I went out last night to my local country pub and got completely wankered. I didn't show anyone girl pictures but I probably would have if I could have.

Getting a bit sideways every so often seems to be pretty much par for this course.

 

 

 

 

 edit

 

Huh... I lightly sever them.  When things aren't working, I try to be objective- more or less, a "welp, that's that, good luck"

You might be more emo than I am, though.

 

Although, to be fair it's more likely that I don't make the strong emotional connections to begin with-- until I know the relationship is appropriate, I hold back from making attachments.

I don't believe in exclusivity before marriage, for example- it's counter productive, and a waste of time.  Spending time with somebody who is wrong is opportunity cost vs. meeting those who might be right (and a severe one, since infatuation can last a good year, and then the silly emotional ties that hold one up longer).  If somebody is so evidently right as to not need to keep meeting others, then that's not a call for exclusive dating, that's a call for engagement in the least.  That's what the whole idea of wedding rings are- if you don't have one, you're *supposed* to be available.

This modern nonsense of serial monogamy is mind bogglingly stupid for anybody who wants to get married eventually (and if they don't want that, then "polyamory" makes more sense- avoids the fuss of jealousy and emotional issues).

 

 

To here there were; she felt rejected and betrayed- that probably gave her justification in her mind.  With emotional issues, justifying hurting other people isn't as easy to break down into rational components we can be objective about.  Being dumped is often much harder on people than doing the dumping, and women seem to take it worse than men in divorces (I don't know why, maybe it's the power difference in society, or maybe it's natural).

 

 

One word: prenup.

Just be very smart about it: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/marriage-divorce/when-prenups-fail-20471/

 

It lightens the consequences a bit if you do it right- financially speaking.  Of course, it doesn't do anything to help in the case of custody battles, which is a real shame.  If she wants to wring you dry, she might just have kids and take them for the child support.  Even if you use protection, she could always lie about being on the pill, or sabotage condoms and then refuse to get an abortion.  Even if you guard your condoms with your life and get a vasectomy, you also have to be careful with the assumption that any child born in the marriage is yours, even if the child is from an affair- she could get knocked up elsewhere, and you still have to pay child support (mandating blood tests in the prenup *might* work, that, and demanding them before the child is born are probably the best bets).  A combination of just not having sex -ever- and mandating blood tests at every turn might be enough to save you there.

If you want kids, and a chance of keeping custody of them and taking care of them yourself rather than paying all of your income to the mother to buy booze and lock them in a closet, It may be possible for the mother to act as a surrogate/egg donor during pregnancy, as by contract, and to give up full parental rights to the father, though that may be pretty tricky inside the context of marriage (possibly even a first).  A judge can pretty much overturn anything on a whim, which would mean doing it in a jurisdiction that has a strong respect for contracts. 

Hard to say.  Kids are risky in the states, and probably just as much in Australia, since the courts have little respect for paternal rights.

If you want to raise kids together, best bet would be to hire a surrogate before marriage (another woman), get full rights, and bring the kid(s) into the marriage (the ex-wife couldn't take them if they were already yours before the marriage), and never-ever let her adopt them (because then she probably *could* take them). 

If they came out of her, or she has ever had any legal guardianship of them, then they're probably as good as gone in a divorce, no matter if she is a jobless and abusive drunk or not (although a private detective *might* be able to bring enough evidence of this to the courts to get you custody- if you can afford it).

Keeping custody of kids is another thing I've yet to figure out; certainly not something I'd leave up to chance, though. (I might be more cynical than you are).

Have I debated much on here?  I tend not to do that on the internet anymore.  I rarely express opinions these days.

It's entirely possible I started to debate somebody on some trivial point, or replied to a rare point worth note..  Or I might have done something reflexively without noticing?

Most of my interactions tend to lean more towards lecturing and snarkily refusing debate- and I snark because it amuses me; it's the only way I can internet- taking things too seriously is more bound to be frustrating than anything else.




I will admit appearance is a nice bonus, but due to the frequency of attractive girls opening their mouths and ruining everything,it doesn't go anywhere.

I've come to dread the conversation part, because I know that's where it's ruined- after I know beyond a reasonable doubt that I can't respect a girl, it's unfair to continue.  Consequentially, the really quiet ones tend to last longer, even though I don't like quiet girls (nice unintended consequence there).

I once told a flirting girl, "It's not you, it's your IQ"

Yea, I'm an ass, but I'm an honest one.

With girls, lacking a quality I can't stand (idiocy) has come to be much more important than having a quality I like, because at least I can talk to them long enough to (possibly) get to like them for other reasons.

Cuteness might be great for getting in the door, but it doesn't stop one from being kicked back out again.


There's one particular case I vaguely regret (a number of years ago): I convinced her of atheism in about five minutes, but she didn't just agree with everything I said; she put up an argument, and succumbed to logical points and conceded.

She was blond, and superficially speaking I tend to prefer brunettes.  If she was cuter, would I have gotten her number?  I don't know, I probably still would not have bothered.  Either way, though, she demonstrated some reason and I should have gotten her number and given her a chance- I probably won't do that again, it's bad precedent.

I do my best to be cuteness-blind; it's not perfect objectivity, but I make it a point to give those I am not very attracted to more of a benefit of the doubt to compensate.




Well, some of that might be about holding it intelligently, but I'd definitely prefer somebody who can challenge me to be a better person rather than be complacent about the world, no matter how much hard work that might be.

 

 

 

 

Sometimes people have issues that need to be dealt with.  Behavior seems much less ingrained in inherent rationality than belief, particularly because most people seem unable to control themselves once in the state, so sometimes it takes a bit of work. 

Limiting our romantic options to the emotionally stable and mature is not terribly unlike limiting our transportation to riding unicorns.

Unless you're profoundly lucky to find somebody stable, interesting, and with a modicum of intelligence and rationality, you're probably going to have to result to a dimwit who may be too simple to have any complex emotional issues.

 

I've easily gotten girls to acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate *after* the temper tantrums- I can almost always get that- it usually seems to be a matter of overcoming that emotionally overwhelming moment in some way that one doesn't start seeing her as nothing more than a hysterical bitch.  If I just stand there and take it, I'll start to hate her, and the relationship will break down that way. 

Of course, I've never gotten anybody to stop repeating the incidents.  Yes, they'll promise never to do it again, they'll say "If I ever do that again, just tell me and I'll stop", but that's never the case, because they usually can't control it (it seems an inherent part of character or brain chemistry)- so it seems one must find a means of dealing with it that won't put strain on the relationship.

I can usually stop the meltdowns like dealing with a toddler, by saying I'm counting to ten and if she doesn't stop, I'll leave and she'll never hear from me again- that this would be the end, or that there will be some other weighty consequence.  That mostly just changes the rage into distress and sobbing (crying, I can deal with- as long as she responds and quits the yelling, I won't start to hate her).  However, if I do that, even though she knows why I do it, and can agree on a rational level, she feels a lack of security, and becomes more self conscious, and self-loathing, ultimately projects that onto me (since I'm the one imposing it) and that puts a likely irreparable strain on the relationship too.  And, of course, the occasional time when the girl doesn't stop, and I literally do break contact and never speak with her again can be in issue.  I'm not inclined to empty threats, so that tends to be a problem too, if the emotional stress didn't already dismiss the viability.

 

Simply leaving and not coming back until the girl apologizes seems to work (at least it spares me the stress of being there for the melt down), however inconvenient it might be- I know if it were a cohabitation situation, I would probably begin to resent her for that inconvenience, and if there were children involved too, that would be magnified, and it may be impossible to protect them as well (my father was a spineless pushover who failed to protect me and his other children from an abusive wife- I won't do that).

 

If she can't stop herself, I can't stop her*, and I can't let her go on to tear into me, the only remaining solution seems to be for somebody else to stop her- a third party that she can hate without putting strain on the relationship. 

Whether that's a hired nurse who would suppress the bitchy freak-outs as a mediator, a hysteria-detecting dog that would freak out and snap her out of it, or a special ankle bracelet that would administer a tranquilizer (or being less charitable, platypus venom?) at the first signs of hysterical bitching... I don't know.  Obviously it would have to be consensual, but if she's rational while free of the tantrums, she could acknowledge the need for some third party mechanism to control it before it destroys the relationship (if she cares about the relationship).

 

Maybe a future medical breakthrough will come out with a cure (so far it's uncommon to help much, even with extensive treatment)...  Or technological innovation will invent such a device.

 

Either way, my hopes tend to rest with science.

 

*The modern (and legal) method would be threat of ending the relationship or emotional manipulation, as mentioned.  The old fashioned method was a leather belt- which is obviously right out.  I'm not keen on hitting anybody, much less somebody I care about.  In either case obviously personal intervention is harsh and damaging to the relationship.

All a marriage is to government is a legal contract that allows partners to swear a loyalty oath to share financial and ownership responsibilities.

I think whatever the couple is comfortable with should be their business, including a pre-nup. I don't think you can judge someone for wanting one anymore than you can judge someone for not wanting one.

I think what is a more important issue is teaching kids life planning and not blanketly selling marriage as an absolute. Lots of people get married because of some utopia Halmark movie they grew up watching as kids, Barbie and Ken crap. But what kids are often not taught are communication skills, conflict resolution skills, financial planning, and compatibility issues.

I loved my x-wife, but we did not discuss our future before hand and it turned out after the marriage that we were  not on the same page, If we had had a kid together it would have ruined her Masters plans and she would have been bitter towards me for holding her back.

I was happy merely setting roots where ever because I had already had years of moving around and doing lots of things and I was ready to settle down . She wasn't.

Marriage is not and absolute, but it certainly should be discussed and planned before you jump into it, especially if one is going to have a kid and financially, it is hard enough to pay for yourself, being married is tougher because if something happens to your partner, then you can end up being the only income.

But as far as pre nups, neither for or against them. I would think even in this case what is more important is that the pair get into the marriage armed with planning, communication skills and are compatible. Love is caring enough to incorporate pragmatism and the willingness to let go when things don't work out.

 

I really have to give kudos to my x because we didn't fall into the bitterness. Yea, it hurt like a bitch, but she showed compassion as well. She even helped me move out of our apartment into the new one that I moved into by myself. She didn't sue me for anything or try to take anything of mine. We simply parted company.

I could have, being less of the bread winner between us, could have sued her for spousal support, but I didn't because that would have made things harder on her and made her more bitter towards me. There was nothing wrong with what she did. It simply wasn't what she wanted and it would have been selfish of me to try to hold her hostage over a mere tradition.

She wasn't in love with me and she had every right to leave me. It would have been far worse for both of us emotionally if she had stayed in the relationship over some stupid myth of loyalty and over time would have made us more angry and bitter at each other. The honesty we had helped us both move on pragmatically.

I'd say unless you have kids, DONT force a relationship that proves to be nothing but fighting and bitterness. If yo do have kids and are having problems, DONT make your problems your kid's problems and don't use your kids as a weapon against the other.

I am glad I married her, but it was still ill thought out and lacked planning I am simply lucky to have married someone who was pragmatic and didn't allow her emotions, or mine for that matter, to turn it into a needless battle that neither of us needed at that time.

People talk about divorce rates being a problem. I think to avoid this there needs to be more planning ahead and life planning from a young age. EVEN including telling a kid that if they don't want to get married or have a kid ever, that is ok too. Marriage should not be sold as an absolute, it is an OPTION, but is not one that should be jumped into blindly.

 

You're kidding right? Do you live in a South American Mayan jungle tribe? I don't think so otherwise you wouldn't have a computer. Or is it this your first trip off the Amish Farm?

I am just being silly but darn, Tiger, as in Tiger Woods, the world famous golfer. His wife just divorced him after discovering he had cheated on her with several women over the past few years.

Certainly not an important issue in the grand scale of life, but most certainly, long before his affairs he gained fame, even outside the golf community because of his skills. I am not a golf fan at all, I hate golf, but even I know who he is.

 

That would've been Tony.

 

In Australia is that if you share a house for 12 months the courts consider you as married and either party can go for 50 per cent of the other's stuff in a split and up to 80 per cent if there are children involved. A lot of men just walk away when there are kids and leave everything behind - my younger brother did this but still had to fight tooth and nail because his wife, smarting from an infidelity, tried to prove he was an unfit father.

If you have kids a prenup can be challenged here and the prenup set aside. The consistency of the kid's lives has precedence over prenup almost always to the father's detriment. Interestingly, in 70 per cent of cases here, the woman instigates divorce and I know at least a dozen men roughly handled by the courts who came out of marriage with nothing and won't be going back into it.  

It sounds selfish or materialistic at any rate talking like this - but if you have things to lose and your prospective partner has nothing at all - and this is very often the case - you're taking a major financial risk. Our divorce rate is 43 per cent. That's an almost even chance of losing pretty much everything.

Just to redress the balance in this post, I have a couple of girl mates who were ripped off by men - professional women who had their own stuff - and they feel very much as I do about the business. I think you could make a case that the courts favour the 'have not' at the expense of the 'have' in a breakup. 

I think the only serious defence against loss through failure of marriage is a family trust. They are untouchable but can be a hassle to set up. You are essentially locking your assets away and this reduces their fluidity.

The one thing that bugs about my terrible attitude to commitment is no kids. I wanted about 4 and that feeling has only gotten stronger as I've got older.

 

Yeah, that's how it is in the states too.  It only applies to assets regarding the kids, though,  such as custody, child support, possibly the house in some cases.

Kids are the tricky part, and the worst part is that's one of the only really good reasons to hook up with a partner anyway over the alternatives (otherwise staying single and going from relationship to relationship is probably equally viable).

 

 

I can definitely understand that- here too.  The problem for me is that I want to keep my kids rather than turn them over to somebody who has gone psycho-bitch on me (assuming that happens), and there's no way to ensure one's custody of one's children aside from bringing them into a relationship to begin with and not letting the other adopt them.

The only relatively reliable way to do that is to get a surrogate.  That's one place you're at a disadvantage, though, since Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Australia.  Maybe you could consider moving to Florida or California for a year to get some kids?  Granted, they can cost 100k per by surrogate sometimes, so finding a wife to have them 'free' is definitely going to be cheaper.

Have you considered adoption? If you are mature, financially secure and responsible, you shouldn't have trouble adopting. You could hire a full-time nanny while you are at work - married couples do it, I don't see any reason why a single guy couldn't. I don't know for certain but, I would think it would be less expensive than the possibility of a divorce and less risky than hiring a surrogate.

Or maybe just be a full-time Big Brother. I think what's important to kids is the relationship you have with them and not what's written in a legal document.

Or, do you just have a thing about passing on your gene pool?

Probably the same here...that's a shame.

Maybe this will cheer you up:

 what a hunk!