online dating

Sounds awful alright. Certainly not easy to put a positive spin on anything like that. But there are some things to say about a statistic like that. It might give a little less reason to simply think men are awful - if you are finding that it is hurting your overall impression of men and dating.

Firstly another study that cited the study you linked to also noted: "Although there seem to be no increasing trends in overall divorce rates in patients with cancer, there is a gender discrepancy in these rates." Which basically means that although men are more likely to leave a sick wife than a wife is to leave a sick man - it is not solely due to their illness here. Because there is not always a sign that people in illness are more likely to divorce. They are divorcing at the same rate as the general population. So it is not that men are 7 times more likely to leave their woman if she gets sick so much as in relationships that were statistically on weak ground anyway - an illness is 7 times more likely to be the breaking point for men than it is for women. Which certainly puts a slightly less awful light on men here!

Second your study notes that the shocking "7 times" statistic actually goes down the longer the relationship has been going on. This reflects a tendency for women to fully commit to a marriage sooner than men. Which to me suggests people might be marrying a little too quickly. Another study which linked to your one also notes similar that "early detection (before the age of 36) and an absence of offspring increase the risk of the relationship falling apart" which suggests that one strong motivator in the break down is that men who want children are moving on because they are now in a relationship where having children might be impossible or severely problematic. In fact if I (a man) was childless and I got severely sick I _as the sick person_ would be positively asking my partner to leave me and find someone else so they can realize their life goal of starting a family because they can no longer do it with me. They might love me and want to stay with me through it. But I would not want that.

Finally - while the study note this "7 times" statistic it does not attempt to explain why this statistic might be happening. It would be easy to assume it just shows men are awful. But is that what it shows? What if in reality just as many women want to leave a sick man as the opposite. But because of society being how it is - men are simply more able to do so? Or what if for whatever reason when one spouse has to take on the roles and responsibilities of the sick spouse - then women are getting more support in this socially or economically or emotionally than men so men are more likely to crack and leave? That is just two random thoughts but there is any number of infinite reasons that could explain WHY men are "7 times" more likely to leave a sick spouse that are more complex than men simply being awful human beings that are more likely to be self centered and bail on someone they claim to love.

So yea over all your study does not look good for men. But it is also worth seeing clearly what the study does not say and does not tell us - so we can be cautious to not jump to conclusions about what the statistic actually means. All too often we the public will see a statistic a study produces and we assume the reason why that statistic exists, or what the story it tells is. And we are often very very wrong when we do!

Well yes that is how I would mean it. When I talk about society as a whole or "we the public" as a whole I usually do not mean every single person in that group. But significant chunks of it. In fact while I said "we" I was not actually including myself in it! Because I treat statistics in studies much differently than most people I've met due to my training and background and work experiences.

Though I think a lot of people use language that way, to the point this kind of (mis)use is often just assumed. But I take the point that it is not the most ideal phrasing one could use. It tends to lead to slogans like "not all men" when no one was talking about "all" men in the first place.

Alas if English was perfect and/or people used it perfectly, it would probably cease to be as beautiful a language as it actually is :) So I take the bad with the good on that one and always try to do better :)

How would you have the time, or mental capacity (to remember who was who!) to message 20-50 people a day?! Fair play 😃

I just didn’t appreciate being lumped in with ignorant people 🤷🏻‍♀️And also I found the ‘we’ condescending because I knew full well you weren’t including yourself in that category.

That is all :)

To your first question - I genuinely do not know. I have not seen or read any data on who initiates divorce in "normal" situations where illness is not a factor. So it is difficult to say either way if your impression here holds.

To your second paragraph - I did not suggest it was "Noble" or not. Nor would I suggest that this is the reason at all. I simply do not know why they are "7 times" more likely to leave in this situation. Rather I was suggesting that seeing the statistic "7 times" on it's own tells us absolutely nothing about the hows and whys behind it. And I was throwing out the first two random examples that came to my head. There could be any reason why this statistic is as it is.

Totally agree with you that it is "harsh" to leave someone just because they can no longer have kids. But the reality is many in our species are heavily motivated and controlled by instinct and desire to produce and parent. And it can often override rational and alternative thinking. And it is more than just "having" a kid - but the complete process of parenting it/them too. So while you can seek alternative ways to obtain children you still have to ask yourself if the new situation where the other parent is going to be long term ill, or soon dead, is one you can parent children in. Seeking "alternative ways to have children" is great sure, but is only one step on a long long road.

Your last paragraph I think is in general not really a fair appraisal either. I for one certainly hold no "poor men" narrative in my head. If you know any of my posts on this forum you know I espouse a strong "Discipline" and "Take Ownership" and "Get After It" and "Personal Responsibility" narrative in general and at my fellow men. I am the last on the list who is likely to "poor men" anything. I'd be the first to kick them into action and responsibility :)

But at the same time we also hear often suicide is higher in men, men are less likely to discuss or address mental health issues, less likely to ask for help in hard situations, and so forth. So rather than his being a "poor men" thing it's more of a "What to be aware of" thing. Which as it happens is exactly what the study you linked to says too. Their closing thoughts about their own statistic is:

"we recommend that medical providers be especially sensitive to early suggestions of marital discord in couples affected by the occurrence of a serious medical illness, especially when the woman is the affected spouse and it occurs early in the marriage. Early identification and psychosocial intervention might reduce the frequency of divorce and separation, and in turn improve quality of life and quality of care."

At the end of the day this discussion is not a hill I would die on. You suggested the statistic is one that makes you hesitant to date and I simply thought it would alleviate your concern a little if I showed you the many ways such a statistic might not be saying what, or be as awful as, it first seems. In short: Just trying to be nice here :)

I would often write things like "We as a society" or "We as a species" or "we the public". As would many others.

I sometimes therefore just assume because writing such is so common - that people reading it would know that such a sentence does not A) include everybody or B) assume any single individual is or is not included. While I think you are right that another phrasing is likely better - it is also right that this phrasing is both valid and common too.

But such is language. I put a LOT of thought into every post I write on forums like this. But nothing I write will ever be perfect. Nor, I feel, would I want it to be :) Close maybe. But perfection would be robotic and awful. And my posts are already robotic enough :-p

I think it’s only commonly used by people who work or study in a university.

And I don’t agree with the context you used it in - I had thought it was more generally used when discussing democracy etc. rather than in a more negative context like mass stupidity/ignorance.

Youth 😉

Are you trying to give yourself a migraine?

As others already mentioned you are looking/dating the wrong guys.

There you are now…Tuesday nights….

This woman always makes me laugh

https://www.facebook.com/hayleygeorgiamorris/videos/1179329499469352/?app=fbl

No wonder we can’t understand you*

*you = women collectively in this people

Do you still call them dates when you’re in a relationship?

And I thought women didn't sleep around on the first date?