from the are-they-really-who-they-say-they-are dept.
Historian and TV presenter Lucy Worsley has said romance is dying because it has become "too easy" to meet new people via dating apps and the net.
In an interview with the Radio Times, she said couples no longer faced the obstacles that had traditionally made for strong romantic encounters.
The "slow exquisite torture" of love in Jane Austen novels no longer existed in the age of Grindr and Tinder, she said.
But relationship experts say not everybody is good at commitment.
"There have always been a proportion of people that find it hard to form relationships and, rather than trying to overcome difficulties, who have moved on more quickly to others," counsellor and therapist Peter Saddington, from relationship support service Relate, told the BBC.
On the other hand, people who do marry after meeting through a dating app might be less likely to divorce.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday October 10 2015, @05:10PM
The "slow exquisite torture" of love in Jane Austen novels no longer existed in the age of Grindr and Tinder, she said.
And thank god for that!
(Score: 4, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Sunday October 11 2015, @03:10AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @05:32PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiW0Trk3T0 [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGr1lQAREB0 [youtube.com]
I suppose she prefers the romantic movie style obstacle filled world... :p
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @05:36PM
e.g. the girl says no, and you still persist in trying to contact her, ruin her relationship with her bf etc.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snufu on Saturday October 10 2015, @10:24PM
Its a fine line between romantic and restraining order. Unfortunately, the burden of magically divining that fine line falls to men. Is it surprising this group would welcome the safer and saner method of online dating?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:15AM
At least one has a record of consent.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @12:41AM
> Its a fine line between romantic and restraining order. Unfortunately, the burden of magically divining that fine line falls to men
Only for men who are dullards. A woman tells you "don't contact me" - then don't contact her. Your life is not a movie.
If you really think the woman is being deceptive about her desires, you should ask yourself - is that the kind of woman you should be involved with?
I am sure there are a handful of unbalanced women who will file for a restraining order because they have mental health problems, but it would be foolish to think such cases are anywhere near the norm. 999 times out of a 1000, if you got a restraining order filed against you, it's because you have been an ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @02:22PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Saturday October 10 2015, @05:32PM
Creation of ever more ridiculous rape laws is killing romance. Dating Apps are just solving a need to have a legal documented way to contact a consenting adult.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:04PM
Your post was literally rape and cyber violence. I'm reporting you to the cyber police and consequences will never be the same.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:42PM
> Creation of ever more ridiculous rape laws is killing romance.
Such as?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RedBear on Saturday October 10 2015, @09:10PM
Exactly what "ridiculous" rape laws are you referring to? Please elaborate. And I'm pretty sure there's no "dating" app that will ever exist that will give the user a protected legal right to perform any kind of unwanted physical interaction on another person. Next you'll be telling us that any woman who gets pregnant from a rape wasn't "legitimately" raped because the female body has ways to "shut that whole thing down".
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 11 2015, @02:56AM
Exactly what "ridiculous" rape laws are you referring to?
There's the "yes means yes" law [usatoday.com] passed in California recently, which not only claims to require unambiguous affirmative from each party, but depends on the accuser's testimony to determine if such was given, violates due process of law, and dumps inappropriately handling of a serious crime into the hands of the college.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @03:26AM
Soon you'll need to have a legal affidavit signed by both parties to engage in consensual sex. This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't in a nation of prudes, ashamed of their sexuality and convinced its somehow "bad", not to mention the ubiquitous culture of slut-shaming. The idea that there would be documents proving they had sex with somebody would turn a lot of people off of it. For the right, thats the best reason they could ever want to push for such laws.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:07AM
Funny, the actual bill [ca.gov] doesn't do any of things you listed. First, it doesn't "claim" anything, it requires. The rest is either not there, or nothing new - like the fact that colleges have been handling on-campus rape claims since the beginning of colleges.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 12 2015, @06:49AM
Since the beginning of colleges? Did the funding of colleges depend on how many men are punished?
Even funnier is your approach to the law - 1. Here is the text 2. It doesn't exactly say what you were saying. The true geek approach of arrogance that led Mr. Reiser right into a jail cell. The same arrogance that led NewYorkCountryLawyer (or who was it?) to claim until last moment that copyright law is being misused just before Lindor got screwed.
So for a change, lets look at some real world examples and also, ponder over the fact that judges are not special and justice almost never goes against the current zeitgeist.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29 [wikipedia.org] ( http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/320059/columbia-wants-judge-to-toss-suit-by-emma-sulkowiczs-accused-rapist/ [forward.com] )
2. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/UW-fraternity-under-social-suspension-following-rape-investigation-305279311.html [komonews.com]
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus [wikipedia.org]
4. https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu [reason.com]
5. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/05/3709171/12-year-old-black-boy-suspended-for-staring-at-classmate/ [thinkprogress.org]
6. http://musicrevelution.com/2015/02/23/university-to-pay-n3m-to-student-suspended-on-false-rape-accusation-read-full-details-here/ [musicrevelution.com]
7. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/610186/John-Leslie-falsely-accused-rape-reduced-jobless-pauper [express.co.uk]
8. http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2015/10/06/student-accused-rape-sues-augustana-discipline/73494740/ [argusleader.com]
9. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/10/campus-judiciaries-on-trial-an-update-from-the-courts#.VharpD8EWbY.facebook [heritage.org]
10. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Rape-taint-gone-cabbie-picks-up-the-pieces/articleshow/49176097.cms [indiatimes.com]
11. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345396 [digitaljournal.com]
12. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.in/p/lamb-to-slaughter-hofstra-false-rape.html [blogspot.in]
These are just the top of Google search results. The number of men who settle out of court/pay-up are close to 900% times more than number of men who fight legal cases and then pick-up where they left their life.
Here is an app that got developed when 'Yes means yes' law was all the news: http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/we-consent-is-the-new-app-that-lets-you-say-yes-to-sex-is-it-useful-or-just-plain-creepy-10409525.html [standard.co.uk]
Here is the feminist piece against it: http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/01/good2go/ [techcrunch.com] (Yep - a consent app kicks the regret=rape crowd right in the stomach)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 12 2015, @06:24AM
Uh... no! But thanks for evoking the most retarded straw man.
The ones that assume guilty until proven innocent. Which means all of them.
The ones that say a woman regretting is a woman raped.
The ones that say the onus of not having drunken sex is on men when here on the streets women are doing slut-walks.
But don't worry - your head is too much up your ass to see the increasing number of false rape cases and the increasingly violent response men are getting while approaching women 'out of their league'. No sir - not unless your own ass is on fire.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday October 12 2015, @09:43AM
You still haven't cited any actual laws that match your assertions, you've just doubled down on your all-too-common and dangerously misogynistic viewpoint that all women are out to get all men, and that any woman who dares to be out in public while dressed in a manner that you happen to find attractive is a "slut" (with the additional horrific implication that, because they are "sluts", any woman you find attractive is obviously deliberately "targeting" men for entrapment on rape charges).
Interesting that you assert that there are an increasing number of false rape accusations, as if you have some proof of how many rape accusations are historically and currently false. I don't know how you could possibly know that unless you're simply assuming (without proof) that most rape accusations are false. The most reliable statistics I've seen are around 5%. Given that about 9 out of 10 rape cases still end with no conviction due to lack of evidence, I'd have to disagree that there is any evidence of "ridiculous" rape laws that assume guilt until proven innocent or allow a man to be convicted based on a woman's "regret" about a sexual encounter. It is still quite difficult for any man to be convicted of rape.
You need to back off the misogyny quite a bit and take a look at how many women really do get raped every year, and how few are able to obtain any semblance of justice. Men get sexually assaulted too, by the way. This isn't a ladies-only problem.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 1, Troll) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 12 2015, @11:19AM
I have absolutely in no place or way said or suggested that 'all women are out to whatever'. You are just too indoctrinated into feminism to take anything anti-feminist with a logical mind without calling everyone a misogynist. I don't care if you think that way. The only person putting all women in same category is you.
You know, take your nearest local transport and visit a family court or for rape cases, a criminal court and just listen to court proceedings. Or meet someone who has survived a false case. Just listen to men. Try to believe what they say.
I have not cited any law nor I am going to cite any law. It is not too difficult to find what I am telling is the truth or not. And I am tired of giving facts and references to people who, at the end, are just going to go 'hmm....' and then look the other way. As I have mentioned somewhere below, the problem with people who argue like you is that they have absolutely zero - zilch - idea about how court system works. You think you read some sentences and now you know what a law is supposed to mean? You don't believe that all laws are explicitly written so there is ample room for interpretation. I call them lazy male haters. Just easier to call everyone misogynist than doing some research.
You are asking me about data over false cases? You just proved that you haven't even done a simple Google search. There is a fucking Wikipedia article about it.
You question me about historical trends? Tell me, do you believe that women have been oppressed for thousands of years?
I mean, if I said that black people are unfairly targeted by law enforcement agencies then you will know I have all the data.
If I said that women get lesser punishment for the same crime than men, then you will know I am just giving facts.
But god forbid if I say rape accused are mistreated all the way up to exoneration, carry a stigma for rest of their life, and most of them end up settling out of court. Then I am a misogynist talking hateful stuff about all women.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday October 10 2015, @05:48PM
If you define romance as or based on some 200 year old novels by Austin then sure it's dead. Kipling wrote the jungle book at about the same time, we don't use that as the proper definition of raising a child. Don't see why Austin is somehow the romance-lady that stood the test of time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:06PM
Because half the population doesn't benefit from anything in the Jungle Book. Whereas women have benefited a lot from making men fight over them.
Thankfully, most women have gotten to the point where they realize how stupid that is. The ones that haven't, well, they don't deserve a decent guy. I've never understood why I should be expected to invest a lot of time and energy into getting a woman's attention or deal with countless rejections because women don't feel like putting any effort into it.
It does not make any sense.
Dating apps are awesome because the limits and lines are more easily understood. If a woman is on there looking for a boyfriend, that's permission to chat her up. As long as I've read the profile and think we might be a match, the only responsibility I have beyond that is conducting myself respectfully.
Compare that to the dating scene in the real world where you have no guarantee that a given woman is even available, let alone interested and where opinions about how to proceed vary greatly. And where the line between sexual harassment and a fun pursuit can be rather blurry at best.
Most dating should be online, it's a much better system. And if some creep approaches you, you're not physically there anyways. It's much less likely that anything bad will happen, as long as you're careful about how you do the screening and where you meet.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:04PM
It's a much better system only if you're foolish enough to put your personal information online. You might wish to give corporations all your information on a silver platter, but I refuse.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:19PM
You do realize that you don't need to put much information up, right? And you don't even need to give them your real name.
We've reached a point where you don't have a viable choice any more about information about you being out there. Shy of moving to a shack in the middle of the woods, your information is out there. The question here is how much are you willing to pay to keep that information secret?
I don't like putting my information out there, but around here nobody dates unless they meet online. I haven't met a single person here in the last 15 years that actually met in person here. Either they met online or they met somewhere else and moved here. People just don't talk to each other and other than hook ups, they don't hit on each other either.
It's quite dangerous to try and get a date in person because you're likely to get accused of sexual harassment or worse.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @09:10PM
You do realize that you don't need to put much information up, right? And you don't even need to give them your real name.
I also see little reason to give them any information whatsoever, or contribute to places where it is encouraged to surrender your information to corporate fools. I'm also not on any social media trash, and anyone who is foolish.
I don't like putting my information out there
You just said you didn't need to.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:20AM
So what name do you use? Rock Longfellow? or Daddy Warbucks?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:56AM
You know just giving your first name is as much as anybody has any need for. You should be skyping or talking on the phone before you go on a date anyways, no reason to give more than the first name on the site itself.
The point though is that you are having to give some personal information, but even if you're hyper-paranoid chances are there are a ton of bits of information about you floating around. At least the better dating sites allow you to actually get some benefit out of any information you put in.
Unlike Google and FB that pretty much rape you for information and give peanuts.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:37PM
Most dating should be online, it's a much better system. And if some creep approaches you, you're not physically there anyways. It's much less likely that anything bad will happen, as long as you're careful about how you do the screening and where you meet.
Seems like there is an opportunity for someone to start creating virtual nightclubs like the one in Snow Crash. Have users pay a cover charge to get in, charge for virtual drinks and flowers and so on. No one will ever have to leave home again!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @08:54PM
"Kipling wrote the jungle book at about the same time,"
No he didn't. To pick Austen's most famous work, Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813. To pick Kipling's most famous work, Jungle Book was published in 1894.
Honest to God, get a fucking clue.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:23AM
what is 90 years or so if you are only 35?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 4, Funny) by krishnoid on Saturday October 10 2015, @11:34PM
Kipling wrote the jungle book at about the same time, we don't use that as the proper definition of raising a child.
No duh, both of those books are too old to be appropriate. The more recent, relevant choice would obviously be 'Lord of the Flies'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:19PM
It's easy to say that difficulty disappearing is a bad thing for the 52% of the population that isn't expected to put in the work and risk half a lifetime of income just for a mate. I am glad dating is becoming easier. There are more people in the world, you can connect with them faster, and you don't have to put up with the bad ones that play "hard to get" anymore. No more paying for half a dozen dates doing things you really would rather not do at $50-200 each just to see if you can even tolerate each other for more than a couple months.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:54PM
In my experience, I've found that everybody I've dated via an online site was worth spending time with. Just about every date wound up lasting for hours. The only exception was somebody I met during lunchtime. There's no way I'd expect that out of somebody I ran into at random in public.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:50PM
It's easy to say that difficulty disappearing is a bad thing for the 52% of the population that isn't expected to put in the work and risk half a lifetime of income just for a mate.
You mean the 52% of the population is that is expected to be owned by the other 48%?
Female empowerment is the reason casual sex is more common - now that women have more personal agency they don't have to worry about being branded a slut and treated like a pariah simply for getting their human needs met.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday October 11 2015, @12:23AM
No, effective birth control is why casual sex is more common. The main reason why it wasn't common before hand was that women had a huge disincentive to be to casual with sex. Pregnancy was likely and there was little to do about it other than back alley abortions, adoption and hoping to find somebody that would marry them anyways.
Female empowerment is probably a factor, just not the factor.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @12:54AM
The pill was necessary but not sufficient.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday October 11 2015, @02:27AM
You have it backward. Casual sex was common, until it was made taboo way back in the Old Testament days. Could have been made taboo earlier, hard to say what the customs were in Stone Age societies. A study of testicle size relative to body size for many different primates reveals a simple correlation between promiscuity and relative testicle size. Which makes sense-- more sex means the males are in an arms race to produce more sperm to maintain their chances of fathering offspring.
Humans are rated mildly promiscuous, and definitely not monogamous. But for thousands of years, many of us have professed acceptance of monogamy as the ideal way to conduct sexual relations, have chiseled this in stone in the Judeo-Christian religion. Many other religions also have marriage ceremonies to drive home the idea that we should be monogamous. They may have done that for some very good reasons, most of all to keep the peace within the tribe. Can't have all the young warriors flying into jealous rages and maiming and killing each other and the women over the women. Also, it may have been the best way to keep sexually transmitted diseases in check. Judaism certainly has all kinds of food taboos, for instance, pork, and it seems the point of those is to avoid food borne disease. Birth control doesn't seem to be a likely reason. More often societies needed more people, not fewer, what with mortality being rather high. When overpopulation did happen, there was a brutally easy way to deal with it: start a war. Islam in contrast has endorsed a one-sided promiscuity. Men can have up to 4 wives, but women can't have more than 1 husband.
But monogamy is not our nature. Cheating is rife, and great effort is made to keep it hushed up. Just how rife is a bit of a shock. On average, 10% of the babies in the newborn ward were fathered by some man other than the husband! It varies considerably, from as low as 5% which is still pretty high for a supposedly monogamous society, up to a stunning 30%. I've often wondered if it would be better to accept our true nature. Things have loosened up considerably-- divorce is no longer so taboo, but there's a long way to go. We would have to devise different rules to keep fights over mates from happening often or turning deadly. All this tiresome sneaking around many do now shouldn't be necessary.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quacking duck on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:04AM
Arguably, it boils down to an expression of successful propagation of one's genes. Before DNA tests were a thing, if a female had casual sex with multiple males, there was no foolproof way to establish who the father is of any offspring. Similarities in looks aren't reliable. So ancient society went with monogamy (and to a much lesser extent polygamy) so men had a reasonably high expectation that any offspring with his mate was actually his, and that he wasn't spending resources raising someone else's child.
Thanks in part to birth control letting women better control when (or if) they get pregnant, polyamory (some call it "ethical non-monogamy") is gaining some traction either in response to, or acceptance of, this historically high rate of cheating. Naturally this is more prevalent in liberal societies; religiously conservative ones continue to enforce the idea of one-man-one-woman-and-must-reproduce relationships, and would vehemently oppose any suggestion to change it. Hell it's not even well received among many otherwise liberal people and societies. It has no less relationship drama (obviously there's potential for much more) and it certainly isn't some utopian solution to the cheating problem in a mostly monogamous society. But it still does represent some additional "loosening up" and accepting of our "true natures".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:34AM
Men don't shame "sluts". We embrace them. Always have. They are like us. It is other women that do the branding and ostracism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @02:32PM
In the old days before reliable and safe contraception and the Green Revolution, indiscriminate fucking around was a bad for society. Now it's a less bad idea (still a bad idea because of false rape accusations, actual rape or worse).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:45AM
Women have 70% of total purchasing power yet make less than 40% of total income. The average woman spends all of her money and 60% more on top of that. You have your roles reversed. Women own men.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:55PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:44PM
> It only makes sense, from a reductive point of view.
FTFY
Gotta love them geeks, so sure they understand life having experienced so little of it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by danomac on Saturday October 10 2015, @09:09PM
Eh, you don't need to experience it yourself directly. You can witness what happens to friends who are married. Most I've interacted with say their wives are always mad at them for this or that. Oh, and as an example they also have to get explicit permission to go out to a ball or hockey game.
Personally, after witnessing this many times, I really don't feel a pressing need to find someone and get married. I like my peaceful life, where I can do whatever I want and not be nagged on and on about it. However, I am fully aware I'm an introvert and being social really wears me out.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @10:07PM
You need a better class of friend. As a self-professed introvert you should be acutely aware of how little experience you have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:41AM
Way to be a reductionist yourself. Introvert does not mean shut-in with little life experience. It just means they have higher base brain activity. They think before they speak, need their alone time, and don't need to have their face glued to a cellphone or facebook to be happy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @01:02PM
The guy just wrote that for him introvert means not having that experience.
(Score: 3, Informative) by danomac on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:24PM
I am basing what I said on 20+ years of observing others in relationships. I can fully formulate that what I have observed more often than not doesn't interest me at all. And I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one that thinks this way.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:51PM
The best mistakes to learn from are the ones other people make.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @08:17PM
> No, I said being social wears/tires me out - I never said that I am not social at all...
Literalism FTL.
How's this, you just said that you have very little experience. OK?
> I am basing what I said on 20+ years of observing others in relationships. I can fully formulate that what I have observed more often than not doesn't interest me at all.
Wait. Now you are saying you have had zero relationships?
Seriously dude, if you haven't seen a relationship from the inside, you have no idea what its like. And even if you have seen one or two, you still don't know what its like because, like everything in life if you want to do it well you have to fail multiple times before you figure out how to make it work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 11 2015, @02:21AM
Seems that to many of your freinds have attended to many sensitivity training classes. Any two people are going to irritate each other when they live together. Yes, my wife irritates me, and I irritate her. We don't live in complete harmony, we have differences of opinion. We have RESPECT for each other, though, so each of us permits the other to have insane ideas. Neither of us gets terribly upset when the other is being stupid, crazy, or whatever.
What you are describing are guys who are pussy whipped. Overly sensitive. Wimps. Sissies.
There was a point in our lives when the wife was pissed off all the time, and nag, nag, nag. I asked her one day what gave her the right to abuse me, when she knew full well that if I abused her, she would call the police. "I'm not abusing you!" "You sure as hell are being abusive. Bitch, bitch, bitch, always trying to change me, or trying to make me do something. You can't beat me up, so you use verbal, psychological abuse, trying to whip the shit out of me. I can't have any peace, you have to run at the mouth, blah blah blah."
She's a pretty smart woman. The nagging, whining, and bitching pretty much stopped. Today, she only bitches over important stuff, instead of every little thing. And, she only bitches long enough to get the point across, then it ends.
Tell your freinds to man up. Unless, of course, they actually enjoy being abused. Some women seek out abusive relationships, I suppose some guys do the same.
(Score: 2) by danomac on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:28PM
You know, it never occured to me that they might actually enjoy it.
After observing dozens of relationships though, being married is definitely not something I'm interested in. And now I'm far along my career path, if I do meet a permanent girlfriend after 2 years she's entitled to take half my stuff when she leaves where I live. It's even written in law. I've also known a few guys (although not well) that have been burned by this. When you're younger and have nothing it's not really a big issue. Now that I've spent half my life amassing assets and other things losing half of it will really screw up my retirement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @08:22PM
> if I do meet a permanent girlfriend after 2 years she's entitled to take half my stuff when she leaves where I live. It's even written in law.
No it is not. Man, for someone who thinks he is an expert you don't know jack shit.
When two people get divorced, marital assets are split - that means everything accumulated while you were married, including debts. Not before you were married, only during the marriage. And presumably she has a job too, so you are entitled to half of everything she earned too.
(Score: 2) by danomac on Sunday October 11 2015, @10:41PM
This is definitely not true, unless there's a prenuptial agreement. In the case of common-law marriage (at the two year mark) there's no such thing and assets are deemed equally shared by both (most cases the major assets are real estate i.e. a house/home.) As an example, where I live if someone moves in with me into a place that I own before she moves in she owns half of it after two years, even if there's no marriage. The matrimonial home is an exception to what you are stating. Look under "Matrimonial home" [divorce-canada.ca]. So yes, if you own a house and even if she lives with you for two years she "owns" half of it (see paragraph 4 of this article [www.cbc.ca] (I'm too lazy to look it up on the government website, but it IS there too.) Quite often this is applied to any assets (including businesses.)
I know someone who has been burned by this on a home valued at $400,000.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @12:34AM
> As an example, where I live if someone moves in with me into a place that I own before she moves in she owns half of it after two years, even if there's no marriage.
You are a "google expert" who doesn't understand the full context of those terms. Simply moving in is not sufficient to start a common-law marriage. You must behave as spouses - blending of finances, have a child together, call yourselves husband and wife, etc -- all are factors used to determine if the relationship qualifies as a common-law marriage. The article you linked to even quotes the BC law to that effect with the phrase "a marriage-like relationship."
> The matrimonial home is an exception to what you are stating.
According to the very link you provided it is the biggest exception. Saying it applies to other things like businesses is hand-wavy bullshit.
So now you've walked it back from "everything" to the house - which 99% of the time is mortgaged so will probably be more debt than asset.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 12 2015, @07:04AM
In India (which is apparently the latest target of feminist spear campaigns), a live-in that doesn't end up in marriage is, by law, considered rape, and since rape is such a heinous crime even minors can be tried like adults.
A bitter divorce battle means, for men, loss of children (women cannot be punished for not following court orders - true!), loss of property (the law to include ancestral property in it just got rejected due to large scale protests from MRAs - this is the second time), maintenance irrespective of her qualification or earning capacity, removal of your parents from their house if your wife has stayed in it for even a week, consistent harassment by the judges to nudge you for out-of-court settlement and jail time for as many people as you deem close to you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Sunday October 11 2015, @11:21AM
Gotta love them geeks, so sure they understand life having experienced so little of it.
I have seven children with one on the way, so I'm not sure I've experienced very little of this area.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @01:08PM
> I have seven children with one on the way, so I'm not sure I've experienced very little of this area.
I was aware of that when I posted and I deliberately did not say anything about it because the number of kids a man has says nothing about the number and scope of the relationships they've had with adult women. If anything, pushing out a ton of kids is so far out of the ordinary today that its proof your life experience is too much of an outlier to be applicable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 11 2015, @03:20AM
Casual sex is fun, sure, but it's also a lot of work. Even when it's easy to pick up girls and hook up, women are nearly always looking for emotional connection even if they claim they're only out for casual sex. So you have to navigate those minefields. Then you nearly always have to patiently sit through their life stories, their pet peeves, their likes, the whole spiel. And you have to go out and do stuff and spend money and all of it takes time, hours and hours. And should you live in a smaller town or city, you really have to plan out your hangouts and schedules to avoid awkward encounters with past conquests. When I lived in a smaller Japanese city hooking up was like shooting fish in a barrel, but I never worked so hard in my life and after months of it I gave everyone the cold shoulder to sit at home by myself, drink beer, and watch sumo because I just couldn't be bothered.
And slowly, surely, you discover that there are some people out there who are really bad in bed, and once in a while someone is quite good, but most are about the same and slowly, surely, each encounter blends into the next. And each new person you meet you can feel reaching for you wanting attachment, and with each dodge you feel more like a jerk. The growing sadness at leaving so many girls hanging surpasses the fleeting physical pleasure.
No, finding emotional intimacy with someone, which is what true romance is, will never go out of style for that reason. You get comfortable with someone, who gets you and loves you despite your flaws. You go through ups and downs together. Family members die, you have kids, you occasionally get a big win, and sharing all of it is a deep joy that the single and shallow will never know. But if dating apps help men and women learn what they really like, what they really need, across the arc of physical encounter, and if that all leads to fewer people marrying the wrong people for the wrong reasons, then I truly do think that the marriages/partnerships that result will be much stronger. And those will shine out for everyone else to aspire to, to know that it's worth the search, if sharing their lives with another person is at all in their life plan.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @02:51PM
Better to leave the raising families stuff to the well-adjusted people.
There are already way more than 7 billion people on this overpopulated planet.
Encouraging people who aren't that well-adjusted to "settle down" and start families is the last thing people should be doing nowadays. With so many on this planet it's way past the time to focus on quality and not quantity.
Just look at the people around you, how many of them can you honestly say "they would make great parents and will raise great kids". I know only a relatively few like that (and yes they've produced great kids, yay!).
But I suppose its too much to hope for, the assholes will ignore the recommendations/rules and produce more assholes and broken people to create more suffering in this world. So we're stuck with hoping for "above average" with a dismal average.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @07:01PM
I dont see a difference in how you meet, as once you do, its the same old story..
At least in theory, finding someone via online routes helps skip the 'wow, you are not as my buddy described you..' or the regret after sobering up ( bar scene )
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @08:01PM
Yes, at least online dating has eliminated the "catfish" effect from courtship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10 2015, @10:15PM
It has for anyone who isn't naive. Before meeting IRL either video chat, or at least have them take a photo of themselves with a piece of paper with your name on it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Saturday October 10 2015, @11:27PM
I'll need confirmation from Netcraft before I'm convinced.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Saturday October 10 2015, @11:59PM
Last time I checked very little of the "romance" that is to be found in books ever actually existed in the real world, no matter what time period you're referring to. The unfortunate truth is that in most cultures throughout most of recorded human history women have been literally nothing but property to be used as bargaining chips for the enrichment of their owners. The first owner was the father and the next owner was the husband. If any affection developed in either case it was secondary. There were of course a few matriarchal societies but that didn't make romance any more of a common thing, it just meant the women were the landowners instead of the men.
You'd think that arranged marriages would be a thing of the past by now, but they are still going strong in many cultures and what is kind of fascinating about arranged marriages is that study after study shows that in the long run both participants actually end up being just as happy or happier than couples in voluntary marriages. Weird but true. (Exceptions are the marriages where young girls are married off to older men for money, those are not the mutually arranged marriages between families that I'm referring to.) In fact that arranged marriage system is so successful that some modern day professional men and women are returning to treating marriage more like a business arrangement for the purpose of starting and raising a family, rather than something that requires "true love" before the contract can be entered. And again, these voluntary arranged marriages typically end up working out pretty well, perhaps precisely because they are not started for highly charged emotional reasons in the first place.
Like anyone I root for a good romantic relationship when I see one, but the idea that everyone has to have this years-long highly emotional courtship, and ensuing eternal bond that shines for eternity like a supernova in the night sky, is largely a mythos that we've created in modern times (since probably the Victorian era). The desire for romantic perfection in modern relationships has actually ruined far more relationships than it has started, and the fabled romantic courtship from the past is largely viewed through rose-colored glasses while ignoring the real social status and financial reasons behind most such courtships. This is one of those "X is dying because Y" arguments where the truth is that Y was invented precisely because many people simply aren't that interested in X in the first place. That includes both men and women, of course. It takes two to tango. The people who are looking for romance have other "apps" that are specifically designed for that purpose. Therefore "apps" are not killing romance any more than video games are causing violence or porn is causing mistreatment of women.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 11 2015, @02:39AM
That is a superb post. Despite the fact that I would have resisted any attempts at an arranged marriage, you're right. In the long run, arranged marriages generally seemed to be more stable, and at least as rewarding for the participants.
In this crazy world we have today, we mostly make ourselves more miserable than couples in times past. There is a lot of evidence that hormones aren't reliable decision makers.
One of the more cruel jokes on women is, they often choose a mate while using birth control pills. Oddly, the pill influences their choice in mates. So they find that when they stop taking the pill because they want children, their preference in mates changes.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste/ [scientificamerican.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 11 2015, @02:59AM
I have to really wonder about that birth control theory. The problem there is that not all single women are on BC; in fact, many might not be, because they're *single*, and not getting laid. Why bother getting on the pill if you're in a dry spell? Sure, if you're the kind of woman who does have casual sex, then it's certainly prudent to be on the pill while single, but many women may not be like that at all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 11 2015, @03:33AM
Well, of course, if the lady in question isn't ingesting hormones for any reason, then her judgement won't be changed by the addition/subtraction of that external source of hormones.
But, consider that a woman who does not engage in casual sex meets a guy she thinks is a suitable mate. She decides to use birth control, so that they can engage in not-so-casual sex, without worries. Soon after taking the pills, her own evaluation of the potential mate changes. Her judgement has changed BECAUSE of those external hormones. So they break up. Before those external hormones are flushed out of her system, she meets another potential mate. Things go great for them, until she decides that she wants a baby. Stop the external supply of hormones - and her judgement changes again.
Depending on the person involved, this may happen in a few short months (weeks?) or this little drama may take years to unfold. As I read it, it's not so much a theory, but a demonstrable phenomenon.
Maybe we should define "casual sex". A woman who has little or no desire for a long term mate, but wants her itches scratched, is more likely to engage in casual sex. The woman who is willing to engage in sex with multiple partners in a short time frame (maybe at the same time?) qualifies as having casual sex.
On the other hand, a young woman who is shopping for a long term mate, and decides to take a potential to the fitting room, isn't exactly having "casual" sex. She is doing some serious shopping, but her judgement may be impaired by those pesky hormones. Kinda like shopping for a car, or a house, while drunk, except that she has no idea the hormones might be altering her judgement. Those birth control pills really ought to come with a warning.
It's a shame that guys aren't naturally as selective as women are. For most of us, if it has a close-to-normal body temperature and an orifice, then it's a suitable mate. If we had the same sort of natural selection that women have, one hell of a lot of social problems just wouldn't exist. Rape? It would almost be unheard of. If 70, 80, maybe even 90% of females just didn't turn the guy on, rape wouldn't even be a consideration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @01:42PM
Try reading ancient Chinese poetry to change your mind about romance. It didn't just start yesterday.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 12 2015, @07:43PM
"On the other hand, people who do marry after meeting through a dating app might be less likely to divorce."
Hahahahahhahahahahhahahahh!! HAhahahahha . . HAhahahhahaha. Ahh..., I needed a good laugh. From a sheer numbers perspective, it's unlikely. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/20/5-facts-about-online-dating/ [pewresearch.org] "5% of Americans who are in a marriage or committed relationship say they met their significant other online." That's a whole lot of missing out on prospective mates.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"