MGTOW = “men going their own way”

Wibbs

440Hertz wrote: »

Irish marriage age has gone way, way up, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s people making decisions with a lot of careful consideration.

Funny enough, traditionally even before divorce(or maybe because of the lack of it?) Ireland had one of the highest ages for marriage in the western world. That trend didn't seem to be impacted by divorce coming in.

440Hertz wrote: »

You’ll really notice it though if you’re in the USA, particularly outside the NE and western states, it’s not unusual to encounter people of like 23 and 24 who are married.

+1. Many moons ago when I was in my mid 30's a mate of mine who had moved to the US, had gotten hitched and divorced came back home with his new fiance and she was quite shocked that only one of his friends was married in their mid 30's. She was 23 and according to her half or more of her friends and family of that age were hitched. A couple were going through a divorce after high school pairings went south. Now she was only educated to a high school level, with some post school training and college educated Americans do marry later, but again not that much later. In places like Russia people tend to get hitched and have kids young too. Ireland is pretty unusual.

And I would agree it's a big mistake to compare Ireland to the US and divorce. That place is a real dog eat dog kip in many ways with bugger all social supports and lots of snakeoil salesmen ambulance chasers ready to pick apart the corpse of a marriage where men are nearly always screwed in the courts(even gaol can be a real threat and possibility). Never mind an increasing sense of division in much of US culture along race, economic and definitely gender lines. The largest transfer of wealth in US history went from American men to American women, who buy the majority of household and consumer items so the "money" prefers them and tends to be preferential towards them.

Ireland is far more equitable on just about every metric. Sure you'll have the purple haired "feminists" aping their US sisters in idiocy and screeching, but they're a much smaller minority and have far less actual power. Like 440 I too know a few divorced Irish couples and while it's always a sad thing to go through the majority were equitable enough, one or two even friendly. I even know of three women who ended up out of pocket supporting their ex husband(no kids involved). Of the nastier ones; well there were a few utter bitches and a bastard in the mix, but they were like that long before they hit the divorce court. It certainly didn't overly enable them. Though in two cases the kids thing was a major problem as the two "mothers" and I use the term as barely descriptive did get sole custody. Initially. However after a few years of back and forth and judges realising them for the wagons they were even that shifted.

Dickie10

I wonder has covi restrictions hampered many women (or men) in thier pursuit of a mate, like were almost 9 months without having traditional places where people meet a partner. im sure hiking or a walk in park might be mentioned as places people meet wives/husbands nut id like to know where everyone here met thier husband /wife. I would bet it was pub/nightclub/concert/gig/sports event/horse racing. i wonder will we see adearth of marriages in 2-3 years from this barren spell?

also has many people experienced having mates hanging out with them every weekend like someone that comes back on the scene after a relationship then the first bird he pulls hes gone into marriage mode with them? I have a friend who does this quite a bit, like hes with his current girlfriend about 18 mths and since the night he pulled her i havent seen been out socially with him. up to that he was texting me most weekends to go out. kind of hate that.

In America and Canada you'll have plenty of 30 year old divorcees, we tend not to get married straight out of college as they do.

Ubbquittious

Deleted User wrote: »

In America and Canada you'll have plenty of 30 year old divorcees, we tend not to get married straight out of college as they do.

That is the live hard and fail hard way of living.


Ideally it involves being brought up by a pair of super-strict parents, going to church a few times a week before going absolutely off the wall mad shagging as soon as the parents inevitably lose their grip, getting pregnant and trying to 'salvage' the whole thing by getting married mad young.


These fecking marriages rarely last but they bring about a plentiful source of drama for all involved as well as an income stream for lawyers

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

That is the live hard and fail hard way of living.


Ideally it involves being brought up by a pair of super-strict parents, going to church a few times a week before going absolutely off the wall mad shagging as soon as the parents inevitably lose their grip, getting pregnant and trying to 'salvage' the whole thing by getting married mad young.


These fecking marriages rarely last but they bring about a plentiful source of drama for all involved as well as an income stream for lawyers

TBH it seems to go across the gamut of politics and religion over there rather than just being bible thumpers.

Ubbquittious

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH it seems to go across the gamut of politics and religion over there rather than just being bible thumpers.

The other common scenario is that the kids parents are fcuked up because they went through the aforementioned process or else there is an addiction or poverty involved. As a result the kid becomes depressed and turns to shagging and falling head-over-heels in love as a means of escape.



Where the thing usually goes wrong is because they run towards the first who will give them attention and hope for the future. The partner is often a grade A1 gobsh1te or just plain not compatible but they force the relationship anyway and coast on the blissful initial bliss for a number of years before things get ugly and the dreaded lawyers have to get involved.

Ubbquittious

Meant To Say wrote: »

If I was an American man no way would I risk marriage since you can so easily be divorced raped. Not sure what the situation is like for men here but probably not much better.

I have seen so much bitterness and sadness down through the years over failed relationships and fail to see how getting the legal crowd involved would help anyone. Therefore I don't really believe in marriage at all

440Hertz

@Wibbs one of the biggest differences that our divorce law is very modern. The English/Welsh and most American states have a concept of divorce by finding fault and it is combative and there’s often a whole legal industry built around that.

Our entire divorce framework only dates from 1995 and it has been fairly seriously modernised again in 2019.

In English law, people have even been refused divorces because just falling out of love isn’t grounds.

In the smoothest of Irish divorces, it happens by mutual consent, without fault being attributed. The basis is that the marriage is not reconcilable, rather than trying to find a party to blame.

The reality of it is it was the worst aspect was that the extremely dragged out and slow process (most of which was just waiting) due to constitutionally impose 4 of 5 year separation, which reduced recently by referendum, but the process has leaned towards encouraging couples to basically produce a separation agreement, upon which the divorce is based.

If you’ve an agreement, and everything is smooth, a divorce here takes a few minutes in court and both parties are likely to walk out without any drama at all. In those cases the courts don’t get involved at all other than to check the paperwork really, as the two parties have already set everything out between themselves.

In complex situations it goes down the route of a judicial separation and then divorce.

If you’ve an abusive situation or someone being utterly unreasonable about finances, child support and it’s not consented to, then it can up becoming nastier and the details can end up being decided by a court to resolve the dispute; but that’s not how it’s framed and it’s not usually how it happens other than in really hard cases.

There are even moves afoot to make it more of an arbitration process that might ultimately not need to go to court at all.

It’s far from perfect, but it’s not generally aiming to create a high drama court battle and it’s a lot more modern than English divorce law and the recent constitutional and legislative changes in 2019 have made it a lot smoother.

I think though the main issue here is that entering into marriage isn’t done as frivolously as it is in most of the USA. There’s a lot of planning and pre registration hurdles to go through before you can just sign on the dotted line.

In most of the States, it’s very very easy to get married and can be very, very expensive to get divorced.

Ireland isn’t unusual in the age of first marriage by European standards, even if it is top of the league table. The trends here are very similar to most of Western Europe and also the U.K. - people are marrying later and it’s become more of a rite of passage for a well established couple, rather than a rite of entry to being a couple in the first place and plenty of couples may never marry at all.

You’re seeing the big contrast with North America, particularly the more conservative areas, but were very much in line with most of our neighbours.

iptba

I recall reading in Ireland in recent years that 99% of recipients of maintenance were women. There could be a combination of reasons for that but it does highlight the direction things tend to go if couples separate in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

I recall reading in Ireland in recent years that 99% of recipients of maintenance were women. There could be a combination of reasons for that but it does highlight the direction things tend to go if couples separate in Ireland.

There are a combination of reasons for it, but the main reason being that the woman is likely to have been the primary carer of the children throughout the marriage, and it’s determined to be in the children’s best interests that this should remain the case. It’s also likely that because she was the primary carer throughout the marriage, she didn’t have the same opportunities to provide for herself or their children while they were married and she was working in the home - 98% of people working in the home are women too, that’s why the correlation with the fact that 99% of the time when a marriage breaks down, they receive maintenance. Women also make up 99% of people who receive the one parent family allowance. It’s not really highlighting the direction things tend to go, so much as it is stating the obvious -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can provide you with some facts and figures from the CSO to give you some proper data to work with based upon national statistics?

• The employment rate for women who were lone parents or were part of a couple and who were aged 20-44 years was 67.6%, well below the male rate of 88.3%.
• The rate for women varied from 85.7% for women with no children to just 60% for women whose youngest child was aged between 4 and 5 years of age, a difference of 25.7 percentage points.
• In contrast, the employment rate for men with no children was 89.1% while the rate for men whose youngest child was aged 6 or over was 83.9%.
• Lone parents had lower employment rates than parents in couples.
• Male lone parents whose youngest child was aged 6 or over had an employment rate of 58.5%, 26.5 percentage points lower than for a man in a couple.
• The employment rate for female lone parents whose youngest child was aged 3 or under was 45.6% which was 21.3 percentage points lower than for a women in a couple.
• Just over half (51.5%) of women aged 15 years and over were in the labour force (at work or unemployed) in 2016, a slight increase on the proportion from 2006 of 50.2%.
• The proportion of men in the labour force over the same time period dropped from 72.7% to 67.8%.
• More than half (54.5%) of those who were at work in 2016 were men while over two-thirds (67.5%) of people who were unemployed were men
• Nearly all of the people (98%) who were looking after home or family in 2016 were women although the number of men in this grouping nearly doubled in the ten years up to 2016, rising from 4,900 to 9,200.
• In 2015 47.9% of women in Ireland were at risk of poverty before income from pensions and social transfers was taken into account, compared with 44.6% of men.
• The at risk of poverty rate after social transfers and pensions was 16.4% for women and 16.1% for men.
• The at risk of poverty rate for both men and women aged 18 and over in Ireland rose slightly between 2010 and 2015 from 14% to 15%.
• People in employment had a lower at risk of poverty rate with a rate of 6% for men and 4% for women in 2015.
• The highest at risk of poverty rates were for people who were unemployed with a rate of 39% for both men and women in 2015.
• More than nine out of ten lone parents were women in 2016 and this proportion has remained stable over the period 2006 to 2016.
• The number of women living as lone parents increased by 14.6% from 115,600 to 132,500 between 2006 and 2016.
• The number of men living as lone parents rose by more than a quarter (27.7%) from 10,100 in 2006 to 12,900 by 2016.
• More than nine out of ten lone parents were women in 2016.
• The youngest child was aged under 10 for 57.1% of women living as lone parents.
• For 38% of male lone parents, the age of the youngest child was aged under 10 years and for the same proportion of male lone parents the age of the youngest child was between 15 and 19 years.
• The vast majority (98.9%) of the 40,317 persons in receipt of one-parent family payments in 2016 were women.
• Just under one in five (18.6%) of the women receiving the one-parent family payment was aged under 25 years.
• The average income liable for social insurance for women in 2016 was three-quarters of men's with average income for women of €26,649 compared to €35,766 for men.
• Men were more likely to have income of €50,000 or over with 21.4% of men and 13.3% of women in this income band. Nearly half (48.5%) of women had income under €20,000 compared to 39.6% of men.

Sources:
Employment, Social Cohesion and Lifestyles - Central Statistics Office.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a combination of reasons for it, but the main reason being that the woman is likely to have been the primary carer of the children throughout the marriage, and it’s determined to be in the children’s best interests that this should remain the case. It’s also likely that because she was the primary carer throughout the marriage, she didn’t have the same opportunities to provide for herself or their children while they were married and she was working in the home - 98% of people working in the home are women too, that’s why the correlation with the fact that 99% of the time when a marriage breaks down, they receive maintenance. Women also make up 99% of people who receive the one parent family allowance. It’s not really highlighting the direction things tend to go, so much as it is stating the obvious -

The problem is more the spin on it that women as a class are hard done by "the Patriarchy" when we both sexes are biologically nudged

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

The problem is more the spin on it that women as a class are hard done by "the Patriarchy" when we both sexes are biologically nudged

To be fair, I think it would be fair to say there’s a minority contingent among both sexes who use spin to portray their sex as the harder done by sex in society.

The vast majority of women in society aren’t feminists and want nothing to do with feminism, in the same way as the vast majority of men in society aren’t MGTOW/MRA types, and want nothing to do with them.

iptba

Domestic Abuse, Family Justice and Hate Laws 2020: A Summary

http://empathygap.uk/?p=3601

I thought it was interesting to see Williams Collins' comments here encouraging a MGTOW approach.
He is a married man. I think it's background is in physics or at least something STEM, but he does interesting in-depth analysis of gender issues on this blog.

Sam Cooke
13th December 2020 at 12:42 pm
What can us male victims do to get justice and fair legislation in all this?
I had to really fight to get custody of my kids, despite recordings of their mother swearing to God she would kill them and describing how she would do it. Even with multiple recordings of her abuse, assaults against me, distress for the kids and breaches of court orders, it still took two years in the courts for the judge to finally rule against her. If I have behaved even a fraction as badly as she did, I would have been sent packing within months, not 2 very long years.

William Collins
13th December 2020 at 3:38 pm
Unfortunately there are tens of thousands of cases like this in the UK every year, and this has been going on for forty years at least. After struggling with the question “what can we do about this” for many years, I’m afraid the answer is one that you may not like. Many of us expend a lot of effort trying to halt or reverse the prejudice at the family court level. But it isn’t working. So – what do you do if you’ve spent years fishing bodies out of a river? Eventually you have to take a walk upstream to try to stop them being chucked in. The equivalent here is to stop concentrating on all those cases, like yours, when it’s already all gone wrong and to start educating young men on the realities of fathering children. Only when the birth rate, and rates of marriage and cohabitation, have dropped through the floor – so that women themselves are affected – will anyone give a ****. Trashing men – and damaging children – is not enough in our gynocentric society.

iptba

I was doing some clearing up and came across this cutting from the front page of the Sunday Times from a few years ago:

Alimony fear over 'women's place'
Larissa Nolan

A leading lawyer has said that the removal of the "woman's place in the home" clause from the Irish constitution could affect maintenance payments in family law cases.

Professor Geoffrey Shannon, the government's special rapporteur on child protection, said Ireland was unique in having such a constitutional clause, and also in its type of maintenance regime in the case of marriage breakdown. This guarantees lifelong financial support for a dependent spouse.

Shannon said: "A dependent spouse fares better in Ireland than in virtually any other jurisdiction in the world, and that's due to this lifelong obligation. It is a safety net or a protective mechanism for the spouse who acts as homemaker.

"In other countries, a time is reached after which you cannot seek further maintenance. There is no such thing as a 'clean break' here, as far as maintenance is concerned. You can always return for further support if you are a dependent spouse. That protects children as well."

Shannon said when one spouse adopts the traditional role of homemaker, or cares for the family over a period of time, they are likely to be compensated for that role. "The constitution is the written supreme law by which all other laws and rules in Ireland must comply," he pointed out.

Article 41.2.1 says the state "shall endeavour to ensure mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of her duties in the home". Fine Gael TD Josepha Madigan has called for a referendum to remove the clause, describing it as "an anachronism" not reflective of today's Ireland.

A Behaviour & Attitudes poll for The Sunday Times found a vote to ditch the clause could fail, with 41% supporting it and 39% saying they would vote against. More men (42%) than women (40%) support its removal.

iptba

Why are increasing numbers of women choosing to be single?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/17/why-are-increasing-numbers-of-women-choosing-to-be-single

My impression is that a lot of the article doesn't focus on women who chose to be single.
Still, it might be of interest to some.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

My impression is that a lot of the article doesn't focus on women who chose to be single.
Still, it might be of interest to some.

"It is time, surely, to change the rules, and the conversation. As the population of never-married women expands, we should be honest about what it meant, and means, to be one. We should celebrate our identity and the life experience that has given it to us. We should reclaim our history and stop being defined by others. Why not start by taking back that dread word, spinster?"

Yeah, I read through the article and while it isn't the usual screaming of victimhood, there's definitely overtones of the sentiment, especially where the term spinster is repeatedly referenced, as if it was only men that used and defined the negative meaning of the word.

I had to laugh though, because it completely ignores the value that women have had in society throughout history over men. There have always been bachelors, either due to choice or circumstances.. but women have always had an extra value in society due to appearance, being able to have children, or simply social proof. Whereas, men didn't except where property/wealth rights became important.

All I can say is welcome to the party. Out of all the people I have encountered in my life, the numbers of unmarried men far outweigh the numbers of unmarried women.

The author needs to stop focusing on the negative definitions of words.. spinster. As opposed to using any other word to describe being single, and unmarried. Just as she needs to realise that being single is a choice. We chose not to commit to past relationships. We chose not to stay with that person who obviously loved us, but we didn't feel the same love back. We chose the freedom that comes from avoiding a serious relationship. And now, when age settles in, that choice carries the wide range of consequences that are less important when we are young, but aren't any kind of secret. There's no mystery about choosing to be single... especially in the later years of your life. And age does tend to favor men over women.. again, no secret there.

I find the article to be a bit of a moan for having to pay up for remaining single. It's not as bad as feminist driven articles, there's few digs at men, and such.. decent article really, all things considered.. but it's still a moan about having to face the consequences of our life choices...

IAMAMORON

The article really highlights some of the poorest failings of extreme feminism.

Insofar as it directly compares and contrasts its' actions with the actions of men whilst claiming to be exclusive and empowering to women.

Real feminists get on with being women, not spending their lives copying men to prove they can.

There is elements of woke feminism in the article. Many extreme feminists cling to their birthrights and their ability to deliver babies as some form of currency or supremacy above men. I find it uncouth and such misandry extremely unhealthy and also a catalyst for spreading mental health issues, particularly in women.

Children need patriarchal influences in their lives. One women's physical ability to deliver a baby does not automatically derive her ability to develop that baby into a sound thinking adult. This is rarely addressed cohesively by feminists.

Sleepy

IAMAMORON wrote: »

One women's physical ability to deliver a baby does not automatically derive her ability to develop that baby into a sound thinking adult. This is rarely addressed cohesively by feminists.

(emphasis mine)

Why would it be? Feminists aren't likely to value something they're not capable of themselves...

1874

440Hertz wrote: »

The reality of it is it was the worst aspect was that the extremely dragged out and slow process (most of which was just waiting) due to constitutionally impose 4 of 5 year separation, which reduced recently by referendum, but the process has leaned towards encouraging couples to basically produce a separation agreement, upon which the divorce is based.

If you’ve an agreement, and everything is smooth, a divorce here takes a few minutes in court and both parties are likely to walk out without any drama at all. In those cases the courts don’t get involved at all other than to check the paperwork really, as the two parties have already set everything out between themselves.

In complex situations it goes down the route of a judicial separation and then divorce.

Ireland isn’t unusual in the age of first marriage by European standards, even if it is top of the league table. The trends here are very similar to most of Western Europe and also the U.K. - people are marrying later and it’s become more of a rite of passage for a well established couple, rather than a rite of entry to being a couple in the first place and plenty of couples may never marry at all.

You’re seeing the big contrast with North America, particularly the more conservative areas, but were very much in line with most of our neighbours.

IS that the case really though, if there is an agreement beforehand, the Judge can still weigh in and alter things, a man could very easily lose out in such a situation.
Can you even know who your Judge would be in advance, that might help.
I know someone who when they went into that situation, the Judge wouldnt even let them speak, and they got completely shafted.


How likely is a judge to abide by an agreement made by a couple?
or whats to stop the woman changing her mind, right up to the day in Court??

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a combination of reasons for it, but the main reason being that the woman is likely to have been the primary carer of the children throughout the marriage, and it’s determined to be in the children’s best interests that this should remain the case. It’s also likely that because she was the primary carer throughout the marriage, she didn’t have the same opportunities to provide for herself or their children while they were married and she was working in the home - 98% of people working in the home are women too, that’s why the correlation with the fact that 99% of the time when a marriage breaks down, they receive maintenance. Women also make up 99% of people who receive the one parent family allowance. It’s not really highlighting the direction things tend to go, so much as it is stating the obvious -

Id say, in a lot of cases, both parents are equal main care givers, with many women in higher paid positions in their workplaces. What then? I think equal care/responsibility should be given if both sides are asking for it, or even (especially) if the father is asking and wants that. Someone mentioned the child stays in the home and the parents move in and out, tbh that sounds very messy to me. As inconvenient and even disruptive as it might sound, I still think the childs care being shared equally in the respective homes of the father and mother is reasonable.
The main reason imo this hasnt happened is due to dated attitudes and the fact the Dad probably ended up in a bedsit.

For the person I mentioned above who got shafted, I dont really want to raise it with them again, but I got the impression, the house might be meant to be divided equally between the parents after the child is finished school, that guy who is younger than me would be in his 60's by then, I expect if he is still alive, the woman may have other obligations or simply refuse to leave based on longevity of stay, who would kick out a similarly aged woman and force her to sell??

Dickie10

thats a good article, many times a week i would think, God maybe im missing out on something by not having a girlfriend, then i have a think of the freedoms i would have to give up straight away ad realise at the minute I have abolutly no hunger to do that. i suppose going to the odd dinner or barbecue it might be handy and less awkward talking to people in that stiff setting but really would be a pain having to cater for someone else in my life at the minute, a friend with benefits prob best. have a bit of fun, then maybe see the again in a few weeks.

1874

Dickie10 wrote: »

thats a good article, many times a week i would think, God maybe im missing out on something by not having a girlfriend, then i have a think of the freedoms i would have to give up straight away ad realise at the minute I have abolutly no hunger to do that. i suppose going to the odd dinner or barbecue it might be handy and less awkward talking to people in that stiff setting but really would be a pain having to cater for someone else in my life at the minute, a friend with benefits prob best. have a bit of fun, then maybe see the again in a few weeks.

Personally, I think there is something to be said (a lot) for a good functioning, healthy relationship, but the State has weighed in heavily against men, particularily married men, this may have been some rebound from limited or no rights on womens side, but it has gone too far, the State weighing in since and further. I did not even see or know about the cohabitating couples law when t was introduced, not so much regarding unmarried couples with children, but how it affects unmarried people, without children, a partner could it seems legally make a claim to their boy/girlfriends assets/property etc after the 5th year, possibly even the 4th year.
if Id have known what I know now, Id just date people and feel imposed upon the State about what relationship I can have with them outside of having children. imo outside of children, when two people part ways, they should take with them what they owned when they started out.
There was a thread here on boards, that suggested if a girlfriend moved in with her boyfriend, posters were suggesting she not contribute financially as it is wrong somehow or that if she did, she could claim it all back upon leaving, neither of those scenarios stands up because if a person was in a similar situation renting, they couldnt claim back what they put in financially nor not contribute as that wouldnt be reasonable.


imo, the timing is significant, (2009) the state introduced these laws to shift the cost away from the state and towards the main earner or maybe even specifically just towards the man even in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship after a set duration.

Dickie10

pre nup? signed by solictor. One thing about being single is tax, christ i got srewed this year dont even want to think of how uch the accountant gave revenue or how he came up with thenet profit figure eitherm ill have to set something up for that a mortgage or land loan any good to off set tax? might as well be paying into something like that than paying it to revenue.? must ask on the finaaance thread

1874

Dickie10 wrote: »

pre nup? signed by solictor. One thing about being single is tax, christ i got srewed this year dont even want to think of how uch the accountant gave revenue or how he came up with thenet profit figure eitherm ill have to set something up for that a mortgage or land loan any good to off set tax? might as well be paying into something like that than paying it to revenue.? must ask on the finaaance thread

Pre nups have no legal basis in this Country, the reality is, if they were, terms would be more favourable, thats not in the interest of those that make the rules, otherwise it would be difficult to have an inequitable distribution of wealth, I doubt it ever will be a thing.


tax, forget about it imo, if 2 people who are in a legal relationship and both work, there is no real tax advantage, the only situation where there is anything to benefit from tax is if one person earns significantly less than the other, ie they earn zero or they earn well under the Standard rate cutoff point, in which case they can transfer some (most I think, but not all of) their tax credits.
The reality is, as a couple, where both work and earn above the SRC you may be taxed no different seperately than jointly.


For those that benefit from it, the advantage is worth taking if you are eligible, but it is marginal, certainly not worth getting married for when the amount you can lose that way is significant.

iptba

1874 wrote: »

Personally, I think there is something to be said (a lot) for a good functioning, healthy relationship, but the State has weighed in heavily against men, particularily married men, this may have been some rebound from limited or no rights on womens side, but it has gone too far, the State weighing in since and further. I did not even see or know about the cohabitating couples law when t was introduced, not so much regarding unmarried couples with children, but how it affects unmarried people, without children, a partner could it seems legally make a claim to their boy/girlfriends assets/property etc after the 5th year, possibly even the 4th year.
if Id have known what I know now, Id just date people and feel imposed upon the State about what relationship I can have with them outside of having children. imo outside of children, when two people part ways, they should take with them what they owned when they started out.
There was a thread here on boards, that suggested if a girlfriend moved in with her boyfriend, posters were suggesting she not contribute financially as it is wrong somehow or that if she did, she could claim it all back upon leaving, neither of those scenarios stands up because if a person was in a similar situation renting, they couldnt claim back what they put in financially nor not contribute as that wouldnt be reasonable.


imo, the timing is significant, (2009) the state introduced these laws to shift the cost away from the state and towards the main earner or maybe even specifically just towards the man even in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship after a set duration.

I was surprised there wasn’t more discussion at the time on the rights and responsibilities of cohabitees part of that law. I had heard of palimony before in the US but I don’t think the term was ever used in the discussions here. I actually wrote to my TDs complaining but because it was such a minority view, they maybe saw my views as very fringe on it. Most of the discussions there were were about how this was a good initiative to support dependent partners. It showed again to me how society is often more focused on women than men, despite all the claims we live in a patriarchy.

Doctor Roast

worded wrote: »

There is nothing funny about this particularly for the first partner.

I read studies about this years ago and will post links if I can find them.

A lot of women choose partner number #1 to be a good provider, good career, someone who will get the nest together and provide the first one or two kids. He could have a more squarish head I don’t know why, a metro sexual perhaps.

So with the home set up she gets the wandering eye and now choose some one with tattoos, rough and probably more masculine, a motor biker, a bad boy. He can run faster and jump higher than partner #1 and so will his kids. Earning power isn’t important as she has the house. She is looking for different seed. It’s good for evolution.

If tried with reverse partners .... the kids may have ended up homeless and she may never met the nest builder. Wiser to get the nest built first with the safe bet partner #1

She may not have set out with the ex convict in mind as partner #2, it wasn’t a master plan but now she has options ....

The sexy son hypothesis..

Doctor Roast

iptba wrote: »

I think a lot of men can get frustrated by the rules of the transaction: they can feel they are sticking to their side of the bargain but still aren’t benefiting e.g. with sex. So it’s different to many simpler transactions.

You've hit on something there, a lot of men are still operating from the 1950s manual... That often gets them chewed up and spit out nowadays

Doctor Roast

Doctor Roast wrote: »

You've hit on something there, a lot of men are still operating from the 1950s manual... That often gets them chewed up and spit out nowadays

The problem is that there is no manual, or standardized/accepted practice for dating anymore. Men are hit with conflicting signals and standards all the time, and not even from different people, but quite often from the same person. The truth is that women themselves can't decide what they want from dating or relationships, expecting men to be everything and nothing at the same time.

Oh.. and the 1950s manual for dating works really well. As long as you don't step into marriage or start living together. Being a gentleman and respectful towards women, remains the most successful manner of dating for me. You just need the confidence in yourself to pull it off.

Doctor Roast

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The problem is that there is no manual, or standardized/accepted practice for dating anymore. Men are hit with conflicting signals and standards all the time, and not even from different people, but quite often from the same person. The truth is that women themselves can't decide what they want from dating or relationships, expecting men to be everything and nothing at the same time.

Oh.. and the 1950s manual for dating works really well. As long as you don't step into marriage or start living together. Being a gentleman and respectful towards women, remains the most successful manner of dating for me. You just need the confidence in yourself to pull it off.

Reminds me of a good article :

"If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant as "good guys," they may get a "relationship partner." However, due to women's social vs. biological double-bind, these compliant men may also not be "attractive" to those same relationship partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). As a result, they may be punished by their girlfriend's/wife's lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a "pushover." These men may further be regarded as "just friends"—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits (see here).

In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be "nice" and follow what is biologically attractive, they have a higher likelihood of getting "sex partners." However, these men are often punished by being socially labeled as "jerks," "players," or even "creeps," unfit for socially-defined relationships. Furthermore, their tactics are often designated as "sexist" (Hall & Canterberry, 2011). Therefore, these men may get sex, but they often do not get love and respect."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201204/why-are-men-frustrated-dating%3famp

Doctor Roast

Doctor Roast wrote: »

Reminds me of a good article :

"If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant as "good guys," they may get a "relationship partner." However, due to women's social vs. biological double-bind, these compliant men may also not be "attractive" to those same relationship partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). As a result, they may be punished by their girlfriend's/wife's lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a "pushover." These men may further be regarded as "just friends"—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits (see here).

In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be "nice" and follow what is biologically attractive, they have a higher likelihood of getting "sex partners." However, these men are often punished by being socially labeled as "jerks," "players," or even "creeps," unfit for socially-defined relationships. Furthermore, their tactics are often designated as "sexist" (Hall & Canterberry, 2011). Therefore, these men may get sex, but they often do not get love and respect."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201204/why-are-men-frustrated-dating%3famp

Oh, I've read a lot of such research.. at the same time, I prefer to judge life based on the people I've known, whether that be Irish people, or those I've met abroad. As a lecturer and teacher, I've come to know many people, as adults, but have also seen how their relationships develop over time.

The one constant is that people get lazy and allow themselves to decline (the important factor is whether they bounce back from it, or allow it to continue). Men and women get into relationships, are active for the first year or two, and then the waistlines expand, the skin quality declines, and the romantic attitudes dry up. They don't find their partners terribly attractive anymore from a physical pov, and while they rely on "love", they're still lacking the passion that was so present at the beginning of the relationship. So they cheat, split up or limp along in agony.

Whereas I've known a variety of people to communicate regularly, exercise together, share their needs, etc and they've kept the passion alive.

For example, I have a close friend, male, in his late 50s. His wife is 20 years younger than him, and is a damn good looking woman.. she's also wealthier than he is. He romances her everyday. He pays attention to her needs, and wants, surprising her with little gestures all the time. He doesn't spend much on her, because that's not what she needs. She needs attention.. and she gets it. I know for a fact that she could have slept around easily enough, since I know guys who have tried seducing her. Playboys, young, handsome, etc... and they got nowhere.

The point being that if you continue to make an effort.. then likely she won't go looking elsewhere. Some women are simply built to cheat.. as are some men, but by the time a serious relationship is happening, you should know what your partner is..

I'm a "good guy". Oh, I was a bastard for a year but it didn't suit me. I enjoy being a good guy, a gentleman, but, I have zero tolerance for being played.. There is nothing wrong with being a good guy, but there needs to be a balance. Anything taken to extremes is a negative.

Church on Tuesday

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I've read a lot of such research.. at the same time, I prefer to judge life based on the people I've known, whether that be Irish people, or those I've met abroad. As a lecturer and teacher, I've come to know many people, as adults, but have also seen how their relationships develop over time.

The one constant is that people get lazy and allow themselves to decline (the important factor is whether they bounce back from it, or allow it to continue). Men and women get into relationships, are active for the first year or two, and then the waistlines expand, the skin quality declines, and the romantic attitudes dry up. They don't find their partners terribly attractive anymore from a physical pov, and while they rely on "love", they're still lacking the passion that was so present at the beginning of the relationship. So they cheat, split up or limp along in agony.

Whereas I've known a variety of people to communicate regularly, exercise together, share their needs, etc and they've kept the passion alive.

For example, I have a close friend, male, in his late 50s. His wife is 20 years younger than him, and is a damn good looking woman.. she's also wealthier than he is. He romances her everyday. He pays attention to her needs, and wants, surprising her with little gestures all the time. He doesn't spend much on her, because that's not what she needs. She needs attention.. and she gets it. I know for a fact that she could have slept around easily enough, since I know guys who have tried seducing her. Playboys, young, handsome, etc... and they got nowhere.

The point being that if you continue to make an effort.. then likely she won't go looking elsewhere. Some women are simply built to cheat.. as are some men, but by the time a serious relationship is happening, you should know what your partner is..

I'm a "good guy". Oh, I was a bastard for a year but it didn't suit me. I enjoy being a good guy, a gentleman, but, I have zero tolerance for being played.. There is nothing wrong with being a good guy, but there needs to be a balance. Anything taken to extremes is a negative.

It blows my mind that some men can't figure this out. The courting never ends. It's vital to keeps things fresh and exciting and, again, it doesn't have to be overly grand gestures or anything.

In most instances where relationships/marriages end, the man or indeed the woman, simply stopped putting the effort in, got too comfortable and let a malaise set in.

Forget about women/relationships for a second; you really want to be taking good care of your mental and physical health in any event for yourself, naturally enough this will be an attractive trait in itself.

Samsonsmasher

MGTOW like wearing a leather jacket or smoking or driving a cool Mustang or shooting a .45 Colt or earning loads of money or drinking whiskey etc only matters if you are ridiculously good looking.

Otherwise women will not care.

Dickie10

this pandemic has really brought home how much i really love doiing my own thing and so grateful i am not in any sort of relationship.

iptba

I wasn't sure which thread to post this to; possibly none are a good fit.

Anyway, I just came across the following today and thought the bolded bit was interesting.

https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/36/3/351/5688045

Is the End of Educational Hypergamy the End of Status Hypergamy? Evidence from Sweden 

Margarita Chudnovskaya, Ridhi Kashyap

European Sociological Review, Volume 36, Issue 3, June 2020, Pages 351–365, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz065

Published: 27 December 2019 Article history

Abstract

The reversal of the gender gap in higher education has been a major social transformation: women now outnumber men in higher education in nearly all OECD countries. Patterns of assortative mating have also changed as highly educated women increasingly form relationships with men who have less education (hypogamous unions). In this article, we draw on rich register data from Sweden to ask whether the emergence of hypogamous unions signals the emergence of a new female status dominance in unions. We also consider how the status distribution in these unions compares to homogamous (both highly educated) or hypergamous (he highly educated) unions. We use Swedish register data and study couples who have their first child together. We refer to a multi-dimensional view of status and use indicators of social class background, income, and occupational prestige. We find that in hypogamous unions, women tend to have a higher social class background and occupational prestige, but lower income than their partners. The income gap between partners is not simply a consequence of the gender wage gap, but driven by selection into different union types. Men and women who form hypogamous unions are negatively selected in terms of their income.

Deregos.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144387#Comment_118144387

See. . . thats the core of the issue right there, people generalising about the opposite sex will inevitably lead to misinformed confusion for someone listening who's never had a close relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Why? . . . Because its not always true! Generalising or stereotyping is feeding unwarranted falsehood and speculation which in turn brings about fear, insecurity, distrust and resentment of the as yet 'unknown' members of the opposite sex.

It would benefit society immensely if sexual communication and relationships, especially nonverbal sexual communication were standard subjects in all secondary schools.

There is also a different between stereotypes and generalisations that are "not always true" or are false often enough to be misleading - - - and sweeping statements that appear not to be true whatsoever.

When I hear a claim like "women like money but working for it is the last thing they'll do" the best I can do is notice that this appears to be true of not just few - but literally no - girls or women I know. In my life. In my relationship. In my social circles. In my working circles. It is simply not a description I can map onto anyone or anything in my life experience.

If anything it has - occasionally - been the opposite. In that the girls and women I know have been working on some few occasions harder and are less distracted by things in their life such as their sexual pursuits or their plans to go out on the beer.

I am sure there are many lazy ass people - parasites - and bluffers all over the place. I have seen nothing at all to justify any gender breakdown or expectations in this.

Pussyhands

I've always been single. Have gone on many dates etc but love being single.

Anytime I go on a date with someone who ticks all the right boxes, I think, is this the way it'll be all my life? I went on a date the other evening and she was great but I felt like I just gave up my whole evening compared to what I normally do.

There would be positives to a partner. For example, I'm living away from family so if anything goes wrong, I'm on my own. My car breaks down I have no one to call to pick me up or things like that. Running a house also would be easier with someone else, sharing costs, sharing cleaning, sharing cooking, them having the heating on when I am out or having the oven on in advance of coming home.

Deregos.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118147714#Comment_118147714

Sorry, what are you on about?

I don't have any agenda, you appear to have got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't dissing your post . . . rather I was emphasising your point.

Apologies if I didn't explain myself well but I am allowed to have an opinion.

Dickie10

a funny episode happened me back in early december, in a local enough pub, lively place on saturday nights and myself and friend ran into a group of 3 girls we knew in early 20s, spent an hour or 2 having drinks with them, 12 midnight shutting, we went back to one ther houses in the town and the houseowner basically proposes to me, says im 37 and should be settled down now and that we would make a nice couple and i have a house now and all so everything is set up.... shes about 35 i was like .....ok... had a another drink and slipped away as quietly as i could. very embarrasing for all. this is happening quite a bit the last 2 years. anyone else get this in mid 30s? most of these women i have never before even kissed .

Pussyhands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118519281#Comment_118519281

No I haven't personally but it's quite a common thing you read online about how the "balance of power" between men and women switches around mid 30's.

Women in their 20s have lots of attention from men their own age and older.

Then when they're single in their mid 30's and up, the men their own age are still going after the ones in their 20s as women mature earlier than men generally.

Even myself I have noticed it wasn't easy get women in my early/mid 20's. Now it would be easy enough get a mid 30s woman. I feel I'm better looking now too despite weighing the same and not doing anything different. I think men age better.

So not surprising to hear your story as some women can be tetchy about wanting kids at a certain age.