Why British men are reluctant to marry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just laughing at all this bellyaching about men losing money. Listen, men, you are falling behind women. We are getting degrees at higher rates and only misogyny and the marriage penalty for women in the workplace is keeping your status as higher earning half secure. That will change. If anything, it is women who have to worry about financial matters in marriage, especially if we have children. How many deadbeat dads exist in the world? Deadbeat moms are a rare species.

Constantly carrying on about how much men stand to lose in marriage is silly and doesn't take into account the changing reality. There are plenty of women nowadays paying ne'er do well husbands alimony, and joint custody is increasingly the norm over sole custody. Often, sole custody is awarded because the husband didn't want custody lest he cramp his new bachelor lifestyle.

Besides, marriage is not compulsory. Stay single. Die earlier. Studies show unmarried men are shortlived across the board in comparison to married women, single women, and married men. Single women, however, live longest. So, you are doing us women a favor by not marrying us, lol.

Believe what you wish but it is women who usually crave marriage ...... not men. A friend of mine, now in his fifties, complains that he has to end relations with women he goes out with because in a matter of months these women want to know where the relationship is headed - in other words when will they get married. He has no intention of marrying and risk losing half his assets in an acrimonious divorce. So he just dumps them when they start to bug him about it and moves on to the next one. There are plenty of fish in the ocean ....... he can have his pick.

Yea, no doubt your paunchy 50-something year old friend and his sagging, shriveled balls are just beating the ladies off with a stick.

I am the PP you responded to and I happen to be happily married to a woman who makes almost as much money as I do. So I am not going to knock marriage since it has worked out well for me.

But I have seen lots of men - and women - for whom marriage has been a disaster. The only difference is that in just about every case I know the guy who was the primary earner got shafted. So, I totally understand why my friend - certainly not paunchy but actually very fit although his hair is thinning - stays away from any relationship where marriage is expected. As he tells me he is not about to give up half of his hard earned assets to some woman whose goal is future financial security. I don't blame him one bit.

Yes, he has lots of women who happily go out with him - women in their thirties and early forties - and his primary draw is that he has lots of money. And you know that is something that most women get drawn to like a bee to nectar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men will continue to marry because it's their only avenue for having children and enjoying uninterrupted access to them. Women control procreation and don't need a steady male presence in their life to get a child. But for a man who wants to have children in his life, the key is to find a cooperating female, since there are no egg banks for men, and surrogate parenthood/single father adoptions aren't common or accessible to many.

For as long as marriage is the condition of children, men will have to marry.

Can't believe I just read this BS. Men don't need the security of marriage to have kids...women do!

Reality shows otherwise - how many single fathers by choice do you see?

Are you aware of the number of unmarried women who have children? The percentages are staggering. All men have to do is to impregnate a woman whether intentionally or otherwise. Then, if they wish, they can have a relationship with the children though many choose not to do so unfortunately. Having children does not require a man to marry a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woman here. This is why I'll never divorce and just have affairs.

When we married, we were making about the same money. He's 3 years older. His net worth was negative, and I had a house and several hundred thousand dollars. No way am I going to give him millions just because he was lucky enough to marry me.

He was lucky enough to marry an unfaithful slut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just laughing at all this bellyaching about men losing money. Listen, men, you are falling behind women. We are getting degrees at higher rates and only misogyny and the marriage penalty for women in the workplace is keeping your status as higher earning half secure. That will change. If anything, it is women who have to worry about financial matters in marriage, especially if we have children. How many deadbeat dads exist in the world? Deadbeat moms are a rare species.

Constantly carrying on about how much men stand to lose in marriage is silly and doesn't take into account the changing reality. There are plenty of women nowadays paying ne'er do well husbands alimony, and joint custody is increasingly the norm over sole custody. Often, sole custody is awarded because the husband didn't want custody lest he cramp his new bachelor lifestyle.

Besides, marriage is not compulsory. Stay single. Die earlier. Studies show unmarried men are shortlived across the board in comparison to married women, single women, and married men. Single women, however, live longest. So, you are doing us women a favor by not marrying us, lol.

You sound fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men will continue to marry because it's their only avenue for having children and enjoying uninterrupted access to them. Women control procreation and don't need a steady male presence in their life to get a child. But for a man who wants to have children in his life, the key is to find a cooperating female, since there are no egg banks for men, and surrogate parenthood/single father adoptions aren't common or accessible to many.

For as long as marriage is the condition of children, men will have to marry.

Can't believe I just read this BS. Men don't need the security of marriage to have kids...women do!

Reality shows otherwise - how many single fathers by choice do you see?

Are you aware of the number of unmarried women who have children? The percentages are staggering. All men have to do is to impregnate a woman whether intentionally or otherwise. Then, if they wish, they can have a relationship with the children though many choose not to do so unfortunately. Having children does not require a man to marry a woman.

You are missing the point. For a woman, having a child in their life is relatively easy, man or no man. Women who want to have children don't need to marry. They can get pregnant by whoever, or use a sperm bank. All they have to do is get impregnated.

For a man, having a child in their life with uninterrupted, full-time access to that child and the fathering experience that goes with it, requires a cooperating female. There are no egg banks for single men, and surrogacy isn't available to many due to expense and social attitudes. We aren't talking about siring biological offspring. We are talking about a full-on parenting experience, shaping and having control over character and upbringing of another human being. If a man wants that, he needs a cooperating partner of the opposite sex (with very few exceptions). A woman doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men will continue to marry because it's their only avenue for having children and enjoying uninterrupted access to them. Women control procreation and don't need a steady male presence in their life to get a child. But for a man who wants to have children in his life, the key is to find a cooperating female, since there are no egg banks for men, and surrogate parenthood/single father adoptions aren't common or accessible to many.

For as long as marriage is the condition of children, men will have to marry.

Can't believe I just read this BS. Men don't need the security of marriage to have kids...women do!

Reality shows otherwise - how many single fathers by choice do you see?

Bingo.

But let's not turn this into men versus women. The fact is that the damaged men posting in this thread are not the ones any quality woman is looking to for marriage. I briefly dated a man like the goofballs in this thread. So worried about his money being taken in a divorce. I dumped him quickly, moved on to my now-husband, and am now happily married with children. I also earn a lot as a big law attorney, as does my husband in sales. Meanwhile, the years have not been kind to the douchebag I dumped. I kept in touch with him because he refused to stop e-mailing me periodically. Well, he lost his high income when he was laid off during the recession. He is now in his 50s, going back to school, and painfully single. He has also lost the good looks he once had -- hair is thin, waistline has spread, wrinkles have set in from years of drinking too much and being bitter towards women, lol. Recently, he told me that he wondered what his life might have been like if he had married me and if his kids were mine. I changed the subject because the thought of being married to him was too horrible to dwell on. This is real. The 50s are lonely for most people, talk less of those who frittered away their prime years paranoidly guarding their money from an imagined horde of gold diggers.

Male attorney here. This is why my only rule for marriage is no lawyers. Female lawyers are an especially toxic combination of entitlement and insecurity, dripping throughout this thread. I'm assuming you're at least in your mid 40's, and if you were really "happily married", you wouldn't spend your time gloating over the problems of others.

[Anonymous]

Men are going to win this deal. They survive better in civil breakdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men will continue to marry because it's their only avenue for having children and enjoying uninterrupted access to them. Women control procreation and don't need a steady male presence in their life to get a child. But for a man who wants to have children in his life, the key is to find a cooperating female, since there are no egg banks for men, and surrogate parenthood/single father adoptions aren't common or accessible to many.

For as long as marriage is the condition of children, men will have to marry.

Can't believe I just read this BS. Men don't need the security of marriage to have kids...women do!

Reality shows otherwise - how many single fathers by choice do you see?

Are you aware of the number of unmarried women who have children? The percentages are staggering. All men have to do is to impregnate a woman whether intentionally or otherwise. Then, if they wish, they can have a relationship with the children though many choose not to do so unfortunately. Having children does not require a man to marry a woman.

You are missing the point. For a woman, having a child in their life is relatively easy, man or no man. Women who want to have children don't need to marry. They can get pregnant by whoever, or use a sperm bank. All they have to do is get impregnated.

For a man, having a child in their life with uninterrupted, full-time access to that child and the fathering experience that goes with it, requires a cooperating female. There are no egg banks for single men, and surrogacy isn't available to many due to expense and social attitudes. We aren't talking about siring biological offspring. We are talking about a full-on parenting experience, shaping and having control over character and upbringing of another human being. If a man wants that, he needs a cooperating partner of the opposite sex (with very few exceptions). A woman doesn't.

A man who wants to be a full time father can do so using a surrogate. Gay men do it - I know of a couple of instances where this has happened one of them with his partner has two children and the other has one. It really is not a huge obstacle. And even the cost of surrogacy can be minimized with a surrogate from another country. Marriage is not a prerequisite for a man to derive the benefits and satisfaction of being a father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Bingo. But let's not turn this into men versus women. The fact is that the damaged men posting in this thread are not the ones any quality woman is looking to for marriage. I briefly dated a man like the goofballs in this thread. So worried about his money being taken in a divorce. I dumped him quickly, moved on to my now-husband, and am now happily married with children. I also earn a lot as a big law attorney, as does my husband in sales. Meanwhile, the years have not been kind to the douchebag I dumped. I kept in touch with him because he refused to stop e-mailing me periodically. Well, he lost his high income when he was laid off during the recession. He is now in his 50s, going back to school, and painfully single. He has also lost the good looks he once had -- hair is thin, waistline has spread, wrinkles have set in from years of drinking too much and being bitter towards women, lol. Recently, he told me that he wondered what his life might have been like if he had married me and if his kids were mine. I changed the subject because the thought of being married to him was too horrible to dwell on. This is real. The 50s are lonely for most people, talk less of those who frittered away their prime years paranoidly guarding their money from an imagined horde of gold diggers.

It's either you are still hurt by that 'goofball' or as a DAMAGED 'big law attorney' you seem to think that life is monolithic and everyone's life should follow a traditional path to marriage and family.

The world isn't responsible for what went wrong with you and your ex, and I suggest you compartmentalize accordingly (and stick to lobbying instead of trying to comment authoritatively on Family Law).

^^Lonely 60 year old man. Don't worry, there's viagra for the ED. Too bad viagra can't make women stop viewing you as a nasty old man they would never want to date.

Heed your own words...you know neither my age or gender...BUT we all can see how bitter you are, and your legal analytical skills are obviously lacking here.

No, she claims to be happily married, LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men will continue to marry because it's their only avenue for having children and enjoying uninterrupted access to them. Women control procreation and don't need a steady male presence in their life to get a child. But for a man who wants to have children in his life, the key is to find a cooperating female, since there are no egg banks for men, and surrogate parenthood/single father adoptions aren't common or accessible to many.

For as long as marriage is the condition of children, men will have to marry.

Can't believe I just read this BS. Men don't need the security of marriage to have kids...women do!

Reality shows otherwise - how many single fathers by choice do you see?

Bingo.

But let's not turn this into men versus women. The fact is that the damaged men posting in this thread are not the ones any quality woman is looking to for marriage. I briefly dated a man like the goofballs in this thread. So worried about his money being taken in a divorce. I dumped him quickly, moved on to my now-husband, and am now happily married with children. I also earn a lot as a big law attorney, as does my husband in sales. Meanwhile, the years have not been kind to the douchebag I dumped. I kept in touch with him because he refused to stop e-mailing me periodically. Well, he lost his high income when he was laid off during the recession. He is now in his 50s, going back to school, and painfully single. He has also lost the good looks he once had -- hair is thin, waistline has spread, wrinkles have set in from years of drinking too much and being bitter towards women, lol. Recently, he told me that he wondered what his life might have been like if he had married me and if his kids were mine. I changed the subject because the thought of being married to him was too horrible to dwell on. This is real. The 50s are lonely for most people, talk less of those who frittered away their prime years paranoidly guarding their money from an imagined horde of gold diggers.

Male attorney here. This is why my only rule for marriage is no lawyers. Female lawyers are an especially toxic combination of entitlement and insecurity, dripping throughout this thread. I'm assuming you're at least in your mid 40's, and if you were really "happily married", you wouldn't spend your time gloating over the problems of others.

LOL. The hit dog will holler, as the saying goes. The paunchy middle-age men are really turning out to prove my post right. I mean here you are: a single man who is supposed to be out there dating this bevy of beauties who are no doubt beating down your door, lol. Instead, here you are on a perfectly good weeknight trying and failing to tell me off on DCUM. Clearly, you are really killing it with the ladies. A full social calendar you have there. I am in my 30s and I still have my looks and waistline. There was an age gap between me and the lonely loser I posted about. I think his situation is hilarious. It is all of his own making. While he still had his looks and virility, he was contemptuous of women just like you bitter closet cases here are. Now, no self-respecting woman with options would ever give him a second look and he is full of regrets, Cialis, and antidepressants. He makes a good business contact and has sent me clients, so he is not all bad. But this situation is all his fault and I have not one bit of sympathy for him as I enjoy my husband and children and he spends the holidays alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay... but the men also get half of the woman's savings too.

...and that is one of the most convincing reasons for everyone to lobby for equal pay!

Or for getting a pre-nup as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay... but the men also get half of the woman's savings too.

...and that is one of the most convincing reasons for everyone to lobby for equal pay!

Or for getting a pre-nup as well.

Pre-nups appeal to high earning women - and there are some but nowhere close to the number of men. But suggest a pre-nup to women of limited means and they would accuse the man of not being committed to the relationship! The sad part is that some men get suckered by this b-s and get screwed royally when they end up divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A man who wants to be a full time father can do so using a surrogate. Gay men do it - I know of a couple of instances where this has happened one of them with his partner has two children and the other has one. It really is not a huge obstacle. And even the cost of surrogacy can be minimized with a surrogate from another country. Marriage is not a prerequisite for a man to derive the benefits and satisfaction of being a father.

Oh don't be silly. The options you cite are neither cheap nor available to regular Joes. I too know a married gay couple who had twins via surrogacy. It cost them a hundred thousand dollars. Surrogacy in other countries is neither cheap nor easy, and comes with its own set of troubles. Undoubtedly, some men - the rich, the determined and the very liberal - will be able to use them. Most men won't, though. And these options are in fact, almost insurmountable obstacles, especially compared with the amazing ease and low cost of sperm banks and anonymous sex, so easily available to women. And so we come to this, again: fatherhood, for most men, requires a cooperating partner of the opposite sex. Motherhood, for women, does not. And this is why most men who want to be full-time fathers will have to pay the price of marrying or stay childless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: LOL. The hit dog will holler, as the saying goes. The paunchy middle-age men are really turning out to prove my post right. I mean here you are: a single man who is supposed to be out there dating this bevy of beauties who are no doubt beating down your door, lol. Instead, here you are on a perfectly good weeknight trying and failing to tell me off on DCUM. Clearly, you are really killing it with the ladies. A full social calendar you have there. I am in my 30s and I still have my looks and waistline. There was an age gap between me and the lonely loser I posted about. I think his situation is hilarious. It is all of his own making. While he still had his looks and virility, he was contemptuous of women just like you bitter closet cases here are. Now, no self-respecting woman with options would ever give him a second look and he is full of regrets, Cialis, and antidepressants. He makes a good business contact and has sent me clients, so he is not all bad. But this situation is all his fault and I have not one bit of sympathy for him as I enjoy my husband and children and he spends the holidays alone.

I think you should stop because you are only proving the 'male attorney' PP correct. You sound entitled, vain, bitchy, and seem to define your identity around your earning potential. It's obvious that if we take away the latter from the equation, you would still be a rent-seeking opportunist trying to marry well to secure financial security.

You have proved the PP right, and frankly you are an embarrassment, and proves this whole thread right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...funny I touched on this point in this thread http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/460783.page and got flack by a couple PPs.

Truth is, it's not just British men, but increasingly more men throughout the whole Western world. Let's be clear, men "...don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over..." The rise of Radical Feminism is not entirely responsible, but it sure influences how Western jurisprudence interpret and how courts rule today! So personally it's not something for me anymore.

Traditional definitions and understandings of family are fast changing in the Western world, and so traditional approaches to marriage will change as well....trust me. But this thread will never be popular around DCUM-ville

Oh, God, the douche-bag has returned.