Study - Slobby guys create more work for wives

YouTube - A MAN'S WORLD

"This is a man's world but it would be nothing without a woman or a girl."

Mr. James Brown and Mr.Luciano Pavarotti say it all in this song.:D

GOD BLESS US ALL:angel:
 
Shawn, My wife worked 20+ years in an ICU as a RN, 12 hour shifts that ended up14 hours some days only to come home and have to do it again in 7 hours.

She worked as hard or harder than I did while I was teaching, coaching and painting houses.

We worked together raising the 2 children during those years. Toilets need cleaning I did it, clothes needed to be washed, I did it, the carpet vacuumed I did it. But guess what if my wife thought that it all needed to be done, she did it. Cooking meals we both did it. If someone was tired the other chipped in.

That is how it is supposed to work. Marriage, marry the right gal if you are a guy and treat her like she should be treated as an equal and as your wonderful lover!

Too many Boys are not thinking. That is just what I said there are too many boys out there. They need to become men and grow up.

If your wife was a man, newspaper articles would be calling her lazy for not doing more around the house. That was the take of the article that started this thread. However, men are not lazy. They make great sacrifices at work and at home for their families. Male-bashing will be taken to task.

You have a very idealistic view of how marriage is supposed to work. While this is admirable, it's not reality. This is obvious considering 50% of marriages end in divorce. "Until death do us part" has no meaning.

My mother divorced my father, who is probably the most honorable man on the planet. Her reason was that "she wanted something more." Well, she got it. After 4 failed marriages, she is now all alone. My mother calls the divorce the biggest mistake of her life. She wanted to get back with my father 3-4 years after the split, but it was too late. He had found someone else, a widow. They've now been married for 35+ years. Cosmic justice in action.

I do not understand your comments about boys. What I'm hearing you say is that someone who does not wish to get married is not grown up (and someone who dresses differently than you is not grown up). Want2retire frequently mentions that she has no plans to marry Frank. Is she not grown up, or do you apply this rule only to men?

If my interpretation of your comments is correct, you are not alone. When men say that they do not wish to get married, it is attributed to immaturity. When women say that they do not wish to get married, it is attributed to wisdom and independence. It doesn't matter that there are no data to support these beliefs, because men are always bad and women are always good. Political correctness gone amok. But political correctness has consequences.

More and more young men (and older men) are coming to the conclusion that there is little advantage to marriage, especially considering the high risks. They see no point in working their butts off, being criticized for the sacrifices that they make, and then losing it all in a divorce. This is a very mature and logical decision. And it's not confined to the United States. It's a phenomena throughout the west.
 
Just to keep the record straight, the MNBC article states:
"Overall, times are a' changing in the American home. In 1976, women busied themselves with 26 weekly hours of sweeping-and-dusting work, compared with 17 hours in 2005. Men are pitching in more, more than doubling their housework hours from six in 1976 to 13 in 2005."

I don't believe this is male bashing. It is an unsupported title. The study as presented in the article does not discuss slobby men at all, it only discusses the added housework for married women vs single women and married me vs single men.

In fact the article states:
"Stafford analyzed time-diaries and questionnaires from a nationally representative sample of men and women over a 10-year period between 1996 and 2005. The federally-funded study showed that, compared with the single life, marriage meant more housework for both men and women. "

The article also states that single men do more housework than married men.

"Single women in their 20s and 30s did the least housework, about 12 weekly hours, while married women in their 60s and 70s did the most — about 21 hours a week. "

"Single guys worked the hardest around the house, trumping all age groups of married men. "

Not a single data point on "slobby men" just the facts of the study. The author should be flogged.
 
Maybe these single people who are doing less housework-hours are working smarter instead of harder? Do married women purposefully work harder and put in more housework-hours as a reason to argue with husbands who otherwise don't put in any effort to communicate? Will Kate make the switch from the Swifter to the old broom and dustpan just to get a rise out of Matt? Find out this week on As The Vacuum Whirs.
 
More and more young men (and older men) are coming to the conclusion that there is little advantage to marriage, especially considering the high risks. They see no point in working their butts off, being criticized for the sacrifices that they make, and then losing it all in a divorce. This is a very mature and logical decision. And it's not confined to the United States. It's a phenomena throughout the west.

I'll acknowledge that I had to think long and hard before getting married again and those issues did occur to me. DW and I were dating three years before the thought even came to mind, and I took another year to think it over.

But I believe there is value in the commitment, and it's a struggle to find the words to explain that. From a purely financial/logical standpoint, sure, the marriage is costing me money. But once the basics are met - roof over our heads, not a concern in the world about paying for next year's groceries, etc., I just don't care much about the money. Her company is worth it. To me. YMMV.
 
Even if you don't get married there are risks . If you live together ,you might not get the 401 but you'll probably get the couch and even if you don't live together long term relationships hurt emotionally when they end so the only way to be safe is to wall yourself off from the world and that's pretty lonely .
 
Even if you don't get married there are risks . If you live together ,you might not get the 401 but you'll probably get the couch and even if you don't live together long term relationships hurt emotionally when they end so the only way to be safe is to wall yourself off from the world and that's pretty lonely .

This is certainly true Moe, but truth is in degree. My stuff is of zero concern to me, the money necessary to go on living decently is. At this stage in my life I really don't want to be anyone's retirement plan. Also I have discovered that my morning desire to get up, eat and get out for some exploring is best met by being home alone in the morning.

But hazards can exist even with regard to to keeping your retirement plan or necessary capital. This state has hatched an abomination called "meretricious relationship." This is designed to present our old friends the family lawyers with some compensation for business that was being lost because of fewer and later marriages. You may think you didn't get married, but, you swine, you have been meretriciously cohabiting. :p

How did I find out about this creative little law? Reading a free magazine named "Seattle Woman". How do most guys find out about it? A summons from their former GF's lawyer, asserting that his client has been meretriciously cohabiting with the unhappily surprised man

DivorceNet - Washington Cohabitation FAQ's

Ha
 
Last edited:
Ha, it seems to me that a lot of these problems would be solved if marriage was considered to be a religious, not a legal/political arrangement.

I have the greatest respect for those who (unlike me) can keep a marriage going happily for a lifetime.

For the rest of us, breakups are heartbreaking. What is even worse is what two relatively decent people will say to one another and do to one another in a divorce.

If marriage wasn't governed by law, divorce would not be, either, and these unfair divorce (and meritricious cohabitation) settlements would disappear. I am assuming that if there are no divorce settlements, there would also be no meritricious cohabitation settlements by analogy. Divorce lawyers would flock towards welfare, and people would think twice before mingling their money or becoming totally dependent on the other for support. How many people would quit their jobs and go marry and sponge off a sugar daddy, if they realized that the sugar daddy could kick them out into the cold dark night at any moment? Maybe not so many. Marriages would become more meaningful if marriage wasn't governed by law, because people would marry for purely non-monetary reasons.
 
Last edited:
Ha, it seems to me that a lot of these problems would be solved if marriage was considered to be a religious, not a legal/political arrangement.

I have the greatest respect for those who (unlike me) can keep a marriage going happily for a lifetime.

For the rest of us, breakups are heartbreaking. What is even worse is what two relatively decent people will say to one another and do to one another in a divorce.

If marriage wasn't governed by law, divorce would not be, either, and these unfair divorce (and meritricious cohabitation) settlements would disappear. I am assuming that if there are no divorce settlements, there would also be no meritricious cohabitation settlements by analogy. Divorce lawyers would flock towards welfare, and people would think twice before mingling their money or becoming totally dependent on the other for support. How many people would quit their jobs and go marry and sponge off a sugar daddy, if they realized that the sugar daddy could kick them out into the cold dark night at any moment? Maybe not so many. Marriages would become more meaningful if marriage wasn't governed by law, because people would marry for purely non-monetary reasons.

+ infinity

Unfortunately, being in the military I've seen people marry at 18, 19, 20, and get divorced months later. Some of the best and worse advice I was given was don't even think about marriage, at least for a guy, until you have a lot of life's lessons behind you. I think it's great advice in that you should be a mature, responsible person for yourself before you even think about adding another person into your life, and also horrible because I'm a horrible romantic and believe it's still possible to marry the highschool or college sweetheart and live happily ever after.

Guess Jimmy Buffett was right, sometimes all you can hope for is to live happily ever after, every now and then.
 
But hazards can exist even with regard to to keeping your retirement plan or necessary capital. This state has hatched an abomination called "meretricious relationship." This is designed to present our old friends the family lawyers with some compensation for business that was being lost because of fewer and later marriages. You may think you didn't get married, but, you swine, you have been meretriciously cohabiting. :p



Ha


I 've heard of that . That's why I'm looking into a cohabitation agreement or outliving my SO.
 
For the rest of us, breakups are heartbreaking. What is even worse is what two relatively decent people will say to one another and do to one another in a divorce.

That's the issue that is really sad, the resources that are wasted on revenge.

I do have to give my ex credit for being reasonable about the divorce once the decision had been made. Ours was one of the more amicable divorces I've ever heard of, but there wasn't anything worth fighting over. No kids, both had jobs with about the same income, bennies, etc. Hearing other's horror stories I was happy to get out of it not owing anybody anything.
 
Ha, it seems to me that a lot of these problems would be solved if marriage was considered to be a religious, not a legal/political arrangement.

I have the greatest respect for those who (unlike me) can keep a marriage going happily for a lifetime.

For the rest of us, breakups are heartbreaking. What is even worse is what two relatively decent people will say to one another and do to one another in a divorce.

If marriage wasn't governed by law, divorce would not be, either, and these unfair divorce (and meritricious cohabitation) settlements would disappear. I am assuming that if there are no divorce settlements, there would also be no meritricious cohabitation settlements by analogy. Divorce lawyers would flock towards welfare, and people would think twice before mingling their money or becoming totally dependent on the other for support. How many people would quit their jobs and go marry and sponge off a sugar daddy, if they realized that the sugar daddy could kick them out into the cold dark night at any moment? Maybe not so many. Marriages would become more meaningful if marriage wasn't governed by law, because people would marry for purely non-monetary reasons.

+ infinity³ !

With these misandric laws of today a man has to be very brave (or naive) to marry (or also cohabitate, at least here in Brazil). Because I already don't want to have kids, I can't think of a reason to marry instead of just keep dating forever.
 
So what is next the cohab police ? Say you spend weekends and vacations living together but in your mind you are only dating will they deem you living together and give you a portion of their 401k ? So what is the answer ceilbacy or leave in the middle of the night before the cohab police catch you ?
 
So what is next the cohab police ? Say you spend weekends and vacations living together but in your mind you are only dating will they deem you living together and give you a portion of their 401k ? So what is the answer ceilbacy or leave in the middle of the night before the cohab police catch you ?

The cohab police will be your former lover and his/her lawyer. This state actually has published guidlines that are supposed to be applied by a judge if the extortion doesn't work and a case goes to trial.

I think a fundamental principle is that if it was good for you, you are screwed.

Short dalliances that could not be mistaken for love are likely OK. :)

Ha
 
The cohab police will be your former lover and his/her lawyer. This state actually has published guidlines that are supposed to be applied by a judge if the extortion doesn't work and a case goes to trial.

I think a fundamental principle is that if it was good for you, you are screwed.

Short dalliances that could not be mistaken for love are likely OK. :)

Ha


This is what's already happening in Brazil since 2002. We have a lot of men that force women to sign a "contract of dating" excluding any possibility of "meretriciously cohabiting" between them. Funny and frightening at the same time.
 
This is what's already happening in Brazil since 2002. We have a lot of men that force women to sign a "contract of dating" excluding any possibility of "meretriciously cohabiting" between them. Funny and frightening at the same time.


Do the women also whip out these contracts ?
 
Do the women also whip out these contracts ?

You bet they don't like it at all, as they feel that men see them as gold-diggers. The problem is that many times this is true :/ . I also think that these "contracts" are absolutely illegal, so we men are screwed anyway if we go live with a girl and then she suddenly wants 50% of your assets + alimony.
 
You bet they don't like it at all, as they feel that men see them as gold-diggers. The problem is that many times this is true :/ . I also think that these "contracts" are absolutely illegal, so we men are screwed anyway if we go live with a girl and then she suddenly wants 50% of your assets + alimony.

Do they get alimony even if they were not married to the poor devil?

As for the 50% of the poor devil's assets are they counted from before the co-living or does the 50% count after they started co-living?

You poor devils in Brazil have it much worse than us poor devils in Texas.

It's all about the money.

YouTube - The O'Jays - For The Love of Money

GOD BLESS US ALL:angel:
 
My husband does a lot of housework (far more than I at the moment) and I think most younger men pull their weight in a relationship (don't know about you old foogies). My generation tends to split it up more based on who has the free time and who likes it more (which explains why I do our budget and the retirement projections, he hates math).

As to the cohabitation and/or marriage fear, why do that with someone you don't trust? Don't get me wrong, I understand people can change and that things happen, but I am always amazed at how quick people are to move in together or get married. Whatever happened to taking the time to get to know someone?

At one point in my marriage I was the sugar momma (my husband despised that) and soon my husband will be the sugar daddy of the relationship (you should see him hop around in glee at that thought), but we both came with nothing and would have far less if we had stayed single than what we have now and will have in the future.

For those who are FI, I can definitely understand not wanting to marry someone who sees you as their retirement plan but caring more for your money than for you SO is a quick way to stay alone. Oh, and I am a big fan of prenups (those of you with money should have one before marriage) but I don't think you should be worrying about money to the point that you close your mind to relationships of any kind. Shouldn't you see what kind of women you fall in love with first?
 
Do they get alimony even if they were not married to the poor devil?

As for the 50% of the poor devil's assets are they counted from before the co-living or does the 50% count after they started co-living?

You poor devils in Brazil have it much worse than us poor devils in Texas.


Yes, this "meretricious cohabitation" is basically equal to marriage. You have almost the same "benefits". In fact, sometimes you don't even have to cohabitate with the girl, you just have to show to the society that you have the intention to form a family with her. How sick is that?


Thankfully, the assets are counted after they "showed the intention to form a family".


Still, men here have to be very careful when in a relationship, or they can end sued into oblivion because of our laws.
 
Talk all you people want. Bottom line many men are still just boyz. There needs to be a whole lot of growing up and taking responsibility.

It is your home also, so why in the world would you expect the women you LOVE to do what your mother Might have done??

It makes no sense.
 
Talk all you people want. Bottom line many men are still just boyz. There needs to be a whole lot of growing up and taking responsibility.

It is your home also, so why in the world would you expect the women you LOVE to do what your mother Might have done??

It makes no sense.

Just because you cant clean up after yourself. Dont lump the whole gender into your cesspool of naughtiness. Dirty dirty newguy:bat:
 
Just because you cant clean up after yourself. Dont lump the whole gender into your cesspool of naughtiness. Dirty dirty newguy:bat:

Hey, Hey, Hey, there is nothing wrong with being dirty some of my best friends, I mean meals have come from Pigs in Mud.:cool:

YouTube - pigs in the mud

I am sure that you would not deny a poor devil like me the pleasures of eating some porkchops, bacon. pigs feet and pork skins. :D

I used to know a pig farmer and one of his famous quotes was "Hey you can take a man's wife but do not ever violate one of his pigs."

GOD BLESS US ALL:angel:
 
Hey, Hey, Hey, there is nothing wrong with being dirty some of my best friends, I mean meals have come from Pigs in Mud.:cool:

YouTube - pigs in the mud

I am sure that you would not deny a poor devil like me the pleasures of eating some porkchops, bacon. pigs feet and pork skins. :D

I used to know a pig farmer and one of his famous quotes was "Hey you can take a man's wife but do not ever violate one of his pigs."

GOD BLESS US ALL:angel:

Hey, those are French pigs.

Who else on the board eats pork rinds? Wags does, I do, I think Waltxx does- sign on all you pork-rind eaters!

Ha
 
Back
Top Bottom