Single Men Living Aboard and Cruising... an honest look.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

This is the one sided sentence I honed in on.



What did you mean then? That there was financial ruin for the male partner but not the female partner? What should I have inferred?



I just related your statement that "financial disaster for the male partner" was a form of painting males as a victim, for which I don't offer pity, because as a broad statement it's not true. I do agree that both females and males are seeking out relationships that offer them better financial protections and/or forgoing committed long term relationships for temporary physically defined relationships.

Not sure what you should have inferred, but it seemed odd that you immediately keyed in on the scenario where there are minor children that require support, or a situation where one spouse (often the wife) foregoes a career/producing income to care for the couple's children. In such cases few would disagree (I hope) that child support is the highest priority & non-negotiable, and that income produced by the husband during the course of a marriage when the wife was contributing in kind would be considered "marital assets" subject to a presumptively 50/50 split.

I can't speak for 'sailpower', but what I've observed is many men (myself included) are wary of women who feel entitled to what a wealthier husband may have MERELY due to the fact of marriage, as opposed to what she may have contributed, monetarily or in kind. This applies to both men and women, of course, along with a myriad of other factors & variables, but it seems more prevalent with women specifically looking for a man who can "provide" for her. All well & good if that's the up-front bargained-for-exchange (if you will), but in those circumstances the woman (or man) has forfeited the right, imho, to then claim she was a victim and should therefore be compensated out of assets that she never had nor earned to begin with. It's also completely at odds with the notion that women are independent and have their own means of supporting themselves.

In fact, alimony was originally conceived to provide financial support for an impoverished former spouse as a means to getting him/her back on a viable financial footing. Instead, it's become a lifelong obligation/benefit that often only terminates upon death or REMARRIAGE!! Now if you are correct that it's more often than not the woman who suffers financially from a divorce, what does that say about the law recognizing remarriage to (presumably) a man as a way for a woman to get back on a sound financial footing!

Let's face it, there are a lot of women (and some men) who want it both ways, and this has become hard for a lot of men to understand. I, for one, have always been attracted to women who are indpt. and have a strong streak of feminism it seems, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable (and lost respect) with those same women who feel entitled to what I have and/or are all too interested in becoming dependent on me. The two concepts seem mutually exclusive, and I think many women (of my generation anyway) are confused by it all. Again, these aren't the 'gold digger' types -- there's no confusion with them! It's also overly simplistic to attribute this to (at least outwardly) 'weak' women, and attributing these types of comments from men as 'misogynistic' is unjustified and trivializes what I think is a sincerely held issue.

The reality is that, absent some religious or family motivation, or a desire to have kids, the reason many people are motivated towards marriage nowadays is financial. I, for one, am not interested in anyone else's money, nor am I interested in subjecting myself to a legally enforceable but often unjustified divestment of my own money in the event of divorce.

I hope this helps explain where myself and I believe some of the other guys on this thread are coming from in their posts.

[BandB]

The moment you talk attorney and court, you're talking adversarial. Every question asked makes it more so. To resolve it quickly is also not to the financial benefit of an attorney.

I believe every one should have a pre-marital agreement and it sould either be a pre-nuptial they agree to or it should be a state default. There should be no terms like equitable, no items to be decided. It would make it clear how assets were to be split and clear if any alimony or support was to be paid. It would not be contestable. If the parties couldn't agree on asset values, then it's turned over to an independent professional. To resolve who gets what and disposal, you use a professional mediator.

Child support would be largely mathematically determined too based on a combination of future income of both parents.

Now, this wouldn't work as well as it appears in writing but sure much better than the current system. Marriage is a legal contract and should follow like all contract law.

Netherlands is finding diminishing marriage and has two other agreements, a registered partnership and a cohabitation agreement.

Oh, and if those in the US think community property laws are tough, they should check them out in Europe where many of them don't just combine earnings and assets gained during the marriage but those brought into the marriage.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

But there are levels of awareness; most men have no idea how they unconsciously disrespect the women in their lives, maybe every day.

Mansplaining, interrupting, manspreading on public transport are some seemingly trivial examples. Unequal wages and underepresentation in politics and top management more serious ones.

Same with racism. And members of the oppressed group often actively complicit, takes huge social efforts, raised levels of awareness all 'round for many decades to make significant progress.

And actively supported by legal measures, with members of the historically privileged group complaining of mistreatment all the while.

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Originally Posted by sailpower

Most men disrespect the women in their lives?

Most men are racists?

Good grief.

Originally Posted by BandB

Wifey B: Some really sick opinions flying by.

Wifey B: Which opinions do you think are sick? You realize that 'sailpower' was commenting on John61's post, right?

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wifey B: Which opinions do you think are sick? You realize that 'sailpower' was commenting on John61's post, right?

Does anyone else here have kids who use the term "sick" to mean really really good?
Older folks might remember "bad" being good.
My favorite is the term "dope".
This forum is dope.
This thread... not so much?

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by BandB

Wifey B: I'm afraid all your post tells me about is you and it doesn't speak well of you. I don't know any men including my hubby who is constantly surrounded by women and does want many of them, as do I, who want all women. He only wants those he truly cares about or loves. Not just anyone. Guess I just spend my time around real men.

Do you really need to be insulting when you disagree with a males point of view.... I'm not sure we could be friends because I just want to hangout with "real women" preferably feminine.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by BandB

The moment you talk attorney and court, you're talking adversarial. Every question asked makes it more so. To resolve it quickly is also not to the financial benefit of an attorney.

It is to an attorney who is busy with lots of other cases! In other words, a good attorney (can be hard to find, I know). I have had a few friends successfully endure a more non-adversarial process, but then there really wasn't that much to fight over. In fact, in most cases the outcome is pretty predictable, which is why a good mediator can sometimes forestall an unnecessarily complex & expensive process. But if your larger point is that our generally adversarial legal system is generally incompatible with the process of divorce, then I would have to agree.

I believe every one should have a pre-marital agreement and it sould either be a pre-nuptial they agree to or it should be a state default. There should be no terms like equitable, no items to be decided. It would make it clear how assets were to be split and clear if any alimony or support was to be paid. It would not be contestable. If the parties couldn't agree on asset values, then it's turned over to an independent professional. To resolve who gets what and disposal, you use a professional mediator.

I agree on the utility of pre-nuptials (and sometimes post-nuptials) from an intellectual standpoint, but (believe it or not) I'm more with 'boatpoker' that it seems incompatible with the idea of a lifelong commitment. Maybe it's just the romantic in me, but it seems like you're setting things up for failure from the outset. I know, I know . . . I probably need to "get real."

Child support would be largely mathematically determined too based on a combination of future income of both parents.

And enforced. Many jurisdictions have gotten better about this.

Now, this wouldn't work as well as it appears in writing but sure much better than the current system. Marriage is a legal contract and should follow like all contract law.

You are right, of course, but it seems all too awkward & weird. A "legal contract" for what? And why is the govt involved? And why do you need them to issue a "license." Now if that license required you to have some actual qualifications it might make more sense . . . .

Netherlands is finding diminishing marriage and has two other agreements, a registered partnership and a cohabitation agreement.

Oh, and if those in the US think community property laws are tough, they should check them out in Europe where many of them don't just combine earnings and assets gained during the marriage but those brought into the marriage.

The US has that too, often when the assets brought in are used to purchase a "marital" asset, for example. They are also often used by one spouse to alleviate an ongoing alimony obligation with a one-time lump-sum payment.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by cyan

The term for the California-feel-good process I went through was "collaborative divorce". Thia was actually a civilized process. However, the whole thing was only possible because the wifey was the big-dollar earner. It was in her be$t interest to cooperate, as the law (technically) sees no gender.
However, my lawyer stated that the law sees no gender but the human judges DO see gender. It was also in MY interest to cooperate. My shark explained to me that even though the LAW is gender-blind, I would NOT be treated equal in court. (the guy loses- it's just tradition)

This was explained very clearly to me as well, both by solicitors and professional councillor.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by KiwiKen

This thread has morphed from a series of posts surmising on the motives sexual and otherwise of men choosing to cruise alone, and the implication that many are sexual predators, and criusing alone for ulterior motives, to a discussion on those despicable alpha males in positions of power who extort sex from junior colleagues as an expression of the power of their position, and by implication, drawing a similar inference on single male sailors.

I put up the argument, that many may not be cruising alone on the hope of sexually coupling up with as many unwary innocent virginal young or not so young ladies, but cruising because that is what they enjoy and what they want to do.

Sex is a highly over rated past time, yes young people obsess over it because our society indoctrinates them to obsess over it, but when one gets older and wiser one realises that it is not the be all and end all of life, because it carries obligations and damnable costs, that frankly on reflection are not worth the transitory passing pleasures.

I have always believed in being respectful and courteous to women, even when they are obviously not ladies, because that was how I was brought up, in a strict Scots Presbyterian home, and in my so called elite and expensive private education, carefully guided by the Kirk.

I have been married for 43 years, we manage to tolerate each other reasonably well, but if either of us could turn the clock back 44 years, we would probably have taken different life parthways.
A RAF Air Commodore I used to sail with, on being introduced to my wife at a colleague's wedding, said, he always wanted to meet the woman I married, because I was the only confirmed bachelor he knew who was married with three children.

Looking at the institution of marriage, the divorce rate equates to 50%, and probably no more than one third of marriages can be claimed to be happy and successful. Really who with their full ration of marbles would rationally want to enter such a high cost risk institution.

Should my wife shuffle off her mortal coil before I do, I will become one of these single male sailors, not to prey on unsuspecting women, no matter how willing they may be to be preyed upon, but because that is how I want to live, while I am still physically able to.

The relevance of all the Alpha males who are sexual predators as an expression of their power, and who treat woman as sexual objects to be exploited, is about as related to sexual relations between men and woman sailors as lawn mowing is to sex, with this difference, if one abstains from mowing the lawns even for a few weeks, it is a far tougher job, that if one does it regularly.

Very real.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by BandB

Wifey B: I'm afraid all your post tells me about is you and it doesn't speak well of you. I don't know any men including my hubby who is constantly surrounded by women and does want many of them, as do I, who want all women. He only wants those he truly cares about or loves. Not just anyone. Guess I just spend my time around real men.

"Doesn't speak well of you?" You're making a moral judgment in response to a post that's arguing that men are biologically wired to have sex with as many women as possible. I'm not sure I agree with the point either, but the poster didn't say he would have sex with all of them, or that he would do so despite being married or in a relationship, or would do so whether these female co-workers were themselves married, etc., etc. You're moralizing someone revealing their thoughts about themselves & other men, not their actions!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by cyan

The term for the California-feel-good process I went through was "collaborative divorce". Thia was actually a civilized process. However, the whole thing was only possible because the wifey was the big-dollar earner. It was in her be$t interest to cooperate, as the law (technically) sees no gender.
However, my lawyer stated that the law sees no gender but the human judges DO see gender. It was also in MY interest to cooperate. My shark explained to me that even though the LAW is gender-blind, I would NOT be treated equal in court. (the guy loses- it's just tradition)

Originally Posted by daletournier

This was explained very clearly to me as well, both by solicitors and professional councillor.

In the absence of extenuating & justifiable circumstances, why isn't this unjustly sexist? And why wouldn't women, who have been on the receiving end of such injustices for so long, find it objectionable and speak out against it? If nothing else, isn't it extremely patronizing? It assumes, after all, that women aren't as capable as men at supporting themselves financially. Isn't that the very defn. of gender discrimination?? Or is this another example of women wanting it both ways? Inquiring minds would like to know . . . .

[cyan]

Originally Posted by BandB

Wifey B: I'm afraid all your post tells me about is you and it doesn't speak well of you. I don't know any men including my hubby who is constantly surrounded by women and does want many of them, as do I, who want all women. He only wants those he truly cares about or loves. Not just anyone. Guess I just spend my time around real men.

Hi Wifey B,
It would be fun to have a debate with you in person. An internet forum tends to give false impressions, as only typed words are interpreted.
I won't argue with you, or even defend myself from a view that "doesn't speak well of you".
That's the thing. You would like me in person. A debate with an intelligent woman is one of my favorite things.

You should indeed continue to defend your noble hubby. I respect that. You, however, are not enlightened regarding the true nature of men, but perhaps our society works better because of this. Know this: if you choose to spend your time around "real men", then you are actually spending your time around "real <fake> men <who would never disclose their true desires>" That's cool.

You just might wish to consider the possibility of your intentional ignorance (not intended to be mean) on a long passage in mixed company. It's quite hip and modern to think that "real men" would only desire the one that is loved. Just keep in mind that you may very well be completely wrong.

[john61ct]

I agree that most **people** would be happy to have a quick bonk with any enthusiastically consenting sober adult they're attracted to in that way, if social programming and health concerns didn't get in the way.

Take the willingness out of the picture and the percentages quickly fall.

I also agree that those few that get their kicks from power trips are pretty rare, outside of the circles where they congregate through self-selection, not horny as much as control freaks.

Healthy natural sex, as fun and sport, should IMO be separated out from romance and commitment, as much as possible.

But in most circles that doesn't fly, and social mores **do** inhibit the well-adjusted.

Yes there's no crime in wishing for a dozen different partners per week, but there are, in practice, few outlets for fulfilling such fantasies while remaining part of mainstream society in our western cultures.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by BandB

Wifey B: I'm afraid all your post tells me about is you and it doesn't speak well of you. I don't know any men including my hubby who is constantly surrounded by women and does want many of them, as do I, who want all women. He only wants those he truly cares about or loves. Not just anyone. Guess I just spend my time around real men.

I've reflected on this a little bit more.

You make the assumption that the men around you don't think about having sex with other women, or women they come in contact with , you know how they feel and think, right? I'm sure they tell you they don't think about such things.

Your a woman that clearly and loudly states her beliefs as if those beliefs are gospel, in fact several times you have been abusive when a man on this thread has offered an alternative view, or at least his view. I'm fairly certain no one believes your shy of aggressively voicing your opinion, are you sure the environment you create allows the men in your life to be completely honest to you?

[Meanderthal]

I'm thinking this thread needs numbers and citations and discussions of references if it is going to get into the murky waters. I find clear views of the various statistics to be educational for men to understand why women take cautious views of mankind in general and traveling alone with a man they just met in particular. It's just risk assessment: our biggest hazard is men, and a range of bad men (******** all the way to predators) often take on the guise of good men to falsely make women feel safe. Taking population risk assessments personally is illogical.

Interesting to note the ratio of male respondents to female.

In response to the OP's ACTUAL post: what did you decide? Setting aside the 'pulling honeys' rhetoric, you seemed genuinely lonely. Although, it may be a mistake to think women won't stay in a construction project. If you are actively working towards a goal, the construction project may spur some ocean dreaming of her own. If you leave the boat just to increase sexual encounters, and the idea is finding a partner, you may find a partner who is not interested in the boat.

[CatNewBee]

I am a man and I am sexually harassed by the society. #MeToo

When I go to the grocery store, there are reserved extra wide parking lots for woman only - as for disabled person. Well I do not consider femininity to be a disease nor a disability that requires a special treat.

If men an women are equal, there should not be a special treat.

Then I feel sexually harassed by the gay marriage / LGBT special gender bathrooms and all this BS. I am a victim of the P.C. society.

There are Women Quota for C-level jobs, where a dumb blonde with big b..bs would get the job because she is a WOMAN instead of a smart qualified man. Don't get me wrong, I am for equal chances and may the better person win the race. This is sporty. But to prefer one gender for "diversity" reason is simply B.S.

BTW. secretary jobs and many other are almost 95% women only jobs. I have never seen a man to sue for being sexually harassed / oppressed nor asking for a man quota for this kind of jobs ever...

This all is sexual harassment and miss-using of power and public shaming to drive the agenda and gaining even more power for some ugly loud feminists.

If you talk about violence and women oppression in Islamic countries, I would agree, but in the western world there is no such thing any more. Women rule countries, big corporations and in 90% of all cases they rule in all households. Who feeds the family has the power. Women always use sex as a weapon towards men - by denying sex or using it as a reward / payment to drive us men in the desired direction. They use camouflage tactics like make-up, push up bras, high heels, short skirts and much more to appear even more sexy and gain more power over men of all kind. They are aware that men want sex and they use this on all levels of verbal and non-verbal communication. They are not the victims they are the perpetrators.

Some time they lose, some time they get misunderstood and some stupid men take what they believe have been offered - and finally get harassed. Some times the man are just criminals.

Well, most of us men are quiet, we do suffer, we play the game with our fellow females, we are charming and accept the advances, we return them, we are adults and do adult things.

Most men want to have sex with every women and are cheaters? Well it takes two to cheat, there is always a woman around too, that also consents to the encounter, but only the man gets blamed.