SYDNEY (Reuters Life!) - Bachelor Carl Weisman got fed up of being classified as a playboy, a loser or a commitment-phobe so he set out to find out exactly why he and a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage.
ADVERTISEMENT

Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.

He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.

"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures."

Weisman said his online survey found there are three groups of bachelors -- about 8 percent who never want to marry, 62 percent want to marry but of which half won't settle for anything less than perfection, and about 30 percent who are on the fence.

Four out of 10 bachelors did not want children compared to three out of 10 wanting to be a father. The rest were undecided.

But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person.

"It's so important to these men to get it right. My best advice to single women after bachelors is to be patient. If you're in a hurry to get married you'll be frustrated," he said.

Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment.

"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman, an engineer-turned-author with two books now published.

"While those who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."

Weisman said his research blew away any idea that single men were unhappy.

"A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080602/lf_nm_life/books_bachelors_dc)
:nice:

Men are catching on. :cool:

I had no idea we had a club....

There is always Mrs Palm and her five lovely daughters:D

Well duh! Who in the hell actually wants to be in a bad relationship?:confused:

And heck, nowadays with our "lovely" punitive laws, its a wonder anyone gets married anymore.

It's also more beneficial to the children to grow up with two happy separated parents than in a home with two miserable adults. Kinda a no-brainer.

There is always Mrs Palm and her five lovely daughters:D

Palmela Handerson.

Palmela Handerson.:rofl:
So what about women who don't want to get married? I might be just as terrified of rushing into a relationship and having a bad marriage or finding out 6 months down the road that the person I married isn't who I thought he was.

:rofl:
So what about women who don't want to get married? I might be just as terrified of rushing into a relationship and having a bad marriage or finding out 6 months down the road that the person I married isn't who I thought he was.Yeah, but at the end of your mistake you'll find a smiling judge and friendly court system to ensure the you "get what's rightfully yours".

Yeah, but at the end of your mistake you'll find a smiling judge and friendly court system to ensure the you "get what's rightfully yours".
Luckily, I'm not the kinda gal to want to take a man for everything he's got. Just almost all of what he's got. :| (heh heh. small joke, fellas).

No but seriously, if kids were involved, and things went sour, I'd want child support, sure, but I'm a woman who makes her own money. I don't need a man to pay me alimony for me to feel good about life again.

Bleh I hate talking about this stuff. I'm done now.

Luckily, I'm not the kinda gal to want to take a man for everything he's got. Just almost all of what he's got. :| (heh heh. small joke, fellas).

No but seriously, if kids were involved, and things went sour, I'd want child support, sure, but I'm a woman who makes her own money. I don't need a man to pay me alimony for me to feel good about life again.

Bleh I hate talking about this stuff. I'm done now.

i am sooooo turned off now. :(

i am sooooo turned off now. :(

Turned off that I'm a rather independent woman who doesn't need a husband (or ex-husband) to pay me lots of money?

Don't worry, Aaron, i still need men for other things-- like hot, hot sex. See? You guys serve a purpose after all ;)

Luckily, I'm not the kinda gal to want to take a man for everything he's got. Just almost all of what he's got. :| (heh heh. small joke, fellas).

No but seriously, if kids were involved, and things went sour, I'd want child support, sure, but I'm a woman who makes her own money. I don't need a man to pay me alimony for me to feel good about life again.

Bleh I hate talking about this stuff. I'm done now.Yeah, too bad more women don't think that way though. I'm just saying that it all boils down to the fact that men generally take a larger risk when they get married.

Yeah, too bad more women don't think that way though. I'm just saying that it all boils down to the fact that men generally take a larger risk when they get married.

Perhaps financially it seems to work that way. Emotionally though? Do you think men take as much of an emotional risk as women do in marriages? I always thought this was something interesting to ponder. I guess it just depends on the person.

Perhaps financially it seems to work that way. Emotionally though? Do you think men take as much of an emotional risk as women do in marriages? I always thought this was something interesting to ponder. I guess it just depends on the person.

I think they do...maybe even much, much more so than women in some instances, mostly because they usually don't have other close guyfriends to really vent and bond with like women do. Western men as a rule don't get emotionally close to other men. So, if they screw up and choose poorly in a female companion, their entire concept of themselves as a person is at stake because they've left themselves very vulnerable by opening up personal feelings and emotions to a female companion who might very well turn on them if things don't progress to her liking. Women usually always have the bond with other women to draw strength from that men usually don't.

I think they do...maybe even much, much more so than women in some instances, mostly because they usually don't have other close guyfriends to really vent and bond with like women do. Western men as a rule don't get emotionally close to other men. So, if they screw up and choose poorly in a female companion, their entire concept of themselves as a person is at stake because they've left themselves very vulnerable by opening up personal feelings and emotions to a female companion who might very well turn on them if things don't progress to her liking. Women usually always have the bond with other women to draw strength from that men usually don't.Not to mention that if there are kids involved, the man is damn near guaranteed to end up with a greatly reduced role in their life following a divorce. How's that for an emotional risk?

Well duh! Who in the hell actually wants to be in a bad relationship?:confused:


They needed to do a survey of 1,533 men to figure this out. :|

Oh gimme a break. I know women who lost money in their divorce - it's whoever earns more that gets hurt. I know women who are reluctant to get married because of the assets at stake, and/or unequal earnings. This definitely does not apply to men only. Although on average women still earn less than men, I'm pretty sure that professionals, both men and women, are in the same boat.

I know a lot of single men and women, and the reason for them being single is plainly because they have not yet met their perfect match. From what I'm reading here, you're labelling women as oportunists, i.e. it seems like you GUYS think women's only goal in life is to rob you of your money. Misconceptions of that sort explain in part the fact that there are so many singles out there, of both sexes.

The study is useless if you ask me. Why, because if money is your only concern, there's always a prenup. Money CAN'T be the reason.

There is proof, throughout human societies, of differing needs of men and women when it comes to intimacy and love. From harems and poligamists, to the new forever bachelor, to me it all indicates one and the same; even the respondants in this study pointed it out: they look for perfection. The younger, the more attractive - the better.

In Arab societies, most of the time the man marries the first wife; once she ages, he brings home a new wife who is younger than the first, once she ages, he brings a third one even younger... And so on. The only motivation for the these men is youth, beauty and sex. Women on the other hand take charge of the needs of their children (and their cruel husbands), or if childless, are left behind with nothing, once they are past their expiration date, which is usually over 30, and in Arab countries, over 20-something, for you marry from 9-15 there.

So the Western society men are no different. If the law doesn't allow poligamy, and marriage is too costly of a proposition, what I ask you, is the next plausible option, if your motivation is based in visual stimulation? You find ways of changing partners, and as you get older, they get younger. Same principle, only you are not obliged to feed them once you lose interest.

Which leads me to my next point: is child support truly a punishment for the man, or his natural obligation, the human thing to do? Why should the women take the whole burden of rearing the future of this world, both emotionally and financially supporting their children, ALONE? You men should stop wining and complaining, especially if you are a high earner. What ever happened to giving, investing in the future generations? No wonder men are richer, with the proposterous amount of single mothers out there... This whole argument makes me sick to the obviously, undeniably selfish nature of the males.

There are some men out there who recognize their responsibilities and fulfill them. Women fulfill their responsibilities without complaints, it's just "natural" - or is that just social conditioning? I say the latter. So that's fine... Men will refuse to marry, and it will naturally follow that women will refuse to bare children. Birth rates among high earners, both men and women will decline. All that the world will have left is children from low income single mothers, broken homes, orphans and what not - THAT is the kind of future we are building. Think about that. When you have a child and are willing to give them a good home, you are taking the monumental responsibility for the future of this world. The selfish high earning bachelor, and the middle class bachelorette who has to be "patient" while her biological clock is expiring... will do "zero" for the future. Their deed on this earth will ironically be - nothing. Ironically because, if anyone is perfect for rearing successful people, encouraging potential, is the same class of people who are the first to refuse to do it. What a waste, what a sham... There is nothing to be proud of if you are a part of this "club". Remember that.

There is always someone better. There's always someone who makes more, seems more interesting, has a better smile, can run faster, plays more instruments, speaks more languages, etc. It isn't about finding the best of the best. It is about finding someone who isn't going to make you miserable and who wants to be part of a relationship with you as much as you do with them.
As for child support, the problem is that it doesn't go to the children. It winds up being a form of alimony that doesn't stop when she shacks up with someone new. And the courts favor giving custody to the woman while making the man pay child support and not vice-versa. It is sexist. There was a time where women had to worry about men leaving them because they could wind up impoverished. Now the opposite is true. It is a legitimate fear for both partners that they may be in a financial crisis if the partnership dissolves. Which is why no relationship works without trust.

STATS<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://discussanything.com/forums/ /><st1:country-region w:st=</st1:country-region><ST1:pCANADA</ST1:p: http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_051_e.htm<O:p</O:p

4.2 million — the estimated number of fathers in <ST1:p<st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></ST1:p, based on the 2001 Census. Of those, almost 82% are fathers in a married couple and slightly more than 12% are part of a common-law couple. Just under 6% are single dads. <O:p</O:p

Single Fathers:<O:p</O:p

245,825— the number of one-parent families headed by men as of 2001 Census, about 19% of the total 1.3 million one-parent families. There were roughly 5.3 million families with children at home in <ST1:p<st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada </st1:country-region></ST1:pin 2001.<O:p</O:p
$44,300 — the average after-tax income of families headed by single fathers in 2004. This is $13,000 more than the average for single mothers. In 2003, revised figures show male lone-parents had an after-tax income of $46,300, nearly $16,000 more than female lone-parents.
<O:p</O:p
Single mothers:

http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_047_e.htm<O:p</O:p

550,000 – the estimated number of single-parent families headed by women in <ST1:p<st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada </st1:country-region></ST1:pin 2004. <O:p</O:p
$27,700 — the after tax income of lone-parent families headed by women in 2004.<O:p</O:p
38% — the proportion of families headed by lone-parent mothers that had incomes which fell below the after-tax low income cut-off (LICO) in 2003. In comparison, this was the case for 13% of male lone-parent families and just 7% of non-elderly two-parent families with children. The incidence of low income among lone-parent families headed by women has declined somewhat since the early 1980s, when the figure hovered around 50%.<O:p</O:p

And court ordered child support usually means squat:<O:p</O:p
…more children who are covered by what their parents describe as a private agreement receive regular support payments than children whose parents say they have a court-ordered agreement. Two-thirds of children under private agreements benefited from regular support payments, compared to 43 percent of children whose parents stated they had a court-ordered agreement. Moreover, cases where there have been no payments in the last six months are much more common where the parents said there was a court order than where support payments are dealt with through a private agreement (30 percent vs. 14 percent).
<O:p</O:p

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/sup-pen/pub/stat2000/p5.html
<O:p</O:p

FOR US <ST1:p</ST1:pINFORMATION: http://fathersforlife.org/CS/usa/child_support_data_us.htm


<O:p</O:p
Everywhere you look, you find that women are taking on the burden of child rearing, support or no support, with lower earning on average as compared to men. So don’t give me this nonsense about how opportunistic women can be; you are referring to a small percentage of highly educated gals who know exactly how to use the system and get what they can get, probably due to the fact that they can afford a better lawyer!
<O:p</O:p
As for the majority of single mothers out there – pay closer attention and try not to get carried away by some brainless “study” by a well off, yuppie bachelor whose only point is to encourage the male sex to relinquish their responsibilities and pass the buck. I would hate to think of this study as the pinnacle of his academic achievements. Any meaningful socio-economic study would concentrate on the people who carry the real burden, and mothers definitely take majority, by all accounts. Why question people who do absolutely nothing for this society, except for riding the wave of the priviledged? These new yuppie generations of men fail to understand what their fathers understood when they went about concieving their very lives: as difficult and challenging as marriage can be, it is essential for continuation of society. Do you realize that predictions for Canadian society between 2020 and 2030 is "zero" population growth rate? Zero. In turn, the country will have to rely solely on new immigration. New immigrants bring different cultural values and norms with them, which could throw public view of law and politics out of whack. By refusing to have children/marrying etc. you are allowing for foreigners from backward cultures to take over and potentially change the very principles on which western countries were built and due to which they thrive. You think it's a long shot?

Ofcourse, you're not gonna get married because it will "save your country". Ofcourse, noone can deny your freedom to choose to remain single and childless.
But I can't help but think of the long range of consequences of this new culture of singlehood. There is nothing good about it. Not even for the bachelor waiting to find his perfect match. I have this picture in my mind, of a lonely man on his death bed, with noone by his side, and a will that leaves all his assets to some charity that is likely to misuse it. Why on earth would anyone want this for themselves? It simply doesn't make sense.

After tax income means squat. Child support doesn't count as income for tax purposes. How many women just live off of child support? How often do you hear about courts going after "dead beat mom's" who don't pay their court ordered child support? The plain truth is there is extreme inequity in the courts. To deny it is just insane.

Not in Canada. In Canada, there's a FORMULA, so it's pretty standard accross the board:

Example:
Province: British Columbia
Number of children: 2
Annual income of support payer: $33,760
Basic amount: $515
Percentage: 1.39%
Lower amount of the income interval: $33,000
The amount of monthly child support is
calculated as follows:
$515 + [1.39% × ($33,760-$33,000)]
$515 + [1.39/100 × $760]
$515 + [0.0139 × $760]
$515 + $10.56 = $525.56

Wow, out of $33,760, for two kids, you get to pay $6,312 per annum, which represents 19% of your income. WOW! You're such a loser, indeed, to give away 20% of your earnings for two kids. Holy shait! It's beyond me, it's waaaaay too much...:rolleyes:

Again, as I pointed out earlier, we should really concentrate on whether or not court orders are enforceable...:rolleyes: Which they are not. Court orders mean SQUAT. Believe me, I see it every day at work. If you refuse to pay, what do you think happens? N O T H I N G, that's what.

unfortunatley in the US everyday we discover that nothing is really standard. there is always some douchebag (or bagette) that will manipulate the system with a bullshit frivolous lawsuit just to make a buck. people are *******s and it becomes all the more apparent in many marriages and their failures.

From what I'm reading here, you're labelling women as oportunists, i.e. it seems like you GUYS think women's only goal in life is to rob you of your money.

Yup. I learned that about a quarter million dollars ago.

Thank you for giving us a vivid demonstration of why it's wise for us to avoid the trap.

Most of the single mothers I know don't get squat from their exes. The kids are lucky if they can recognize their fathers from a line up. I've honestly never met a man that was ruined financially by an ex wife (and I've known a lot of divorced men), but I've met plenty of single/divorced women with children struggling to make ends meet. I'm sure there are a few women out there who play the system and milk their exes for all they are worth, but I think a lot of the fear men have about this is overblown and rather hysterical. If it worries you, get a prenup, thats why they exist.

Yup. I learned that about a quarter million dollars ago.

Thank you for giving us a vivid demonstration of why it's wise for us to avoid the trap.

Well, if you can "spare" a quarter of a million, you're not doing so bad for yourself, are ya now? Most people's Net Worth is negative, they live on debt, which is why their income is the basis for calculating child support payments. A judge in Canada would NEVER have awarded a quarter of a Mil to a woman - if the man didn't actually have WAY MORE THAN THAT.

As for your final comment, I have no idea to whom you are talking to and what the fluck you are talking about.

The fact that you regret whom you married and god knows what else, is your problem. Your personal bitterness definitely does not represent the big picture. You haven't read a word of what I posted, too self centered to pay attention to what's really going on here.

Sorry about your loss, but you do realize that you must have been a part of the problem? How you chose your wife, and how you conducted yourself in that marriage, and the fact that you had assets you chose not to protect, are all questions YOU need to tackle yourself. I never said oportunits didn't exist, and I'm not even saying your ex is like that as I will never know the details. Maybe you cheated on her and she wanted revenge, in which case you flucked up. Maybe she married you with the intent to rob you of your money, in which case you flucked up. In any case, you had the option of a prenup - You chose not to prevent the worst from happenning and learned the hard way. What can I say? too late now.

Out of curiousity, are there kids involved Tinhorn?

Not to mention that if there are kids involved, the man is damn near guaranteed to end up with a greatly reduced role in their life following a divorce. How's that for an emotional risk?

You beat me to that punch.

I would love to see American women in general receive "equal" treatment in divorce court for about 5 years, and see what kind of changes in attitude would result.
Women typically can't function too well if they can't be a Mom to their kids. Men have to deal with this all the time, and it's one of the most heartbreaking experiences any one can live through.

Personally, I've learned that the best approach is to never say a bad word about the mother, and just become a more attractive parent to hang out with. But, that's my situation, and I can only speak from my own experience. I see my kids every day, and one of my kids lives with me (it wasn't always this way), so I'm a very lucky guy.

I know SO many people who have almost given up as a direct result of losing contact with their kids, and a couple who have given up. It's like dealing with a kind of death; the death of being a full time father. They feel like they no longer have any purpose, and in a sense, they're right. To go from being a dad to seeing your kids a few days a month is a huge blow, especially if you never had any real say, or never agreed to the arrangement.

I think men in general are grossly underestimated when it come to their attachment with their kids; especially by the family courts. It also makes me sick to see how the family court people and the lawyers are cashing in on the divorce industry, while they knowingly and willingly take away a man's rights to be a father in any real sense, and then penalize them financially to boot; sometimes for the rest of their lives.

Only about13% of men obtain primary custody of their kids in this country, and something is severely wrong with that statistic. It shows how biased the system is in the favor of women.

When people ask me if I would ever get married again and I just have to laugh. I've been there and done that and I've lived with several women as well (which isn't the answer either IMO). I don't want any more kids, and I sure as hell don't want to be legally bound to another woman. I would rather undergo open heart surgery with no anesthesia.

You could have summed all that up in one sentence and said: "I suck at relationships". That would have sufficed.:D

What is up with all these bitter guys, geeeeeeeeeeez...:) It's surprising to read actualy. I mean common: "...I've lived with several women as well (which isn't the answer either IMO)..." All I can say is that's really too bad... Here we have people like Baboon posting how happy they are in their marriage, and people like Betrade, on the opposite end of the spectrum. Betrade, you can't seriosly be claiming that all those women are uniquely at fault for your dissatisfaction. You obviously have a general dislike for women, which is not normal my friend.

Betrade, ever though about turning gay? Cause if that ain't the answer, then you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. :D

STATS<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://discussanything.com/forums/ /><st1:country-region w:st=</st1:country-region><ST1:pCANADA</ST1:p: http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_051_e.htm<O:p</O:p

4.2 million — the estimated number of fathers in <ST1:p<st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></ST1:p, based on the 2001 Census. Of those, almost 82% are fathers in a married couple and slightly more than 12% are part of a common-law couple. Just under 6% are single dads. <O:p</O:p

Single Fathers:<O:p</O:p

245,825— the number of one-parent families headed by men as of 2001 Census, about 19% of the total 1.3 million one-parent families. There were roughly 5.3 million families with children at home in <ST1:p<st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada </st1:country-region></ST1:pin 2001.<O:p</O:p
$44,300 — the average after-tax income of families headed by single fathers in 2004. This is $13,000 more than the average for single mothers. In 2003, revised figures show male lone-parents had an after-tax income of $46,300, nearly $16,000 more than female lone-parents.
<O:p</O:p
Single mothers:

http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_047_e.htm<O:p</O:p

550,000 – the estimated number of single-parent families headed by women in <ST1:p<st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada </st1:country-region></ST1:pin 2004. <O:p</O:p
$27,700 — the after tax income of lone-parent families headed by women in 2004.<O:p</O:p
38% — the proportion of families headed by lone-parent mothers that had incomes which fell below the after-tax low income cut-off (LICO) in 2003. In comparison, this was the case for 13% of male lone-parent families and just 7% of non-elderly two-parent families with children. The incidence of low income among lone-parent families headed by women has declined somewhat since the early 1980s, when the figure hovered around 50%.<O:p</O:p

And court ordered child support usually means squat:<O:p</O:p
…more children who are covered by what their parents describe as a private agreement receive regular support payments than children whose parents say they have a court-ordered agreement. Two-thirds of children under private agreements benefited from regular support payments, compared to 43 percent of children whose parents stated they had a court-ordered agreement. Moreover, cases where there have been no payments in the last six months are much more common where the parents said there was a court order than where support payments are dealt with through a private agreement (30 percent vs. 14 percent).
<O:p</O:p

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/sup-pen/pub/stat2000/p5.html
<O:p</O:p

FOR US <ST1:p</ST1:pINFORMATION: http://fathersforlife.org/CS/usa/child_support_data_us.htm


<O:p</O:p
Everywhere you look, you find that women are taking on the burden of child rearing, support or no support, with lower earning on average as compared to men. So don’t give me this nonsense about how opportunistic women can be; you are referring to a small percentage of highly educated gals who know exactly how to use the system and get what they can get, probably due to the fact that they can afford a better lawyer!
<O:p</O:p
As for the majority of single mothers out there – pay closer attention and try not to get carried away by some brainless “study” by a well off, yuppie bachelor whose only point is to encourage the male sex to relinquish their responsibilities and pass the buck. I would hate to think of this study as the pinnacle of his academic achievements. Any meaningful socio-economic study would concentrate on the people who carry the real burden, and mothers definitely take majority, by all accounts. Why question people who do absolutely nothing for this society, except for riding the wave of the priviledged? These new yuppie generations of men fail to understand what their fathers understood when they went about concieving their very lives: as difficult and challenging as marriage can be, it is essential for continuation of society. Do you realize that predictions for Canadian society between 2020 and 2030 is "zero" population growth rate? Zero. In turn, the country will have to rely solely on new immigration. New immigrants bring different cultural values and norms with them, which could throw public view of law and politics out of whack. By refusing to have children/marrying etc. you are allowing for foreigners from backward cultures to take over and potentially change the very principles on which western countries were built and due to which they thrive. You think it's a long shot?

Ofcourse, you're not gonna get married because it will "save your country". Ofcourse, noone can deny your freedom to choose to remain single and childless.
But I can't help but think of the long range of consequences of this new culture of singlehood. There is nothing good about it. Not even for the bachelor waiting to find his perfect match. I have this picture in my mind, of a lonely man on his death bed, with noone by his side, and a will that leaves all his assets to some charity that is likely to misuse it. Why on earth would anyone want this for themselves? It simply doesn't make sense.

I am so glad that you published these numbers, because it speaks directly to the point. The reason the average single dad makes 15k more than the average single woman is that winning custody as a man is very expensive and only those making a very good living generally have that option. Notice that 2 out of 3 custody cases go to the woman and not the man.
Here's a number that I don't see up there. What is the average child support responsibility of non-custodial parents based on gender?

The fact that you regret whom you married and god knows what else, is your problem. Your personal bitterness definitely does not represent the big picture. You haven't read a word of what I posted, too self centered to pay attention to what's really going on here.

Sorry about your loss, but you do realize that you must have been a part of the problem? How you chose your wife, and how you conducted yourself in that marriage, and the fact that you had assets you chose not to protect, are all questions YOU need to tackle yourself. I never said oportunits didn't exist, and I'm not even saying your ex is like that as I will never know the details. Maybe you cheated on her and she wanted revenge, in which case you flucked up. Maybe she married you with the intent to rob you of your money, in which case you flucked up. In any case, you had the option of a prenup - You chose not to prevent the worst from happenning and learned the hard way. What can I say? too late now.

Canadiense, I really do think the world of you, which is why I'm going to say this... pot/kettle? You spend an undue amount of time bashing men for only being interested in pretty young things and not having any self-control. You repeat this theme frequently, and you are attacking him for being a little bitter over what was obvious a crappy divorce?
Divorces suck for everyone. No one thinks they got a fair shake. But in the end, our court system is entrenched in the past. And that gives men an added level of risk beyond just the emotional turmoil of having a relationship with someone you Love falling apart.

You spend an undue amount of time bashing men for only being interested in pretty young things and not having any self-control.

That is funny, coming from you. Let's be honest here... are you not a living proof of my theory?:)

You repeat this theme frequently, and you are attacking him for being a little bitter over what was obvious a crappy divorce?


A "little" bitter... what an understatement. If someone took a quorter of a Mil from me, I'd be flucking pissed, and probably taking anger management classes... :) Look, I got it, the guy was screwed over by an obviously shrewd woman, I'm just wondering how he got homself such hot water in the first place....:hmm:

Here's the thing, I've said this before... I wouldn't marry without a prenup, and if I were asked to sign one - I would. Unfortunately, that is the reality today, it takes away from the "romance", but I'd rather be safe then sorry.

I ain't "attacking" anyone. I dislike oportunists of any kind. But don't let one exception (or two) cloud your judgement. You CAN'T prove to me that men are the losers. We are indeeed representatives of two opposing camps, and as unfortunate as that is, I say sisters are getting the shorter end of the stick. Prove me wrong. I want to read that strong argument explaining in detail how men are the true losers, overall.

You're not a woman, you will never know of the sacrifices mothers have to make. The only sharing you do with women, I'm guessing, is the senseless chit chat after you've had sex. What do you truly know of women? You have a mother, maybe even a sister. How would you describe them, their life experiences and their influence on your life? What about your father? How do they compare?

I've learned from experience that men form stronger bonds with women if they respect their mothers. Every time I notice a general frustration and a missunderstanding of the opposite sex, I can't help but tie that directly to their relationship with their mother.

Same applies vice-versa. Girls relationships with their fathers affect their relationships with men for the rest of their lives.

With all these dysfunctional relationships and divorces, it's no wonder we are further and further away from understanding each other.

I don't want to get involved in any controversy here but in most divorce situations faced by individuals I know, the dude gets screwed pretty bad if he has any assets. One dude is actually renting a room in the house that he previously owned before the court gave it to his wife. :p

See, this kind of arguing doesn't prove anything. I know more women who got screwed after having divorced. So what? We need data, some sort of meaningful information that expands beyond our little worlds.

You could have summed all that up in one sentence and said: "I suck at relationships". That would have sufficed.:D

What is up with all these bitter guys, geeeeeeeeeeez...:) It's surprising to read actualy. I mean common: "...I've lived with several women as well (which isn't the answer either IMO)..." All I can say is that's really too bad... Here we have people like Baboon posting how happy they are in their marriage, and people like Betrade, on the opposite end of the spectrum. Betrade, you can't seriosly be claiming that all those women are uniquely at fault for your dissatisfaction. You obviously have a general dislike for women, which is not normal my friend.

Betrade, ever though about turning gay? Cause if that ain't the answer, then you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. :D

I'm not bitter at all, and I have no dislike for women. It's the aftermath of a failed marriage that I personally would rather avoid if possible. I'm just stating a few facts as I have seen them, that apply to my personal situation as it is right now.

I have a family member who just married for the third time. He has three different kids by two women, and just married another woman with 2 kids. That's insane IMO. He had to take out a second mortgage to pay off all of his debts in order to get married and take on new ones. He has to be crazy or stupid.

You don't have to be married to have women in your life, trust me, and when the bottom falls out (which it will in this case after about 3-4 years; it always does), he'll have another major life disaster, and will be kicking himself in the ass for getting into it. It's like clockwork.

Personally, the primary reason I won't marry is because I will not father any more children. I'm 46. and I don't want to be 66 a with a 20 year old. My father did that. He had 9 kids, and he was just too old to be the kind of Dad that young kids need. he was great guy; don't get me wrong, but there were many things he could just not physically do, and he couldn't relate to so many things, because he was born in a different era into a different world.

For instance, getting drunk daily was perfectly acceptable, but smoking a joint at any time wasn't. In his time, only a small segment of society was into drugs, and they were looked down upon. He never got past that, even though at least 5 of his own kids smoked weed regularly. It drove him crazy. he just couldn't understand where "he went wrong", even though he really had nothing to do with it.

My youngest just turned 12. As it is, I'll already be 54 when he's 20. I'm extremely close with both of my kids, have always been a hands on dad, and have taken care of my kids from day one, and I'll point out, it's been the most rewarding job I have ever done, and when I was faced with the prospect of seeing my kids for 4 or 5 days a month, I fought it with a vengeance. Many fathers don't, and then wonder why they're so alienated from their own kids.

Frankly, at this point, my children are far more important to me than any woman I know. If I had to choose, they would win hands down. That doesn't mean I dislike women; it means I love my kids more than anything or anyone else.

I will not bring another woman into their lives on a full time basis until they're older. They've been through enough as it is, and I refuse to complicate this situation any more than it is.

I spent most of my life shacking up with, or being married to one woman or another. Getting women has never been a problem. I've always attracted more of them than I can handle. I don't even know why, but I have for some reason.

Sure, I hope to have at least one more great love before I kick the bucket, and when I'm ready for that, I'll be open to it, but now just isn't the time. My children's lives are the number one priority, and it will continue to be until it's no longer necessary, and they're self sufficient.

Dragging another person into this situation full time wouldn't be in her best interest either, because when you truly love someone, you want what's best for them; not what's best for yourself. I don't want to bring a woman into this and expect her to accept my kids as her own. I have done that myself, but even though no one likes to admit it, you always show some preference, in one way or another to your own kids. I swore I wouldn't, but I did. I had to let someone go recently for that very reason, and she understands completely, because she's been there herself, and had to raise her two daughters on her own.


Yeah, it may be a rock and a hard place at this point in some respects, but this too shall pass, as everything does. Sometimes we have to make very unselfish choices, and ignore what others may think, especially those who only know a tiny portion of the actual details.

Personally, the primary reason I won't marry is because I will not father any more children.

Well you can get married and not have kids. My wife and I aren't planning on having any.

I spent most of my life shacking up with, or being married to one woman or another. Getting women has never been a problem. I've always attracted more of them than I can handle. I don't even know why, but I have for some reason.

You reap what you sow.

Betrade, with all do respect... no harm intended here... I'm just calling it what it is. You're probably single today because you never chose to focus on one person. It seems to me you're perfectly content with your situation, so great. You're at a point in your life where marriage is unecesarry. But it saddens me to read of a life without love. I realize you love your children and you have your hands full... It's just that I can't help but wonder if you ever get lonely... And how is it going to be for you for years to come?

What a gloomy point of view, that the bottom always falls out in 3-4 years. It always does for the man. I talked with my ex once, years after our breakup, about the reasons our relationship failed. He said to me that our relationship (after 5 years together) got monotonous, and that we needed something different - like a child perhaps, to give us something else to do... I sat there staring at him, thinking how sad and proposterous the whole idea was. At the time of our breakup, I wasn't ready for a child. I suppose I knew instinctivelly that it was a dead end road, but I loved him nevertheless... So after five years, he abruptly ended our relationship by finding a much younger woman and they had a child the following year. Anyway, my ex continued to speak about his current wife and their life together, and he had nothing good to say. He was very unhappy. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him, even tho' he hurt me badly... It seems like Betrade is right... Men must be naturally restless creatures who need to conquer new territories in order to feel good about themselves. It leaves women like me feeling hopeless and sad faced with this truth. Not much is left to look forward to, knowing that my life could be a series of failed relationships, because it is men's nature to get bored. I've said this many times before: loyalty is dead.

Not in Canada. In Canada, there's a FORMULA, so it's pretty standard accross the board:

Example:
Province: British Columbia
Number of children: 2
Annual income of support payer: $33,760
Basic amount: $515
Percentage: 1.39%
Lower amount of the income interval: $33,000
The amount of monthly child support is
calculated as follows:
$515 + [1.39% × ($33,760-$33,000)]
$515 + [1.39/100 × $760]
$515 + [0.0139 × $760]
$515 + $10.56 = $525.56

Wow, out of $33,760, for two kids, you get to pay $6,312 per annum, which represents 19% of your income. WOW! You're such a loser, indeed, to give away 20% of your earnings for two kids. Holy shait! It's beyond me, it's waaaaay too much...:rolleyes:

Again, as I pointed out earlier, we should really concentrate on whether or not court orders are enforceable...:rolleyes: Which they are not. Court orders mean SQUAT. Believe me, I see it every day at work. If you refuse to pay, what do you think happens? N O T H I N G, that's what.

So you make 33k, which means you pay around 6k in taxes. So now you have 27k. Out of that you spend 6k on child support. So now you bring home under 2k a month. What does the average home cost per month in Canada? More to the point, how easy would it be for you to cut your earnings by 500 dollars a month?

That is funny, coming from you. Let's be honest here... are you not a living proof of my theory?:)



A "little" bitter... what an understatement. If someone took a quorter of a Mil from me, I'd be flucking pissed, and probably taking anger management classes... :) Look, I got it, the guy was screwed over by an obviously shrewd woman, I'm just wondering how he got homself such hot water in the first place....:hmm:

Here's the thing, I've said this before... I wouldn't marry without a prenup, and if I were asked to sign one - I would. Unfortunately, that is the reality today, it takes away from the "romance", but I'd rather be safe then sorry.

I ain't "attacking" anyone. I dislike oportunists of any kind. But don't let one exception (or two) cloud your judgement. You CAN'T prove to me that men are the losers. We are indeeed representatives of two opposing camps, and as unfortunate as that is, I say sisters are getting the shorter end of the stick. Prove me wrong. I want to read that strong argument explaining in detail how men are the true losers, overall.

You're not a woman, you will never know of the sacrifices mothers have to make. The only sharing you do with women, I'm guessing, is the senseless chit chat after you've had sex. What do you truly know of women? You have a mother, maybe even a sister. How would you describe them, their life experiences and their influence on your life? What about your father? How do they compare?

I've learned from experience that men form stronger bonds with women if they respect their mothers. Every time I notice a general frustration and a missunderstanding of the opposite sex, I can't help but tie that directly to their relationship with their mother.

Same applies vice-versa. Girls relationships with their fathers affect their relationships with men for the rest of their lives.

With all these dysfunctional relationships and divorces, it's no wonder we are further and further away from understanding each other.

I'm not suggesting men are the losers. No one wins in a divorce or otherwise failed relationship. What is being suggested is that men are becoming more conservative about getting into relationships because we are acutely aware of the long-term financial risks of being betrayed. It works both ways, a woman can have a man knock her up and split town and she can be completely financially ruined by the experience and have her future relationships complicated by a child.
On the other hand, a man can be manipulated into supporting his ex-wife and the guy she was secretly with the whole time while she set herself up to get some successful dork to pay 1/5th of his gross earnings to her.
That's the real world we live in. We strive for personal success and then we have to ask ourselves if we are being played for financial gain.

As for younger women, I'm sure that will pass if I ever grow up. I doubt I'm what a grown-up woman is looking for :).

So you make 33k, which means you pay around 6k in taxes. So now you have 27k. Out of that you spend 6k on child support. So now you bring home under 2k a month. What does the average home cost per month in Canada? More to the point, how easy would it be for you to cut your earnings by 500 dollars a month?

It wouldn't be easy. 33k is very low income, we're talking poverty, at least, for western standards. But tell me, what, in your opinion, should this guy contribute, for a total of two children? How much would be fair?

We strive for personal success and then we have to ask ourselves if we are being played for financial gain.

Well, you don't have to think so hard, get a prenup. And if you don't like the idea of supporting kids - don't have any.

As for younger women, I'm sure that will pass if I ever grow up. I doubt I'm what a grown-up woman is looking for :).

I'm a grown up woman. I doubt I'm looking for anything anymore, because I think I've seen enough. I suppose I'll just have to settle for accumulating enough resources so I can travel all over the world later on, probably alone. As for my dreams of sharing life with someone... or god forbid having a child (stupid me)...:shakefist I guess that's just daydreaming.

It wouldn't be easy. 33k is very low income, we're talking poverty, at least, for western standards. But tell me, what, in your opinion, should this guy contribute, for a total of two children? How much would be fair?

There is no fair answer. Why shouldn't he get custody? That's the real question. As you pointed out, something like 4 in 5 custody decisions favor the woman. If it were 50/50, women would be reconsidering the child support situation. Imagine paying 20% of your gross income to your ex and his wife/girlfriend so that they can raise your kids. At the moment, this almost never happens to women and happens to men with regularity. There's a gender gap, here.

Well, you don't have to think so hard, get a prenup. And if you don't like the idea of supporting kids - don't have any.

Prenups only cover distribution of assets and alimony. They do not cover child support. Not having kids is kind of a team effort, unless you decide on a permanent solution.

I'm a grown up woman. I doubt I'm looking for anything anymore, because I think I've seen enough. I suppose I'll just have to settle for accumulating enough resources so I can travel all over the world later on, probably alone. As for my dreams of sharing life with someone... or god forbid having a child (stupid me)...:shakefist I guess that's just daydreaming.

Yes, and you don't like me. Case and point :P. And I'm a libertine, completely not your type from what I can tell. And you are doing the same thing you are chastising men for, waiting for the perfect situation.

IMO, I smell what appears to be some e-chemistry between Canadiense and grimrebuke. :nice:

You reap what you sow.

Betrade, with all do respect... no harm intended here... I'm just calling it what it is. You're probably single today because you never chose to focus on one person. It seems to me you're perfectly content with your situation, so great. You're at a point in your life where marriage is unecesarry. But it saddens me to read of a life without love. I realize you love your children and you have your hands full... It's just that I can't help but wonder if you ever get lonely... And how is it going to be for you for years to come?

What a gloomy point of view, that the bottom always falls out in 3-4 years. It always does for the man. I talked with my ex once, years after our breakup, about the reasons our relationship failed. He said to me that our relationship (after 5 years together) got monotonous, and that we needed something different - like a child perhaps, to give us something else to do... I sat there staring at him, thinking how sad and proposterous the whole idea was. At the time of our breakup, I wasn't ready for a child. I suppose I knew instinctivelly that it was a dead end road, but I loved him nevertheless... So after five years, he abruptly ended our relationship by finding a much younger woman and they had a child the following year. Anyway, my ex continued to speak about his current wife and their life together, and he had nothing good to say. He was very unhappy. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him, even tho' he hurt me badly... It seems like Betrade is right... Men must be naturally restless creatures who need to conquer new territories in order to feel good about themselves. It leaves women like me feeling hopeless and sad faced with this truth. Not much is left to look forward to, knowing that my life could be a series of failed relationships, because it is men's nature to get bored. I've said this many times before: loyalty is dead.

Talk about sad and gloomy. Sheesh!! Just kidding. Actually,I'm a very happy person, and have been all of my life, except for a few hellish periods that were extremely difficult. But, everyone goes through those things, and they're part of life. I never got bored with my marriage. In some respects, and for a time, it was the happiest time of my life. Then again, it was also the worst. Boredom had nothing to do with it. In a nutshell, my wife and I were just ill suited to one another. I'll leave it at that.

I'm very content, and I have lots of love, and always have all my life. I also stated that at least one more GREAT love would be really cool. That could happen today; in a moment, and I'm always open to it, but not making it a number one priority at this time. It almost never shows up when your actively looking anyway. It's not practical right now, nor would I jump into a marriage RIGHT NOW. The emphasis being RIGHT NOW. It's about timing, and what I'm still trying to clear up as a direct result of the end if my marriage.

Over the last two years alone, I have turned down two lady friends who wanted me to just move right in with them. If I had no kids, I MAY have taken one of them up on the offer, but I have to set an example. I have others dependent on me, and looking to me for different things. If I shack up with someone, what am I telling my kids?? I'm telling them that marriage is unnecessary, and I'm not going to tell them that. I actually believe in marriage. I also happened to get into a bad one.

If you think I have never focused on anyone, well, you're just wrong. That's okay, it's not like you know me or anything. It would take me a week to tell you of the things that have led me to where I am right now.

And I don't get lonely. Ten years ago, I would have. I have changed, which we all do, and I now know that I don't need any one to "complete" me. I'm a complete person. It took me almost 40 years to learn this, and had I realized it about 25 years ago, I probably would have avoided a few heartbreaking situations. But life doesn't work that way. You learn as you go.

Happiness and contentment come from within, and when you spend your life trying to attain it through someone else (as we almost all have done at one time or another), you'll almost always be disappointed eventually. The way you respond to a situation, or how you look at it will determine how you'll feel. I've learned to not react, and to put things in perspective. If I drop dead today, I'll die a happy man. Why?? Because I have done almost everything I ever wanted to do, and I have created a legacy that my kids will take to the future. What more can we really ask for?? That doesn't mean there isn't more to do, I'm just saying "if".

I was with my wife for 12 years (that's a pretty long focus eh??), and it wasn't all bad, so to put the 3 year thing in context, I'm talking about my brother, one individual, who I know, and have watched make some pretty idiotic moves in his life, so if it works this time, I'll be very surprised. He married someone he barely knows, which is just stupid IMO. If it doesn't work, he will have "learned" another hard lesson. If it does, than I wish him and his wife well.

I also believe that most men do want commitment. I always have. I was totally committed to my wife and kids (still am as far as the kids go), and every other woman I have ever been involved with, but people do change. It's just a fact of life. You've been through a divorce, you know this is true. People sometimes hurt each other, resentments build, and before you know it, they can't stand one another anymore. That doesn't mean all is hopeless, or that the right "one" isn't out there.


No one who gets married intends to separate or divorce (well, almost no one), but it happens.

I know people who have been married 4-5 times, and they're miserable. I also have family members who have been married for almost 40 years who are happy as hell, and parents who were married for 54 years until my Dad died. It all depends on the people, how they're suited to one another, their common goals (or lack thereof), and what they're willing to sacrifice for something bigger than themselves.

There is no fair answer. Why shouldn't he get custody? That's the real question. As you pointed out, something like 4 in 5 custody decisions favor the woman. If it were 50/50, women would be reconsidering the child support situation. Imagine paying 20% of your gross income to your ex and his wife/girlfriend so that they can raise your kids. At the moment, this almost never happens to women and happens to men with regularity. There's a gender gap, here.

20%??? That's chicken feed. I'm paying almost at least twice that, and one of my kids lives with me.

There is a gender gap, and the courts are well aware of it. They actually make money off of divorces as they are constructed. Court ordered child support is a revenue generator, because the courts charge a fee when they do wage garnishment, and they're garnishing lots of wages. Statistically, the man makes more money, and the go after the one who has the most. End of story.

Personally, I just started paying it voluntarily from day one. That way, the courts aren't involved in my business. It's a small price to pay in order to retain your privacy.

My brother tried to dodge child support (stupid idea), and his ex moved to Minnesota and went on welfare. He has to pay every penny, plus interest back to the state of Minnesota. I told him to just pay from the get go, but he didn't listen. It will take at least ten years to pay all of that money back, and they take it out of his pay every week.

Most of the single mothers I know don't get squat from their exes. The kids are lucky if they can recognize their fathers from a line up. I've honestly never met a man that was ruined financially by an ex wife (and I've known a lot of divorced men), but I've met plenty of single/divorced women with children struggling to make ends meet. I'm sure there are a few women out there who play the system and milk their exes for all they are worth, but I think a lot of the fear men have about this is overblown and rather hysterical. If it worries you, get a prenup, thats why they exist.

It's not overblown. If you ever find yourself in the situation you'll understand. This isn't a complaint, it's statement of fact.

I would (and often do) give my kids 100% of what I make, but I have to give it to my ex. It has to go through her to get to them, and part of it goes to cigarettes, alcohol, and who knows what else. There's nothing I can do, but I could make that money go much further if I could spend it more wisely myself. Child support shouldn't be ex wife support.

My ex refuses to work; period. She hasn't worked in almost 18 years. She's smart, educated and quite capable of making good money. Hell, she could make more than I do easy, but she just won't.

What do you do?? Nothing. You can't force someone to work, and neither can the courts. You suck it up and pay. There is no other choice because your kids have to eat.

I wish I would have gotten prenup. I though marriage would last forever. I've learned a great deal since then.

People actually ask me why I don't want to get married again.

Yes, and you don't like me. Case and point :P. And I'm a libertine, completely not your type from what I can tell. And you are doing the same thing you are chastising men for, waiting for the perfect situation.

Phah...:rofl:

Grim, I have some male friends, who have views on relationships and women that make me sick to my stomack. As those views are a private affair, i.e. they do not affect me, I've chosen to remain friends with them. Don't get me wrong, whenever the subject comes up, I am quite critical and honest with them, conflicts of opinion and heated discussions arise.

However... how they choose to conduct their love life should not concern me. Same goes vice-versa.

So... it's not that I dislike you. I've often supported your views on other significant issues on this forum. Who you sleep with is none of my business.

I try to point out though, that in my experience, I've met tons of men who think exactly like you, which supports my view that generally speaking, males have a lot in common. Monogamy is imposed on males, in many ways. Most men stay with a partner out of sense of duty, some are torn by guilt, and sometimes it's a question of financial benefit or reputation. But if you ask, off the record, most men will tell you that they would prefer a change. Women are different, they tend to prefer security and monogamy. This causes tension and dissatisfaction on both sides. As reputation or image became less and less important, we get a more accurate picture. It is quite obvious by now, that what is innate, is spiralling out of control, now that the social pressure is almost inexistent. In other words, now that they have the liberty to do as they please, men are demonstrating what seems to be in their nature. Relationships are short-lived because "love" is an imaginary concept. The real motivation is sexual urge, and that urge cannot be sustained with one partner. Men need to feel the excitement of a new woman more so than women, because women often have different priorities, and by that I mean motherhood. Most women prefer settling down because it's natural to want to have a child, and after that, it's natural to want to keep the father around, for both emotional and financial support. There is a special bond between mothers and children because mothers carry them in their wombs, they experience pain while giving birth, and that naturally entitles them to "keep" the child in most cases. It is unfortunate and unfair, but that is how nature intended it to be: that the child comes out of the mother's body. This is a very important factor. Although there are dead beat mothers out there - who shouldn't have custody of their children, most women are rulled by a protective instinct that surpasses any other form of "love". Even in the animal kingdom, majority of cases mothers rear and protect the offspring, while fathers move on to new females. Very few male animals are monogamous for life, like those penguins... In other words, the fact that men tend to stray - is no accident. You are programmed to do so. Of course, very few men actually think about this.

One more thing. I am not waiting for a perfect situation. I don't believe in that. I am not an idealist. Far from it my friend. I don't want a self-fullfilling prophecy kind of situation, so I'm not gonna say: "I'll never find happiness with a man". I'd settle for moments of happiness... But deep down I know... that there comes a point in every relationship where the man loses interest. No matter what I hope for, the truth always cathes up to me in the end... It's difficult to run from the truth. Especially for someone like me, a person who always probes and doesn't mind lurking in the dark, trying to discover real intent in every situation. It's hard to stay optimistic with so much evidence in my face pointing to a dark reality.

I suppose stupidity is a blessing. Self-delusion, like faith in God, or trusting people... :) is a form of self-defence I just cannot allow myself to use. In the end, it doesn't matter. What will be will be.

Wow. Talk about bitter and hypocritical. Canadianese, why do you insist on personally attacking those who disagree with you? Just because Betrade is divorced and got taken advantage of doesn't mean he "sucks at relationships". Even if he does, is that really relevant to the point that courts (at least here in the US) are totally biased when it comes to divorce and custody?

Just to answer all of those who think the men bringing up are all bitter, bad at relationships, etc. - and bear in mind the targets of those comments have mostly people I myself dislike - I'll add one datum. I'm happily married. I rarely think about divorce in even the most speculative "all imaginable futures" kind of way, and still the prospect of losing access to my daughter is positively huge. I can't imagine how painful that would be, so I shy away from the sorts of words or actions that carry even the remotest possibility of making such an outcome more likely. Sometimes that makes me a better husband/parent/person. Sometimes it makes me a wimp or a coward. It's something I have to consider in every non-trivial conversation I have with my wife, every decision on whether to head home or work late, etc.

This huge Sword of Damocles that hangs over my and every other guy's head is something women don't even have to think about. From day to day or week to week, most probably forget it even exists - after all, they don't generally have any particular plan to initiate a divorce - but their marriages are deeply colored by it whether they know/admit it or not. Frankly, even as someone unlikely to be directly affected by the inequity in divorce and custody law, that pisses me off. I see what it has done to a friend of mine, formerly a top-notch engineer with a top-notch salary now reduced to working odd jobs for unreported income because all of the court-supported slander and harassment have made it pointless for him to earn real money. I think "that could happen to me" and yes, it's frightening. Just as nobody wants to live in a dictatorship even if they're not the ones being arrested and beaten, nobody wants to live under a law that can do that to people even if they're not the ones it's done to.

You might not think it's all that bad. Fine. Maybe you just haven't looked. Maybe you actually have, and still hold that belief. Don't be dismissive of guys who've come to a different conclusion based on their own personal experience or that of their friends, though. Their concern is very real even if you don't happen to share it.

Wow. Talk about bitter and hypocritical. Canadianese, why do you insist on personally attacking those who disagree with you? Just because Betrade is divorced and got taken advantage of doesn't mean he "sucks at relationships". Even if he does, is that really relevant to the point that courts (at least here in the US) are totally biased when it comes to divorce and custody?

That was exactly my point: his personal complaint has no relevance overall. As for "PERSONALLY ATTACKING" him...:eek: relax dude. I mean it, back off. I don't like your tone. I'm drawing some conclusions, not attacking.

As for me being bitter and hypocritical, I'll agree with number 1. Apparently, a lot of us here are bitter over some shait. So what?
How am I hypocritical?:eek7:

I welcome opposing views, please, do share, we might learn something new. I just wish we could have more meaningful data representing the overall situation. And as far as this discussion goes, it is obvious that the courts are biased in favor of the mother as far as custody goes. However, I am not persuaded that the mothers end up getting the ordered or agreed upon support from the fathers. Jwreck, instead of worrying who disagrees with me and why, why don't you do some reasearch on this question.

Luckily, I'm not the kinda gal to want to take a man for everything he's got. Just almost all of what he's got. :| (heh heh. small joke, fellas).

No but seriously, if kids were involved, and things went sour, I'd want child support, sure, but I'm a woman who makes her own money. I don't need a man to pay me alimony for me to feel good about life again.

Bleh I hate talking about this stuff. I'm done now.

Every woman I've ever met says that. But if you married your dream man, and then got suspiscious that he was banging his secretary, your tune could change real quick. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm sure you actually believe what you posted, and you might even back it up when the shit hits the fan. But 95% of women wouldn't.

Just because Betrade is divorced and got taken advantage of doesn't mean he "sucks at relationships".

His divorce has little to do with my conclusion. And when I said that he sucked at relationships I didn't mean it as an attack. I mean, if you know anything about me YOU'D KNOW I SUCK AT RELATIONSHIPS. I should have added "join the club" I guess...

Betrade had a bad divorce.
He stated that he had spent most of his life shacking up with (or being married to) one women or another.
He stated that he always attracted more women than he could handle (which implies what? overlapping relationships, affairs, numerous relationships?)

With all these women coming and going, having him say in the end that living with women is a bad idea... I made my conclusion. A string of bad relationships, following a bad divorce... One common denominator, as they tend to tell me on numerous occasions. Ending up alone and preferring it that way... Well??? What's illogical about my conclusion?

I apologise to Betrade for having to repeat myself and talk about this again. :horse:I didn't mean to but somebody provoked me, so I had to explain myself.

That was exactly my point: his personal complaint has no relevance overall. As for "PERSONALLY ATTACKING" him...:eek: relax dude. I mean it, back off. I don't like your tone. I'm drawing some conclusions, not attacking.

As for me being bitter and hypocritical, I'll agree with number 1. Apparently, a lot of us here are bitter over some shait. So what?
How am I hypocritical?:eek7:

I welcome opposing views, please, do share, we might learn something new. I just wish we could have more meaningful data representing the overall situation. And as far as this discussion goes, it is obvious that the courts are biased in favor of the mother as far as custody goes. However, I am not persuaded that the mothers end up getting the ordered or agreed upon support from the fathers. Jwreck, instead of worrying who disagrees with me and why, why don't you do some reasearch on this question.
Oh, well if you mean it, then I guess I better do what you say then. :rolleyes:

You're asking me to prove that the sky is blue. Everyone with eyes knows it. open your eyes.

Canadiense: it depends largely on the species. And penguins don't mate for life, they mate for a full season. Most females in the animal kingdom run the males off so they can raise the litter and so that they can procreate with another male. They generally try to have offspring with as many mates as they can. Females just have the misfortune that this process is more time consuming for them than it is for males.
All humans have a cycle. When we are in a new relationship, we release certain pheromones that stop after 18 months to 3 years. This is likely intended to help the species diversify. But it also explains that honeymoon period in a relationship.
As for me, I don't want a harem. Women are dangerous in large numbers :). Seriously, one that I trust, who shares similar desires and goals, and who wants to be in a relationship with me as much as I do her would be plenty for a lifetime.

Which is to say, you make assumptions about men that are probably often wrong.

Canadiense: it depends largely on the species. And penguins don't mate for life, they mate for a full season. Most females in the animal kingdom run the males off so they can raise the litter and so that they can procreate with another male. They generally try to have offspring with as many mates as they can. Females just have the misfortune that this process is more time consuming for them than it is for males.
All humans have a cycle. When we are in a new relationship, we release certain pheromones that stop after 18 months to 3 years. This is likely intended to help the species diversify. But it also explains that honeymoon period in a relationship.
As for me, I don't want a harem. Women are dangerous in large numbers :). Seriously, one that I trust, who shares similar desires and goals, and who wants to be in a relationship with me as much as I do her would be plenty for a lifetime.

Which is to say, you make assumptions about men that are probably often wrong.

You are (unfortunately) confirming, that we are programmed to be promiscuous. What bothers you is the fact that I think men are more promiscuous than women. Both sexes are promiscous, but how could anyone actually prove who is more likely to cheat? If you read the serious biological studies they will all say males are more likely to cheat (sperm is abundant, less costly to produce, so diversification is more likely; eggs are more costly to produce so monogamy is desireable), but as it turns out, homo sapiens is a complicated animal, and it comes down to "strategy". You just mentioned that a large number of females is a dangerous proposition, and that is your personal cost-benefit analysis. Every individual has a different one.

I have yet to meet a monogamous male. I suppose I just haven't been lucky enough. You want a man with a big d*ck (I just enjoy sex more that way, no alternative genetic motive there....), but you must realize that those types of men compete with their sperm, which means they are less likely to be faitful. Seriously, there are studies out there on monkeys, comparing the testicle/penis size of gorillas and chimps. Turns out, gorillas have smaller testies than the chimps, because they are bigger, and have to fight for dominance/females with their bodies/physical strength, as opposed to chimps, for which the body size does not matter, i.e. they compete with their sperm, thus the bigger testies/penis.

In humans, it comes down to mating strategy. In our world, cost is of utter importance... But anyway, when they did paternity test studies, something like 92-94 % of men tested were truly the fathers. That goes in favour of the women's honesty. But who cares... I know there are male AND female sluts out there. It's very sad, very very sad. I'm sick and tired of this. I feel so alone in my world. If everything comes down to this.... mating strategy for the sake of getting a more genetically perfect offspring or whatnot... I don't even want to have any part in it. Seriously. There is no spritual connection, what have we evolved towards? We're no better than those flucking chimps. I'm not just a uterus made to create good looking children. Dammit.:hmm:

Canadiense, it sounds like you're getting yourself pretty upset about all this, and I don't think you need to be. There are plenty of angles to view the situation from. The genetic competition aspect and our relation to primates is only one of them. I prefer to view dating as a search for a partner. I'm hoping to find someone who really lights my fire, and with whom I could possibly spend the rest of my life. I don't care about spreading my sperm, and I don't care that my ancestors were all chimps. I'm looking for a connection, and I know that there are women out there looking for the same thing. That's all that really matters.

Canadiense, you have the same problem that most women have in relationships. The things you look for undermine the things you claim you want. You are searching based on sexual criteria and then are shocked when sex is more important to your partner than fidelity. I know a lot of monogamous men and even a few monogamous women. But that is probably because I don't get to know men by first getting them to demonstrate the size of their penis. Generally I've found that it is easier to check for sexual compatibility after you've established that you have common ground in other areas, including ideologies on relationships, unless you aren't looking for anything else.

Canadiense, you have the same problem that most women have in relationships. The things you look for undermine the things you claim you want. You are searching based on sexual criteria and then are shocked when sex is more important to your partner than fidelity.

Sex is not the only criteria. However, if you don't have what it takes in bed, it's hard for me to make it work, without passion. Can you make it work without passion? I doubt it.

I don't ask for much: smart, loyal and a heathy sex drive (preferrably larger penis). These are not extraodinary traits. Money and looks are never an issue. I just happen to miss the loyalty aspect, every time...:|

I think what grimrebuke's saying is that you should look for loyalty first, and then make the sex work with a loyal guy, rather than trying to get the loyalty to work with a guy who's good in bed.

Makes perfect sense.

I just don't know if I could make it work without good sex. I've tried on numerous occasions. I gave up trying to be happy without passion. I hate wasting time, so I never waited too long to "test" the man in bed. Maybe that was a mistake, maybe not. I'd "discarded" many lovers based on their clumsiness, or inability to make sparks fly in bed. So even if I meet an apparently loyal person, what happens if they suck at love-making? I already know I can't live with that...:(


I get the point tho'. It's a complicated issue. Maybe I'm asking for too much. A lot of women I know seem to be happy with whatever size penis... They never even discuss sex as a factor in their relationship. They especially never discuss d*ck size. I'm a bit extreme in that respect. :( I'm just like my father. He was a big time voyeur and very dependant on sex. He was agressive in bed (my mom recounted), and so am I. I dunno if it's the hormones or what... Maybe I'm :crazy:...

No, but you aren't complaining about the ones that were loyal but not all you expected in bed and using them as an example that all men suck. On the other hand, you are using the ones that were good in bed but disloyal as examples that all men are horny, unfaithful bastards. A lot of women make this mistake. Several of my better friends took quite a while to warm up to me because they assumed I was conservative. That "vibe" that I didn't give off is the one that disloyal types give off. They were confusing me not being an ego-centric maniac who gets their sense of self-worth from the number of women they sleep with as conservatism. And those kind of guys have to be packing because they aren't going to spend even ten minutes figuring out what the woman likes because it isn't about her, it is about them feeling good about themselves.
What you need to do, is figure out what you need, then figure out what kind of a person has those traits, then figure out what that person would act like and look like. Then look for someone that matches the description and hope you are in the ballpark.

I have never been attracted to men who give off that vibe. When I assess personality, I probe into areas such as family, bacground, views on relationships, women, previous relationships (DETAILS), I try to get a sense of their emotional side (closed or open)... Basically, such assessments have lead nowhere because you can't read people's minds. People are duplicit. People change.

I dislike ego-centrics. I've never been involved with players. However, I have been involved with good men who evidently - got bored after a while. Maybe I'm just not interesting enough. Perhaps I have one defect too many. I often think that might be the reason. But in the end... I'm 5'7, 120 lbs, early thirties, not hidious looking, I like singing and dancing, I speak a few languages, I have a bachelor's degree, in perfect health (active), and financially independant.

Why I get to remain single and so many women in dire straits get to have a few kids and a family - IS TRULY BEYOND ME.

Maybe I should "dumb it down"...:|

Maybe you are just amazingly unlucky? Or maybe you live in a bad area? For the record, I'm mid-30's, financially stable, own my own place (2 of them), am only mildly stupid, in decent shape, and I've been single for a while. Having all the right boxes checked on your resume is not nearly as important as good luck.

Stop looking. Don't try to make it happen. Just let it happen.

Makes perfect sense.

I just don't know if I could make it work without good sex. I've tried on numerous occasions. I gave up trying to be happy without passion. I hate wasting time, so I never waited too long to "test" the man in bed. Maybe that was a mistake, maybe not. I'd "discarded" many lovers based on their clumsiness, or inability to make sparks fly in bed. So even if I meet an apparently loyal person, what happens if they suck at love-making? I already know I can't live with that...:(





To sound totally cheesy, great lovers are not born, they are MADE.

I used to joke that what hubby lacked in skill he more than made up for in enthusiam. The skills came later and oh, what mad skillz they are!!!! :nice:

If I had just said, "To heck with this lousy lay", I would never have gotten what I wanted. Loyalty AND a great lover.

And trust me this didn't happen quickly. It took about three years for him to really learn how to blow my mind.

And though he's by no means "small" his skills would more than make up for any "lacking" in that department.

Shandril's right. As long as you find someone who likes sex, he can learn to be good at it. Practice makes perfect! :)

On the other hand, you can't teach someone to be loyal. Either he is or he isn't.

If you have ever seen a chastity belt in person, you would realize that you can neither teach loyalty nor trust.

Shandril's right. As long as you find someone who likes sex, he can learn to be good at it. Practice makes perfect! :)

On the other hand, you can't teach someone to be loyal. Either he is or he isn't.

Two arguments:

1. If you are around my age or older, and still "learning", that's usually a very bad sign.

2. If you find someone who loves dancing, they can learn to be good at it. How big of a role does talent play in your ability to progress as a dancer? Many people have no rhythm but love dancing... Needless to ay, those people will never be appreciated for their dancing ability, they can marginally improve, but lack of talent is not something you can work on.


Difference is, I want a pro, the type that wins the audition by a long shot, the self confident, capable, breathtaking type.

I believe good lovers are simply talented in that respect to begin with. :shrug:

Well, you're allowed to want that, but you need to rethink your priorities. Obviously, seeking out men who are good in the sack and then trying to establish meaningful relationships with them hasn't worked out for you. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the best indication of insanity.

I happen to like women who dress nice. A couple years ago, I found one and tried to have a meaningful relationship with her. She cheated on me, quit her job, and ended up living with her parents and getting her new boyfriend to pay for a boob job. Obviously, I was making the same mistake you're making by focusing on superficial things first and then trying to establish the real meat of a relationship later. Now, I'm more interested in looking for an intelligent woman. I'm pretty sure I've found one, and I'm in the process of starting a real relationship with her. And you know what? She appreciates my flowers and chocolates so much that she's started dressing nice to impress me! :nice:

This thread sure took an odd turn. :eek7:

I was making the same mistake you're making by focusing on superficial things first and then trying to establish the real meat of a relationship later.

I don't think it's a superficial matter. :|

If I were focusing on looks, I'd agree. I'm just sayin...:nonono: Finding a compatible lover is difficult. Whatever, jwreck is right... 'nough said.

Whatever, jwreck is right... 'nough said.
Yeah, let's all try and remember that next time. :cool: LOL.

To sound totally cheesy, great lovers are not born, they are MADE.

I used to joke that what hubby lacked in skill he more than made up for in enthusiam. The skills came later and oh, what mad skillz they are!!!! :nice:

If I had just said, "To heck with this lousy lay", I would never have gotten what I wanted. Loyalty AND a great lover.

And trust me this didn't happen quickly. It took about three years for him to really learn how to blow my mind.

And though he's by no means "small" his skills would more than make up for any "lacking" in that department.

How the hell did you have the patience? Three years?!?

I've always assumed that you need an inner "gut" cumulative sense of the whole person, not just sexually, to get a "read" on what might be possible, relationship-wise. between two people.
If you're not compatible in core beliefs and goals, the relationship is almost doomed to fail, regardless of how good the sex is. It's a kind of balancing act between the two.
I also believe that some people are instinctually gifted as far as innate sensuality is concerned. I've found that for those few, it's a natural part of their own personality, and an open, exploratory nature individually their own. That's not to say that a willing partner cannot be "taught", but it's still slightly different in personal motivation.

How the hell did you have the patience? Three years?!?

I almost didn't, but that's a whole nother thread. And it was never "bad", just "meh" but now it its OMFG! See the difference? And i was just as at fault. I never told him what I really wanted so he was literally fumbling aroudn in the dark. No one ever really told me that guys just don't know this stuff instinctively. (only 19 when we got married)

I've always assumed that you need an inner "gut" cumulative sense of the whole person, not just sexually, to get a "read" on what might be possible, relationship-wise. between two people.
If you're not compatible in core beliefs and goals, the relationship is almost doomed to fail, regardless of how good the sex is. It's a kind of balancing act between the two.
I also believe that some people are instinctually gifted as far as innate sensuality is concerned. I've found that for those few, it's a natural part of their own personality, and an open, exploratory nature individually their own. That's not to say that a willing partner cannot be "taught", but it's still slightly different in personal motivation.


Yeah that. The drive, the sensuality, and the compatibility were already there. Once we got other things hammered out so to speak it has just gotten better and better. But I won't lie. That first year was hell.

Once we got other things hammered out so to speak

huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh :rofl:

I almost didn't, but that's a whole nother thread. And it was never "bad", just "meh" but now it its OMFG! See the difference? And i was just as at fault. I never told him what I really wanted so he was literally fumbling aroudn in the dark. No one ever really told me that guys just don't know this stuff instinctively. (only 19 when we got married)




Yeah that. The drive, the sensuality, and the compatibility were already there. Once we got other things hammered out so to speak it has just gotten better and better. But I won't lie. That first year was hell.

Kudos. There's no way I would have stuck around that long for mediocrity. I suppose your respective youth was the biggest factor in the longer "education" process. Still, I had one partner of 18 who was a "natural" his very first time, so it's not always age that's a reason, either. If you were in your 20's or older, you might not have had the patience, though. Anyway, it's good that it all worked out for you both.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080602/lf_nm_life/books_bachelors_dc)
:nice:


you can toss me right in there ... I was starting to think something was wrong w/ me ... gald I'm not alone.

Which leads me to my next point: is child support truly a punishment for the man, or his natural obligation, the human thing to do? Why should the women take the whole burden of rearing the future of this world, both emotionally and financially supporting their children, ALONE? You men should stop wining and complaining, especially if you are a high earner. What ever happened to giving, investing in the future generations? No wonder men are richer, with the proposterous amount of single mothers out there... This whole argument makes me sick to the obviously, undeniably selfish nature of the males.

Hi Canadiense, how are you? Just wanted to drop in and point out that you keep bringing up a couple of things that I think are leading you in the wrong direction. One is the selfish "nature" of males and your mentioning of the low cost of sperm production in men. You keep saying how men are biologically programmed to mate with as many women as possible using sperm production as evidence, and drawing conclusions based on that and other things mentioned to conclude that men are by nature "selfish."

While it's true that men may appear selfish, the reality is that men have conflicting desires just like women do, and are actually no more selfish than women. Men simultaneously are wired to find many women attractive and to want to mate with many of them, but they also have a desire to mate with one high quality female for a long term relationship. It's an internal conflict that most men have to deal with and you might be surprised to realize that this is likely a result of female selection. Humans are actually not really monogamous by nature. Monogamy is largely cultural. At best humans can be described as "serial monogamists" meaning they mate with their partner long enough to produce offspring for a few years, then move on to the next short term "monogamous" relationship. Our ancestors were definitely polygynous, which is actually what has enabled our species to evolve and last as long as it has.

Females aren't even close to being monogamous, and never have been. The proof is actually in male testicle size. In primates, the larger the testicle size, the more polygynous the female because of sperm competition. Gorillas have tiny testicles because the males run harems, there is little sperm competition between male gorillas. It just isn't tolerated. Chimpanzees have huge testicles in relation to their body because female chimpanzees will mate with multiple males during heat, so there is much more sperm competition. Instead of choosing the best male for her offspring, she takes a different approach and mates with multiple male chimps so that the sperm will compete inside of her, and hopefully the best sperm will fertilize the egg. Humans fall in the middle of the two, we have rather large testicle size which indicates that our ancestral females were polygynous and mated with more than one partner during ovulation. Not to mention we have sperm that are actually specifically designed for fighting other competing sperm. They're like warrior sperm, that aren't designed to fertilize the egg, they are only designed to fight. Interesting eh?

This is a little known fact and not heavily publicized, but studies show that approx 10% of the population is wrong about who their biological father is. In some lower income demographics it skyrockets to 30%. But the average is 10% across the board. What does this mean? If female ovulation is concealed, and there is only a brief period during the menstrual cycle where a female can get pregnant, and 1 in 10 persons are wrong about who their father is, just exactly how often are women cheating on their partners to get that average? It's anyone's guess, and if anyone thinks that men are the more promiscuous gender they are sorely mistaken. Women are just better at getting away with it by evolutionary design. Ironically it helped further the species.

It's not entirely fair to say that either gender is inherently selfish, but there is plenty of evidence that our genes are selfish by design. They have one main goal, and that's to combine with the best possible genes they can. So genes tell both genders to do "selfish" things. They tell men to have sex with as many girls that will let them and they tell women to mate with men with better genes than their partner. Monogamy I'm afraid is really a myth, and our culture and traditions are responsible for imposing unnatural restrictions and guidelines on us primarily as a form of control.

Studies like this are actually refreshing because it shows that men are starting to realize that marriage is not natural and actually is more of a risk for men than to women. A man has to sacrifice much more energy and work to provide for the family, sometimes devoting countless hours per week working only to take a substantial risk at loosing half his hard earned assets, access to his children if the relationship fizzles out (as all relationships are evolutionarily designed to do), not to mention the risk of being cuckolded, and still being financially responsible for another man's offspring. The female takes minimal risk, as she only has to get pregnant and eat bon bons for 9 months, (even get pregnant from some other better looking man and get away with it) then live in relative ease if her husband provides all the resources, she only has to raise the children which comes naturally to her. And even if the marriage doesn't work out, she doesn't have to worry too much because the laws are set up to protect her, custody of the children is rarely awarded to the husband, and she has hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind her which enable her to be a single mother with relative ease. (There is evidence that our ancestral females were often single mothers.) Finding a new guy will be no problem for her most of the time if she chooses to find a new man.

Maybe I should "dumb it down"...:|

You actually might want to. I've come across studies that show that men are usually intimidated a little bit by intellectually superior women. This is why a lot of smart girls have learned to "play dumb" just a little bit to be easier on the fragile male ego.

This is a little known fact and not heavily publicized, but studies show that approx 10% of the population is wrong about who their biological father is. In some lower income demographics it skyrockets to 30%.

This is evidenced by every single episode of Maury Povich.

zomg! Optimus lives! :nice:

Hi Canadiense, how are you?

Good, thank you for asking.

Yes, I realize all this evolutionary stuff, it's nothing new to me.

About wrong direction... I'm afraid my doubts in a possible happy life-long relationship are very much confirmed by every response on this and many other threads. It seems it is not meant to be. It is un-natural, unrealistic and even pretencious to hope for such a future.

I'm having a hard time coping with reality. I suppose I'm over-imaginative; a hopeless romantic who had been slapped in the face once too often. Life had given me many wake-up calls, but still... I somehow feel that if love is instilled in me, there must be others out there who feel the same. There's a part of me that will forever mourn the death of love, like some people mourn the death of jesus, in which they believe, but never find. It is nothing but a myth.

Good, thank you for asking.

Yes, I realize all this evolutionary stuff, it's nothing new to me.

About wrong direction... I'm afraid my doubts in a possible happy life-long relationship are very much confirmed by every response on this and many other threads. It seems it is not meant to be. It is un-natural, unrealistic and even pretencious to hope for such a future.

I'm having a hard time coping with reality. I suppose I'm over-imaginative; a hopeless romantic who had been slapped in the face once too often. Life had given me many wake-up calls, but still... I somehow feel that if love is instilled in me, there must be others out there who feel the same. There's a part of me that will forever mourn the death of love, like some people mourn the death of jesus, in which they believe, but never find. It is nothing but a myth.

Well, with being a romantic, if you give in to cynicism you're going to turn off any other romantic that was heading your direction. I try to stay away from women that are cynical on men, fidelity, or relationships. I just feel like they walk in looking for something to blame you for. As if it isn't hard enough being a good guy without that crap.

I'm not married but I read this and yes it is that first significant crush in life that will be a scar that might fade before the time I might or my spouse might, fail in a marriage. I might be disqualifed in the fact that I am not married.. Just so you know this. :)



I'm having a hard time coping with reality. I suppose I'm over-imaginative; a hopeless romantic who had been slapped in the face once too often. Life had given me many wake-up calls, but still... I somehow feel that if love is instilled in me, there must be others out there who feel the same.

I know I couldn't word this better or in any other way. Absolutely right. But in my case it's only been one slap in the face so far. But it ****ing hurt and it stills does sometimes. I'm destined to never forget how good it was and how bad got in one moment. My first wake up call but I know I will go on snooze mode sooner or later, (just not this summer.. no committments, no layiing bare any feelings or getting myself set up again for any of the expected falls I will have ..but just not for this summer..)

Because.

There's a part of me that will forever mourn the death of love and I am needy.

I've got it in me to love someone else and committ myself but just not anytime soon but I will deeply miss the chance I had. Only not quite to this extent..
like some people mourn the death of jesus, in which they believe, but never find. It is nothing but a myth.

I would prefer to go it solo for a while. And as far as marriage..:eek: give me a decade of slaps in the face until I learn not to kick myself in the arse.

Well, with being a romantic, if you give in to cynicism you're going to turn off any other romantic that was heading your direction. I try to stay away from women that are cynical on men, fidelity, or relationships. I just feel like they walk in looking for something to blame you for. As if it isn't hard enough being a good guy without that crap.

I'm not cynical with my boyfriend. My downside is that I ask too many questions. Suspicious phone calls, protecting his privacy, unaccounted hours spent who knows where... Stuff like that bothers me. I'm not cynical, I am very often worried and feel helpless. I am withdrawn and disappointed. I feel alone.

Don't get me wrong. I realize one needen't feel that way for too long. I realize it is up to me to stop that vicious circle, end that kind of relationship, move on, find better.

I'm simply demotivated. Can't even think of another man. I feel it is my defects that caused my own misfortune, thus I am not hopefull. I am not loved because I'm not loveable. I'm just so tired. I'm sorry it sounds so pathetic, that's the truth.

I feel it is my defects that caused my own misfortune,

You're right about that.

You have a choice to make. You can choose to trust your partner, or you can choose not to. With the first option, you leave yourself open to the possibility that he will hurt you. With the second, you don't take that risk, but you guarantee that the relationship will never really happen. Real relationships require trust. Relationships without trust simply don't work. There's nothing risked and nothing gained.

You've been consitently choosing not to trust your partner. By the tone of your posts, it sounds like you're more interested in hating men in general than you are in actually making a relationship work. Until you get over that and start trusting again, your relationships are doomed before they even start.

I'm not cynical with my boyfriend. My downside is that I ask too many questions. Suspicious phone calls, protecting his privacy, unaccounted hours spent who knows where... Stuff like that bothers me. I'm not cynical, I am very often worried and feel helpless. I am withdrawn and disappointed. I feel alone.

Don't get me wrong. I realize one needen't feel that way for too long. I realize it is up to me to stop that vicious circle, end that kind of relationship, move on, find better.

I'm simply demotivated. Can't even think of another man. I feel it is my defects that caused my own misfortune, thus I am not hopefull. I am not loved because I'm not loveable. I'm just so tired. I'm sorry it sounds so pathetic, that's the truth.

Everyone is lovable, because love is far more than some biological response. It's also an ongoing choice.

When I was married (or living with someone), I would run out at 3 AM to get something for my wife if she wanted it. Did I enjoy leaving a warm bed.?? Nope, most of the time I didn't, but I did it anyway. Being a loving and caring person requires choices like this all the time (that's just one tiny example). You have to sometimes (or even often) forget about yourself and put the needs of others first, regardless of what you may "want".

If my kids need something, or need me, I'm there. Sometimes it's inconvenient, but I put my love for them over my own needs. Love requires sacrifice, and if you're not willing to make huge sacrifices for your loved one, than it probably isn't love.

Love requires sacrifice, and if you're not willing to make huge sacrifices for your loved one, than it probably isn't love.

I think that in my case, I had made too big of a sacrifice, taken too much crap to the point of losing the other person's respect. It can have the opposite effect, if you're with the wrong person who instead of appreciation, shows despise for such kindness.

Clearly ironic, but that's just the way life is.

My friends described my relationship as "me being under his thumb".

My generosity was exploited.

Everything I would say would be used against me later, in order to abuse me emotionally.

If ever I was honest about my past, it would come back to haunt me in the moment that the other party needed arguments against me and my character. Attack is the best defence sort of thing.

Generally speaking, I fell in love with an A-hole. I suppose I just had blind faith in the positive aspects of his personality. I'm somewhat like a wounded animal, in a state of shock, not completely aware of anything except the pain inside.

My friends described my relationship as "me being under his thumb".

My generosity was exploited.

Everything I would say would be used against me later, in order to abuse me emotionally.

If ever I was honest about my past, it would come back to haunt me in the moment that the other party needed arguments against me and my character. Attack is the best defence sort of thing.

Generally speaking, I fell in love with an A-hole. I suppose I just had blind faith in the positive aspects of his personality. I'm somewhat like a wounded animal, in a state of shock, not completely aware of anything except the pain inside.

It happens. I can tell the exact same story about a woman I happened to get involved with. You can learn from it, and whatever you do, don't repeat the same mistake.

That's exactly why I'm in no hurry to marry anyone. When we're young and idealistic, we trust, we believe, we give ourselves away without blinking an eye and we overlook the things we KNOW are wrong, and assume they'll get better. They don't. So when we get bitten a few times, we become more cautious. That's just part of life, and part of growing up. It hurts like hell, but without the bad, we wouldn't know what good really is.

That which doesn't kill you can only make you stronger; and wiser.

Damn I start some good threads. :) lol

Hi Canadiense, how are you? Just wanted to drop in and point out that you keep bringing up a couple of things that I think are leading you in the wrong direction. One is the selfish "nature" of males and your mentioning of the low cost of sperm production in men. You keep saying how men are biologically programmed to mate with as many women as possible using sperm production as evidence, and drawing conclusions based on that and other things mentioned to conclude that men are by nature "selfish."

While it's true that men may appear selfish, the reality is that men have conflicting desires just like women do, and are actually no more selfish than women. Men simultaneously are wired to find many women attractive and to want to mate with many of them, but they also have a desire to mate with one high quality female for a long term relationship. It's an internal conflict that most men have to deal with and you might be surprised to realize that this is likely a result of female selection...You know its funny that the evidnce of this is all around us every day, and yet for me at least, I always chose to block it out and believe the social conditioning. "Sure I see it, but my girl's different." "That's what other people do, not the people I know, They were raised better than that." Denial and hope are powerful forces. Everyone wants to believe that that kind of stuff happens to the other person. Me and mine are more evolved than that. :nonono:

Oh yeah, good to see you around optimus. ")

all this talk about how the high rate of sperm production in men is supposed to "prove" that they are biologically hard wired to mate with anything and everything......well women ovulate every month, that's pretty damn often, what's the difference? :shrug:

Men and women are different in a lot of (obvious) w