Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's nothing wrong with many 50+ dudes. The more I hear from the younger generation, the more it disgusts me actually.
I'm sure there isn't in many cases. I'd imagine many of them are comfortable with themselves and what they like or don't like, most likely they are in their peak earning years and probably have a lot of life experience to draw on. Great if you are willing to go for that. I think a lot of 40 something women though have been watching too many movies and think they'll land their Ashley Kutchiepoo 15 years their junior. Not likely. I hear or overhear it very frequently these frumpy out of shape barely employed 40 year olds that think some 25 year old dude wants to marry them and "settle down". Not likely.
Most people who are unhappy in a marriage are actually unhappy with their lives (doesn't have much to do with their partner). They'll be unhappy single too. Hmm... isn't it funny how unhappy single people think meeting their "one" is going to make them happy? People... we are so predictable ; )
I remember the thread by the guy who wanted to leave his wife because he wanted to travel and try new things, and he was sick of doing them alone. I decided not to post my thoughts in the thread but I was laughing about it. If he left her I can imagine where he is.... travelling alone most likely and bored/unhappy just like he was with his wife.
If you are thinking of the same thread I am, that was a good one.
As I said earlier in this thread, many people have placed the responsibilities of their happiness and well being on other people. Everything is always everyone else's fault. Happiness and self actualization is found within yourself, no one controls that but you. People that have adventure or are adventurous people, live that lifestyle, they actually do, not talk.
One phrase out there that makes me cringe is some variation of "make me happy". Most of the time this phrase is trotted out by fantasizing women with a prince and princess fetish or some sycophantic guy that has seen too many movies. The only person that will only ever make you happy is yourself and the decisions you make.
I don't have a problem with the inherent fickle nature of the post-feminist woman, I've learn to not get my hopes up about women's reliability. I DO have a problem with the construct of marriage from a legal standpoint, I don't think it's reasonable to become economically penalized for the inherent variability and fickleness of human interactions. My beef is with the general sentiment of insult and offense that women exhibit once these accusations are levied against the legal institution of marriage, and the aforementioned language of shame utilized to attack those who disavow the legal economic advantages afforded to women under the premise that men should quietly accept the waiving of economic insulation via a marriage certificate and that to do otherwise is to be unromantic, as if being romantic was a reasonable opportunity cost to survival and economic safety for the single man.
I'm not gonna go off the deep end asserting ALL women are this or that, but I'm quite tired of the implication there's something wrong with me for merely pointing out the unreasonable nature of jeopardizing my economic safety [via a marriage license] just so a woman doesn't get her romantic sensitivities hurt. Furthermore, I find it offensive that a female's motivations for supporting the classical legal marriage construct are never scrutinized, but my criticism over her insistence on waiving my economic rights in the name of romance is all of a sudden considered blasphemy.
It's BS, and that's a moderate argument, no need to lump us all in the "all women are evil" camp just because we disavow the legal construct of marriage. I DO accuse MOST women of being silently self-interested in the entitlements and benefits state sanctioned marriage licenses provides them at my expense, and I do accuse them of having these entitlements in mind when they bemoan the thought of non-commonlaw cohabitation or prenuptial agreements, while claiming such objection to be SOLELY in the name of romantic sensitivities.
It is for this reason that I fully support sole-church involvement in the issuance of these "marital contracts". I think that's a win win if we are to assume women are looking for romantic reasons for which to marry. Alas, I have suggested [hypotethically of course as the state gives me no such option] this non-legal marriage option to several women and have been met with great discontent and similar accusations as in the regular marriage case.. which proves that they are NOT interested solely in preserving their romantic sensitivities intact, they have very much in mind the economic desires of subsidy, general welfare and gurantee of a certain lifestyle they couldn't attain on their own. There is simply no rationalizing that away. Which is why they get angry and accuse men who disavow legal marriage of all sorts of red herrings.. I'm fairly convinced of this, which is why finding a partner willing to pursue a life relationship absent a legal marriage certificate and/or with a prenup in lieu of that, the most genuine display of true and genuine commitment for romantic reasons. The fact most women fail to see that is further proof they're self-interested.
You can be married in a church and not be recognized by the state. Gay people do that all the time. A marriage is legally recognized by the state when your signed, witnessed marriage certificate is received and added to the county records, so I imagine that you could simply not mail it in. This won't fly in all states, however--Colorado (for example) recognizes common-law marriage whenever a couple announces they are married, ceremony or not. It's a carryover from the Wild West days. If you call a woman your wife, she is.
My husband's money is mine, and mine is his. That's the way we were brought up, and that's the way we live. His salary is higher than mine, but I contribute fairly to the household and he is not slighted. He just bought a new car because of the money I gave him. I stand to inherit a good deal of money in the future also. If he divorces me, hell yes his 401k and pension are half mine. And what's mine is half his too; I'll give it to him freely. I really don't get the mentality that people should give their lives to one another and become one entity BUT if they split up, it's every man for himself and the other person doesn't get a dime.
You can be married in a church and not be recognized by the state. Gay people do that all the time. A marriage is legally recognized by the state when your signed, witnessed marriage certificate is received and added to the county records, so I imagine that you could simply not mail it in. This won't fly in all states, however--Colorado (for example) recognizes common-law marriage whenever a couple announces they are married, ceremony or not. It's a carryover from the Wild West days. If you call a woman your wife, she is.
My husband's money is mine, and mine is his. That's the way we were brought up, and that's the way we live. His salary is higher than mine, but I contribute fairly to the household and he is not slighted. He just bought a new car because of the money I gave him. I stand to inherit a good deal of money in the future also. If he divorces me, hell yes his 401k and pension are half mine. And what's mine is half his too; I'll give it to him freely. I really don't get the mentality that people should give their lives to one another and become one entity BUT if they split up, it's every man for himself and the other person doesn't get a dime.
He makes more than you, I rest my case. I'm telling you this all doesn't happen in a vacuum. That all sounds cute but why should a 10% investment yield you 50% returns? There's nothing righteous or proper about that. You speak as if he stood to gain YOUR lofty 401K and pension. Historically, men are the higher earner, which is why in aggregate women stand to net gain economically and men stand to net lose economically. There's no parity in that condition. Unless, like many women feel privately, such wealth re-distribution scheme is a proper remuneration for the benefit of that man having dedicated access to your womanly organs and your companionship, and for monetary exchange to compensate for said woman's inability to market her body and companionship to other men...which, where I was brought up, was called prostitution. I shouldn't have to remunerate you for your companionship. You should do it out of your own hide. "Hell, yes". That's why when people split up, often for fickle and self-centered reasons, it is proper in my mind that everybody should walk away with what they put in from the sweat of their own forehead.
If "what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours" was truly genuine then you wouldn't need divorce laws because it would organically result in 50/50 split, the state wouldn't have to put a gun to the head of the higher earning party and tell it "give it up". Alas it is not, and alas, there's never anything 50/50 about the governments marital dissolution of marital property.
Only in disney land are contributions 50/50, in the real world one party always stands to gain financially from a separation. This is unreasonable to me. And let's not bring in the homemaker case. Life's a choice, I'm not going to remunerate you because you wanted to stay home. Put it in the prenup if you really want to be remunerated and if we agree to it then bueno, but don't tell me it's an expectation, as it is NOT in my mind. I don't understand the mentality that it is proper to divest of the fruits of your labor because of the offering of companionship from another person. I much rather you showed up to my door every morning, because you want to. And when you no longer want to, be free to walk away without having any level of relationship mortgaging. People should benefit economically from each other while they're together. When they're no longer together they shouldn't be able to continue to be residually benefited. That's a throwback to pre-feminist times when women actually risked being out in the cold. That's no longer the case, alas said expectation of deferred benefit should cease to be, it is not proper or equitable. Just another entitlement women don't like to acknowledge but refuse to concede away. Show me your colors...
Besides, why such disparaging views of people who opt for prenups? They have a better track record than our cold turkey marriages. That's just icing on the cake as far as my point. They're just as happy, or just as unhappy. But they sure are getting divorced less than these "romantic" constructs of kevlar vest open marriages. Which begs the question, who's more romantic and genuine in the end? Show me your colors...
Lately I've heard more stories about women leaving marriages than men. Sometimes including abandoning responsibilities. I think it just goes to show the mercenary attitude women have trying to always trade up, cashing in chips along the way racking up alimony and child support and settlements. Too much watching unrealistic tv and movies and listening to garbage in womens magazines and not living in the real world.
The reality is that for us men, the women that appeal to us are younger women for obvious reasons. We don't want washed up divorced 40 year olds unless we are 55+.
The only appeal is for short term fun and sex, if they are somewhat attractive.
If that is what she wants, then fine but she'll only be able to milk that for so long.
Successful men her age are not going to be interested and at best she'll have to "settle" yet again for some sap, and it will likely be a trade down not a trade up.
Reality bites.
Hmmm...I'm 41 and look better than a lot of women I've seen out there who are 1/2 my age. I have 2 good jobs, own my own house and car and have a great son, great family, and great friends. If that makes me "washed up" then so be it. I don't have much use for most men out there these days anyway, so the fact that you assert that they wouldn't want someone "washed up" like myself unless they're over 55 is fine with me. The feeling is generally mutual.
I hear or overhear it very frequently these frumpy out of shape barely employed 40 year olds that think some 25 year old dude wants to marry them and "settle down". Not likely.
It's amazing how we all live such starkly different lives. Some of the stories here remind of Jerry Springer guests.
A co-worker of mine recently told me that she's getting a divorce after 20+ years of marriage. She and her husband have a 13 year old and a 5 year old. I asked her why and she says because she feels too tied down, that she never got to have fun when she was young because she got married at age 20. Neither she nor her husband were cheating, she was just bored with him and says she never really loved him. She says he's a good man and a good father but she married for security and wants to see what else is out there. She can't wait for the divorce to be final so she can go out and date again and next time marry for love (she won't date before the marriage is legally over and has nobody in mind).
I think she's nuts and I feel really sorry for her husband who apparently did not want the divorce but isn't making a fuss over it because it was obvious his wife had her mind made up. They've already reached an amicable agreement about custody.
It just seems crazy to me
I've seen a couple threads recently, from men, basically saying the same thing. I think they're nuts too.
In answer to your question, OP, WE Do
Married 23 years been dating for 25
He is my soulmate. My true best friend. Life is dull and boring without him.
Did he put on a little weight? Yes. Does he look a little different than when he was 18 and we were dating? Of course. But to me, he'll always be that hot 20 year old I married at the age of 17
I would NEVER trade him in for anyone else.
I don't think anyone else could put up with me anyways
And no we're not unusual. I know many couples who are just like us. So chin up, there are people who take their vows seriously.
And your co-worker is just an idiot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
