of my other detractors. Prior to this, you've all been at pains to dismiss it, going so far as to claim that you know personally of no negative examples. And that's a lot worse than anything I've said, TBH.

To use your analogy here, you've been essentially saying that there is no upturned plug in the bedroom. You've never come across one and so you shouldn't worry about it. Talking about them is just negativity.

All I'm saying is look where you put your feet when you get out of bed, but ultimately don't be too afraid to get out of bed.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

I know. grames_bond already corrected me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

This is the first admission that something could go wrong, by you or any of my other detractors. Prior to this, you've all been at pains to dismiss it, going so far as to claim that you know personally of no negative examples. And that's a lot worse than anything I've said, TBH.

To use your analogy here, you've been essentially saying that there is no upturned plug in the bedroom. You've never come across one and so you shouldn't worry about it. Talking about them is just negativity.

All I'm saying is look where you put your feet when you get out of bed, but ultimately don't be too afraid to get out of bed.

This part is total crap.

No one here said that bad things cant happen. What they did say was that its RIDICULOUS to obsess about it. Which judging by all your posts collectively you appear to think that this is a major part of every relationship. It appears your view is somewhat coloured or jilted by extremely bad experience and as such warning 21 year old of impending potential divorce at some point in their life is normal and okay.

Where the hell is the positivity in that.

What ever happened to just loving a guy with a bus pass

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

No one here said that bad things cant happen.

Really? Show me one example of any of those arguing against me who has highlighted that bad things can happen. The closest you'll find is a vague, brief reference to 'there are risks in life', which is quickly brushed off. That's it.

That bad things can happen has been consistently dismissed by some in this thread, even going as far as to claim (through their experience) that it doesn't happen.

What they did say was that its RIDICULOUS to obsess about it.

No, they've said that you shouldn't worry about it at all. It's been those like me who've said that you should not obsess about it.

Which judging by all your posts collectively you appear to think that this is a major part of every relationship. It appears your view is somewhat coloured or jilted by extremely bad experience and as such warning 21 year old of impending potential divorce at some point in their life is normal and okay.

By which you mean that lacking any way to argue with what I've actually written you're instead resorting to a personal attack that hypothetically explains it all. Good for you - between asking me about my other half and this, I can see the quality of argument here is taking a nosedive.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really? Show me one example of any of those arguing against me who has highlighted that bad things can happen. The closest you'll find is a vague, brief reference to 'there are risks in life', which is quickly brushed off. That's it.

That bad things can happen has been consistently dismissed by some in this thread, even going as far as to claim (through their experience) that it doesn't happen.

No, they've said that you shouldn't worry about it at all. It's been those like me who've said that you should not obsess about it.

By which you mean that lacking any way to argue with what I've actually written you're instead resorting to a personal attack that hypothetically explains it all. Good for you - between asking me about my other half and this, I can see the quality of argument here is taking a nosedive.

Personal attack ? No on the contrary i think your posts have been quite abrubt and aggressive in nature.

By saying that your view looks coloured by some bad experience isnt a personal attack in fact it shows that you have a very defensive nature. Apologies if you are taking more out of posts than intended.

Also ive had nothing to say on your relationship with whomever you are tied to presently so leave me out of the same post when replying.

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

Personal attack ? No on the contrary i think your posts have been quite abrubt and aggressive in nature.

What's that got to do with making a personal attack against me?

By saying that your view looks coloured by some bad experience isnt a personal attach in fact it shows that you have a very defensive nature. Apologies if you are taking more out of posts than intended.

My stance is principally based upon the treatment of this subject almost as if it is taboo. The moment that it was suggested that the OP should not ignore the risks, people jumped in to defend against any criticism of marriage and/or relationships in general.

Yet all I and others have said is to keep it in mind, but not too much in mind:

The Corinthian wrote: »

But being responsible is not the same as being obsessed, so do keep such concerns in perspective.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't let such fears dictate your life, but don't ignore them either.

Please Kill Me wrote: »

So don't dismiss the possibility, but don't let it rule your life either.

Sleepy wrote: »

Don't set yourself up to lose but don't let fear rule your life either.

No one, arguing against these views, has suggested that the OP should at least bare such considerations in mind - and I don't mean solely in terms of marriage but also cohabitation and even the risks surrounding sex.

Instead, risk is at best briefly mentioned, then dismissed, and while it's never explicitly said that such risks are imaginary, on more than one occasion it is suggested that, based upon the poster's experience, they are:

knucklehead6 wrote: »

As for being on the short end of the stick, i can't say its something i have ever experienced. I am friendly with unmarried parents of both sexes and maybe it's just my circle of friends, but there is no animosity between the women and their ex's or the man and theirs.

grames_bond wrote: »

This IMO is a extremely disrespectful viewpoint to have - how can you have such a fog eyed "tar all women with one brush" viewpoint? I know many many married people that under no circumstances does this fit! (In fact I would be inclined to say 100% of them)

So if I'm aggressive, it is in refuting a remarkably naieve and irresponsible viewpoint to give to anyone. Certainly the OP should not allow himself to be ruled by such fears, but what you and others are effectively doing is advising him to do the opposite, which is equally wrong.

listermint wrote: »

Also ive had nothing to say on your relationship with whomever you are tied to presently so leave me out of the same post when replying.

Well, as arguments against what I've said, have been drying up, I've noted a shift twoards questioning my personal life and history instead - someone else may have asked by bringing my present relationship into the discussion, but in bringing my hypothetical past as a reason to dismiss what I say, you're basically resorting to the same base strategy.

By all means make such observations after you've successfully refuted my arguments, but not as a means to do so.

grames_bond

you quoted me COMPLETELY out of context there! I was reacting to the servitude line you spouted!

The Corinthian

grames_bond wrote: »

you quoted me COMPLETELY out of context there! I was reacting to the servitude line you spouted!

Actually I didn't. First of all, I mentioned indentured servitude (which is an important point) and was actually criticizing those who take the extreme view that obsesses over this danger.

Secondly, you suggested - based on your experience - that this is something that does not happen. Yet it does happen (how often depends upon a definition of indentured servitude), even if it is not that commonplace.

So yes, you dismissed a potential negative consequence of relationships. Have you actually accepted any?

knucklehead6

grames_bond wrote: »

you quoted me COMPLETELY out of context there! I was reacting to the servitude line you spouted!

Be careful there grames.... The Corinthian seems to take the exact literal meaning out of your words, and then twist them completely out of recognition.

Back in my first post on this topic i said that the OP shouldn't worry about it.

After all, he's not seeing anyone.
At 21 it's unlikely that he has a property that a woman will set her money grabbing shrew like eyes on.

And then i went on to say that in my experience not all relationships that end, end up where the ex partners are at each others throats over access to the children.

The Corinthian chose to twist these words and sentiments into something that suits his own particular agenda.

Remember, your analogy about comparing a job interview and a relationship was twisted to comparing taking LSD and a relationship.

Either way, i'm done here.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's that got to do with making a personal attack against me?

My stance is principally based upon the treatment of this subject almost as if it is taboo. The moment that it was suggested that the OP should not ignore the risks, people jumped in to defend against any criticism of marriage and/or relationships in general.

Yet all I and others have said is to keep it in mind, but not too much in mind:




No one, arguing against these views, has suggested that the OP should at least bare such considerations in mind - and I don't mean solely in terms of marriage but also cohabitation and even the risks surrounding sex.

Instead, risk is at best briefly mentioned, then dismissed, and while it's never explicitly said that such risks are imaginary, on more than one occasion it is suggested that, based upon the poster's experience, they are:


So if I'm aggressive, it is in refuting a remarkably naieve and irresponsible viewpoint to give to anyone. Certainly the OP should not allow himself to be ruled by such fears, but what you and others are effectively doing is advising him to do the opposite, which is equally wrong.

Well, as arguments against what I've said, have been drying up, I've noted a shift twoards questioning my personal life and history instead - someone else may have asked by bringing my present relationship into the discussion, but in bringing my hypothetical past as a reason to dismiss what I say, you're basically resorting to the same base strategy.

By all means make such observations after you've successfully refuted my arguments, but not as a means to do so.

Taboo ? No i just find it entirely confusing why someone would be thinking about divorce before they are even in a relationship.

Im questioning your viewpoint because i DO NOT think that your viewpoint is in fact one for a healthy adult to have. Theres one thing about going into a reasonable relationship thinking 'where is this going to go'. And there is another worrying about that sort of thing before youve even met someone.

Finally again i never made a personal attack at you. Your defensive posts indicate you have a low tolerance to differing opinions. Also again i never questioned your current relationship but your that your veiwpoint must be heavily coloured by experience.

I also get tired by multiquote responses so excuse me if i missed anything youve written thats more to do with me than you.

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Be careful there grames.... The Corinthian seems to take the exact literal meaning out of your words, and then twist them completely out of recognition.

What was the context? Where was your well balanced view that recognises that these things happen but one should not place too much weight on them?

Claiming someone took your words out of context doesn't mean they did.

At 21 it's unlikely that he has a property that a woman will set her money grabbing shrew like eyes on.

Who said a woman would? Seriously, where was this said?

And then i went on to say that in my experience not all relationships that end, end up where the ex partners are at each others throats over access to the children.

Now you're telling porkies. You said, in your experience, none of them have. It's in writing, so you can't pretend it's something else.

The Corinthian chose to twist these words and sentiments into something that suits his own particular agenda.

Which is an easy way to dismiss anything I've said without actually addressing it.

He has an agenda. He's bitter. He's had a bad experience. His girlfriend/wife/partner would be horrified by his views / he doesn't love her.

The only thing any of these attempts to dismiss an argument have is that they allow you to avoid actually addressing anything that's been said.

Remember, your analogy about comparing a job interview and a relationship was twisted to comparing taking LSD and a relationship.

Yes, and remember I linked to an article on analogies so you would better understand what they are before taking offence?

listermint wrote: »

Taboo ? No i just find it entirely confusing why someone would be thinking about divorce before they are even in a relationship.

Please read my first post in this thread. Also I suggest you read Sleepy's.

We all know that marriage is unlikely to be an issue for him to consider for a while, but life is no longer as simple as that. But in Irish law there are serious consequences to cohabitation, or even sleeping, with the wrong person, and these are related to the same topic - realistically he's not too young to be informed of and consider those.

Is it so negative that he should not already be considering this when he enters a relationship? Or when should he consider it, in your view?

Im questioning your viewpoint because i DO NOT think that your viewpoint is in fact one for a healthy adult to have. Theres one thing about going into a reasonable relationship thinking 'where is this going to go'. And there is another worrying about that sort of thing before youve even met someone.

No one is suggesting that; it makes no sense. Naturally, he can only assess 'where is this going to go' when he meets someone, but are you suggesting that we should not even talk about the subject until then?

Finally again i never made a personal attack at you. Your defensive posts indicate you have a low tolerance to differing opinions. Also again i never questioned your current relationship but your that your veiwpoint must be heavily coloured by experience.

Again, I did not accuse you personally of bringing my current relationship into this, only that this was the direction (along with accusations of agendas) that the discussion was taking.

I've had my views on this subject for a long, long time - long before all of my experiences, both good and bad. And I've had far fewer of the latter than most, fortunately.

Most life-long relationships are life-long. Only a fraction (at least in Ireland) go bad and overall, so the odds are on your side. But that's no excuse for ignoring the potential dangers before you enter into a relationship with someone.

Or not to avoid relationships with some types of people who are likely to be the very ones who will end up dragging you down. Or not gravitate twoards the ones who will stand by you in the long term, but you mightn't notice if you weren't thinking about the long term when you met them.

Or thinking twice about moving in with someone prone to behaviour that may be a serious problem in the future (even though you're presently ignoring it out of love).

A modicum of care is not the same as abandoning all hope of a future relationship. If it is, it's no longer a modicum.

Having no care is idiocy.

ToxicPaddy

OP, first things first..

Starting anything with a negative outlook is never going to go well. Look at
the positives and go from there.

Have you ever gone into a restaurant and thought "oh this is gonna be
sh*te" even before you went in the door or went on a holiday and even
before you got on the plane thought "jeez I'm wasting my time here, I
could be at home sitting on the sofa looking out at the rain"

I know thats over simplifying things but you get my meaning..

There is nothing wrong with being realistic, but at the same think thinking
negatively about everything is the wrong mindset to have.

Not every girl you meet is going to end up being the start of a relationship
and not every girl you get into a relationship is going to end up in marriage.
You take the bad with the good and learn from it.

Some posters on here have been unlucky enough to have had bad experiences
in relationships in the past as have I. I've had my heart broken in the past and
been cheated on etc, but that's life. I just picked myself up and moved on.

If you are lucky enough to meet someone you feel you want to marry, good
for you, just do your best to make sure she is the one and go from
there.

As a famous movie character said:

"Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

The Corinthian

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with being realistic, but at the same think thinking negatively about everything is the wrong mindset to have.

With all due respect, there's been two viewpoints expressed here up until now; a realistic one and a naively optimistic one that basically gets upset at the mention that relationships can sometimes turn bad. If you disagree with this, please feel free to cite why.

Some posters on here have been unlucky enough to have had bad experiences in relationships in the past as have I. I've had my heart broken in the past and been cheated on etc, but that's life. I just picked myself up and moved on.

I'm getting just a little tired of this inference that if someone doesn't run around saying how wonderful love is and we should not pay attention to any of the bad things that happen in relationships, it must be because they've had a bad experience.

Wishful thinking on some people's parts, TBH.

pwurple

Indeed, no harm to be careful in general. It is a legal contract afterall. Cross the road, but look both ways first. Marriage can bring a lot of desirable things to both partners. Support, longevity, material gain, a family.

But with anything, caution is advised. Basically, don't marry a flake.

LostinBlanch

I read your first lines and said to myself, Jaysus you're only 21! Go out and enjoy yourself and stop worrying about things that you imagine will happen in 19 years time. If you do that, you'll limit yourself and more than likely deny yourself wonderful opportunities. Go out and travel the world, meet some lovely girls (or guys if that's your thing) and have some fun.

There's time for all the responsibility stuff later, or sooner maybe; you don't know how life changes when you're not expecting it. But as the Corinthian said don't obsess over it. You have a life to live so do that, just don't waste it by worrying about sh*te that may never happen.

Or to turn it on it's head, you could meet someone and be deleriously happy to spend the rest of your life with them, and vice versa . . . and then where would your worries be?

iptba

Playboy wrote: »

Make sure she is a) sane b) not vindictive c) is able to provide for herself and contribute financially to the cost of any kids. If she is going to get half then make sure she pays half first.

I think c) is easier said than done. How exactly is one supposed to be able force one's wife/long-term partner to work esp. full-time, particularly after a couple of kids when they can talk about the cost of childcare?

iptba

I'm not sure if I should try to speak for The Corinthian but my guess is that he is frustrated with how men are treated in general after relationships break-up. And frustrated few people seem to be focused on the issue until it happens to them.

For example, not that many country-wide seemed to take an interest in the cohabitation bill a couple of years ago: this introduced something akin to palimony into Ireland. And it was the impractical "opt out" system where each partner has to get separate legal advice before the initial period of the partnership is up (2 years with a child/5 years without) - it is unlikely that many men will do this. In many other countries including Scandinavian countries, it is an opt-in system where one has to sign up for civil partnership.

By so many men not focusing on what happens when relationships break up, in terms of assets and access to children, men's position after break up is unsatisfactory for a significant number.

The Corinthian

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Or to turn it on it's head, you could meet someone and be deleriously happy to spend the rest of your life with them, and vice versa . . . and then where would your worries be?

If you're delirious, then you should stop and think.

There are no guarantees in life that the person you're with today will be the same in one, ten or twenty years time; indeed, it's almost certain they won't be. However, even early on you can pick up on character traits, both good and bad, that may indicate what they will develop into over time.

You might have a 'fiery' or 'tempestuous' relationship, and as intoxicating passion may be, this is probably a sure sign that it will not end well in the long run. Ditzy, immature characters are likely also to present issues in the future, as they tend to be less responsible and expect others to pick up the pieces of the damage they cause through life.

Then look at their past history; is it littered with infidelities or short-term romances? Have they ever supported themselves financially? You'll be amazed how many manage to get to their thirties without ever having held down a real job - a classic example of this is those who prolong their student days and survive through handouts from relatives or living rent-free with lovers, well into their thirties.

And look at their parents, because that's what they're going to look like in twenty or thirty years time - not to mention behave like too, or inherit health or mental issues that could prove a significant future burden. Some people age well, others don't.

I think all this is important to consider in any relationship, and the greater the commitment, the greater the importance. For example, you should already be asking yourself these questions if you're about to move in together, after all cohabitation is often the first stage to a more permanent commitment and (in Ireland) becomes one automatically after a few years.

In short, regardless of your age, you probably should be asking yourself these questions the moment a relationship doesn't have a 'expiry date' from the onset.

However, it is important not too exaggerate and set your criteria too high. Just because a person may have some potential negative traits, does not mean that these will develop in time. And at the end of the day, nobody's perfect - even you.

So being too careful will just doom you to never finding someone for fear of failure; a fear that far outstrips the likelihood of it occurring in reality.

Ultimately though, none of these measures are guaranteed to protect you from a bad match, but they will improve your odds of avoiding one. However, you can't employ any of them if you're 'delirious'.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if I should try to speak for The Corinthian but my guess is that he is frustrated with how men are treated in general after relationships break-up. And frustrated few people seem to be focused on the issue until it happens to them.

Actually, no, that's not what I am/was frustrated at.

If you dare to criticize modern relationships (marriage, civil partnerships, long-term cohabitants) in any way, suggest that the consequences are so large that it might be better to avoid it in many (note I don't say all) cases - in particular if you're a man - or that people should actually be a little bit more circumspect about who they decide to commit to, then the love police comes out.

The first comments are often that it's so "depressing" that people may end up growing old single, even though many are very happy doing so and, let's face it, a majority of us will die single anyway (do the maths).

Then relationships and marriage will be defended vociferously, to the point that practically no mention of the negative aspects or risks will be even mentioned.

Finally comes the counter attack, which invariably relies on the belief that any rejection or even criticism of relationships and marriage is due to some form of mental illness, most likely as a result of a bad relationship that has soured the critic.

It's that kind of idiocy that frustrates me.

For example, not that many country-wide seemed to take an interest in the cohabitation bill a couple of years ago: this introduced something akin to palimony into Ireland. And it was the impractical "opt out" system where each partner has to get separate legal advice before the initial period of the partnership is up (2 years with a child/5 years without) - it is unlikely that many men will do this. In many other countries including Scandinavian countries, it is an opt-in system where one has to sign up for civil partnership.

This is probably a reason why the OP is not too young to be considering these things now; even if he won't be even thinking about marriage for years, he may well end up cohabiting before long and this law means that to a great extent you have to apply many of the same principles to the person you move in with as the one you will marry.

captainpants23

Marriage is for chumps. Just say NO.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, no, that's not what I am/was frustrated at.

If you dare to criticize modern relationships (marriage, civil partnerships, long-term cohabitants) in any way, suggest that the consequences are so large that it might be better to avoid it in many (note I don't say all) cases - in particular if you're a man - or that people should actually be a little bit more circumspect about who they decide to commit to, then the love police comes out.

The first comments are often that it's so "depressing" that people may end up growing old single, even though many are very happy doing so and, let's face it, a majority of us will die single anyway (do the maths).

Then relationships and marriage will be defended vociferously, to the point that practically no mention of the negative aspects or risks will be even mentioned.

Finally comes the counter attack, which invariably relies on the belief that any rejection or even criticism of relationships and marriage is due to some form of mental illness, most likely as a result of a bad relationship that has soured the critic.

It's that kind of idiocy that frustrates me.

This is probably a reason why the OP is not too young to be considering these things now; even if he won't be even thinking about marriage for years, he may well end up cohabiting before long and this law means that to a great extent you have to apply many of the same principles to the person you move in with as the one you will marry.

It appears your frustrated that most posters dont share the same 'realistic' bleak outlook as you possess.

Are we a nation of hopeless romantics, probably!

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

It appears your frustrated that most posters dont share the same 'realistic' bleak outlook as you possess.

Not what I wrote; I'm frustrated that other posters (and you and the knucklehead posting multiple times does not constitute a majority) cannot tolerate any view other than your own.

Are we a nation of hopeless romantics, probably!

I would have thought insecure rather than hopeless, but whatever you prefer.