It seems like, in this day and age, people just can't stay together anymore. Within the course of our lives, we may eventually look back on having 30 or more exes each. Most of us will have failed marriages (and some will have more than one)....IF we get married.

Is it that the wrong people are finding each other?
Is it that people don't know how to make things work out?
Is it the oversexing of our society?
Is it the overdrugging of our society?
Are WE (men) the problem?
Are THEY (women) the problem?

There IS a fundamental problem somewhere...I know it. I wanna know what it is.

:confused:

It isn't the change in society that causes couples to have more problems than many years ago.

It's the change in society that let's people feel free to divorce, free to have kids out of wedlock, etc., than many years ago.






Ignore me, I don't even know what I'm saying. *sigh*

I agree with SHivercide, sorta.

I think now, it is so common for divorce- that now people are just free to do it- and use their rights to do so freely.

I know what you're saying Shivercide, even if you don't. :) Our prosperous society has slowly developed more and more into one that breeds a sense that we can do whatever we want whenever we want. Patience is becoming a lost virtue with all the modern conveniences in life, and I think it affects our relationships. People are less likely to spend time working out their differences. People don't think about the long term repercussions of their actions as much as they should.

Modern Hollywood and the glitz and glam of the media place unrealistic expectations on what a girl has to look like to be attractive... I think it could easily be that people are making relationships and even marriages based more on looks than ever before, and that is no way to make a marriage last. You're going to see someone who looks better in the mall. People get old and wrinkly. If you're not 'blessed' enough to look like a Victoria's Secret model (which are generally too bony for me) then you aren't deemed attractive by society. Guys are being bombarded with sex appeal in everything everywhere. Their standards are raising because they see scantily clad hotties trying to advertise everything from lingerie to power tools to soft drinks. The common woman has a lot to compete with.

I've asked quite a few people I knew who were in troubled relationships why they were attracted to the other person, and unfortunately the majority of the time the only answer they could give me was "I don't know" or "He/she's hot". Well, crap on that. I need to be attracted to someone because they meet a set of personality preferences of mine, and then I'll see if they're good looking. Mental connectivity with someone makes a lasting relationship, not appearance.

Also, in previous times women were kind of 'trained' by society to be dependent on the man to think for them and to stay with him no matter what. To do otherwise would have been socially unacceptable. Today however, things are different. Women are just as free as men and there's no societal obligation for them to stay in their little boundary box their whole lives serving their man. Women who in the past would have not gotten a divorce due to these social pressures are now doing it these days because it's not a problem.

I do think It'd be great if more parents stayed together despite their dislike for each other if there were young children in the household. I think the "I want it my way right now" culture however breeds the selfishness that makes these parents put their kids through a divorce because they don't feel like dealing with their spouse anymore. Only if the parents are just barely incapable of killing each other should there be an exception, in my opinion. Put the kids first. And don't let them see just how bothered you are by being around mommy or daddy any more.

It seems to me that the only real fault to be placed is on our society and culture as it stands today. We're just too used to getting things our way on the bigger decisions in life. As a society we are more whimsical than ever. Unfortunately, I think it's only going to get worse.

It isn't the change in society that causes couples to have more problems than many years ago.

It's the change in society that let's people feel free to divorce, free to have kids out of wedlock, etc., than many years ago.
I agree too. I think the reason that people don't stay together is because they don't work at their relationships, since it's probably easier to just break up with someone. People have always had the same problems in relationships.

I do think It'd be great if more parents stayed together despite their dislike for each other if there were young children in the household. I think the "I want it my way right now" culture however breeds the selfishness that makes these parents put their kids through a divorce because they don't feel like dealing with their spouse anymore. Only if the parents are just barely incapable of killing each other should there be an exception, in my opinion. Put the kids first. And don't let them see just how bothered you are by being around mommy or daddy any more.

Are your parents divorced?

Speaking from experience, staying together just for the sake of having two parents in the house is not a good solution. It's about on the same level as getting married because of pregnancy.

Kids are very perceptive and empathetic, moreso than they get credit for. I work at a veterinary ER and I routinely see kids younger than 2 start bawling milliseconds after the doctor says, sorry, but Fluffy is going to have to be put down. They pick it up from body language and tone of voice even if they don't understand the words, even if Fluffy isn't in the room.

Kids aren't stupid. They can tell when mommy and daddy hate each other. Just because your parents close their bedroom door doesn't mean you don't know they're arguing. Mommy and daddy used to kiss all the time, why don't they now? How come there's no talking at dinnertime now? I knew my parents were on the outs when I noticed that the guest bed was unmade every night, even when we didn't have guests. Little stuff. You can't fake being in love, I'm sorry. Maybe to a justice of the peace who sees you once for 10 minutes, but not to someone who sees you for hours every single day and hangs on your every word and action. And it's one thing if you're talking about toddlers or third-graders, but what if the kids are 14, 15, 16? You can't, nor should you, hide your feelings from them.

You should never have gotten married and had kids in the first place. But you did. So get counseling if you can, but if that doesn't work, just get it over with, separate, and let the kids have more time to learn to live with that. Trust me, by the time my parents separated, I was relieved. It was so much easier than having them together and hearing their teeth grate whenever the other walked into the room. Don't get me wrong, neither one is a healthy situation. And of course every family is different, but I think in general it's better to have two households with no fighting than to have one household where you can cut the tension with a knife.

I believe it's better for the children if two parents who never get along do not remain together.

My parents were together all my life, up until I was 18. I remember so many times when I was little that I prayed my parents would just get a divorce.

Over the years things just got worse and worse. I felt guilty for wanting that at the time, but eventually I learned that it isn't bad to want that, especially when you're one of the children in the middle of the constant chaos.

Yep, sometimes just getting it over with IS 'putting the kids first'.

I believe it's better for the children if two parents who never get along do not remain together.
Me too. Yes, it's no good for a kid to have divorced parents, but it's worse for a kid to have parents constantly fighting. I think Sheep explained it really well. :)

I believe that the reason there are so many divorces, is not due to magazines or movies, but rather the fact that we now have the freedom to have such things as divorce more freely.

As for marriages with children in the picture, I still believe in divorce. There is nothing worst then a home where the parents are constantly at eachothers throats, or even worst where there is abuse involved. I really hate the saying "stay together for the children". There is nothing beneficially to staying together for the children, and it will often lead to more harm for the children involved. I would rather teach my children to be in healthy relationships, then to stay in bad or unsafe relationships.

Divorce is just more prominant now, because people are not so afraid to do so. Nor should they be. Of course I believe you should wait till you are ready to marry someone, but that is not always the case. A lot of marriages are to do with getting pregnant out of wedlock, which is probably one of the biggest mistakes as far as I am concerned. People are more worried about how society deems them, then there own personal happiness.

Are your parents divorced?

Speaking from experience, staying together just for the sake of having two parents in the house is not a good solution. It's about on the same level as getting married because of pregnancy.

I have one specific example with my long-time best friend and roomate about the parents staying together so the kids could have a 2 parent home, and it worked well. The parents paid a lot of loving attention to their kids, and they both decided they just couldn't get along with each other so instead of arguing they just... didn't do anything. They were completely peaceful and amicable towards each other in front of the kids, even if that's not how they felt. The other times they just ignored each other instead of finding something to fight about. I'm friends with all 3 of the kids and they all agree that staying together how they did was the best thing. The father died recently, so it's not really an issue anymore, but at that time the youngest child was about 14 and the oldest about 21. However, I know it's not like this with everyone.

But yes, if the tension is really bad then I do agree with a split, but what I was really saying is that I thought people needed to put several more times the effort into getting along than they seem to now on average. I agree that getting it over with is putting the kids first sometimes. Just depends on every situation. Just kind of an opinion based on my experience... not saying it has to be the right answer. If you disagree, that's fine. :)

Do you not think that one of the reasons people aren't staying together as much is because people are more independent now than they've ever been and aren't always willing to settle for what they consider second best?

Also, the sixties changed an awful lot of veiws on relationships. After The Summer Of Love, when everybody was humping like bunnies, casual relationships were acceptable. Beforehand, you just wouldn't get single mothers... Either you'd be forced to marry or - and I particularly like this one - the pregnant girl would be sent to a "Home for Wayward Girls" where she would be kept until she had given birth. Then the sprog would be taken and put up for adoption.

Seriously, pregnancy outside marriage was a serious taboo until the mid sixties.

So the last couple of generations have pretty much been in it for themselves. Everybody knows somebody with divorced parents... but divorced Grandparents? Much rarer.

Something to think about.

Seriously, pregnancy outside marriage was a serious taboo until the mid sixties.

And it should be now too.

So the last couple of generations have pretty much been in it for themselves. Everybody knows somebody with divorced parents... but divorced Grandparents? Much rarer. Yeah, my grandparents are not together. They are however still married, because even though my grandfather has a child with another women (the same age as my mother), and has been living with his once mistress for over 20 years now, they do not believe in divorce. It's sick actually.

Yeah, my grandparents are not together. They are however still married, because even though my grandfather has a child with another women (the same age as my mother), and has been living with his once mistress for over 20 years now, they do not believe in divorce. It's sick actually.That sucks to high heavens, babe... even though it does reinforce my point. Them old folks got some pretty screwed up ways of thinking... *huggles Angie*
And it should be now too.
Don't make me hurt you, bitch.

The marriage rate has fallen nearly 30% since 1970 and the divorce rate has increased about 40%.
Ahlburg and DeVita, "New Realities," 4-12. Cited on page 5 of The Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher
-source- (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html) I'm an anomaly in this whole thing. I've been "together" with my significant other for 4,909 days, and we've been married for 2,680 days. I take my marriage vows seriously, and have no intention of changing. I don't know how I ended up in the relationship that I did, but I operate on the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" plan.

The perception of the commitment involved in "getting married" seems to have diminished in recent times. It's so easy to get married and get unmarried (e.g., Britney Spears (http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/0713spears.html)) that people have less reservations about the front end than they really should. Especially in celebrity circles, it seems that "getting married" today is the equivalent of "going steady" from decades ago. Prenuptial agreements and drive-thru divorces make this possible. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad. I'm just making an observation on how things have changed.

Given that the probability of divorce is highest in the early years of marriage[1], regular people who do get married should wait to have children until they feel reasonably comfortable that they have what it takes to make the relationship work for the long term. Celebrities probably shouldn't have children at all. But that's another topic. ;)

Notes:
[1] "Marriages are most susceptible to divorce in the early years of marriage. After 5 years, approximately10 % of marriages are expected to end in divorce - another 10 % (or 20 % cumulatively) are divorced by about the tenth year after marriage. However, the 30% level is not reached until about the 18th year after marriage while the 40% level is only approached by the 50th year after marriage."
Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, "Number, Timing, and Duration of
Marriages and Divorces: 1996", U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, February 2002, p. 18.
-source- (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html)

People aren't staying together these days because people are lazy and stupid (see below). While some marriages (ones in which abuse or adultery occurs) rightfully end in divorce, I believe the vast majority of divorces are filed due to "irreconcilable differences," like not being able to stand your husband's penchant for beef jerky.

PEOPLE ARE LAZY
Because people are lazy, they fail to get to know the person they are marrying before they do it. Then, when there are tiny things they don't like about their spouse, instead of seeking counseling or just plain trying to work it out, they just get a divorce. Because it's the lazy person's way out. Just that simple.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID
Because people are stupid, they may know things about their future spouse that they do not like and think they can change those things. Then, when they (finally) figure out their spouse won't change, they just, um, get a divorce.

Of course relationships aren't what they used to be! Life and society are not what they used to be. Abortion, unwed motherhood, and the culture of divorce are running rampant, ungluing the concept of marriage and relationship as we know it. The world is becoming more free with its concept of a relationship, so relationships become simultaneously less meaningful and less permanent. However, if you and your partner are serious about valuing your relationship and taking it seriously, you can make it work, as long as you don't bend to the pressures of society. My husband and I have worked very hard to value our relationship, and we are very happily married.

<3 Mary

Our 11th anniversary is Dec. 11th. We have been together for almost 12 years. It has not always been easy but we work at it. We have been seperated a few times only to find our way back to one another with a renewed committment. We've had alot of shit happen since we've gotten married. I often say he and I have faced more adversity in 10 years of marriage than many couples do in 50.

Everyday is a work in progress. It is far from perfect but it is not supposed to be . We love each other flaws and all. That's what counts the most.

Children are tough on a marriage. We are not just a couple we are a family. It is very easy to forget that if it wasn't for our coupling, so to speak, these kids would not even be here. Don't get me wrong, I love my daughters with every fiber of my being. The fact remains once they arrived it changed alot about he and I.

I was not as interested as sex as I once had been and he did not help as much as I felt he should. Then the next one came along, a mere 17 months after the first. He completely took over with our first daughter because I was so busy with new baby. That created issues because I felt like he had taken our oldest away from me. By the time the third one was born about 3 1/2 years later we were both old pros. Still we took so little time out for us somewhere along the way we started to forget that we were Husband and Wife as well as Mom and Daddy.

On top of all the stresses of daily living, no alone time aside from sex which started to become more of a wifely duty than a passionate retreat and horrific secrets from the past resurfacing ,our marriage was in deep trouble. We almost did not make it. There are still days when I think omg, if we make it another year I'll be amazed. He is going thru this "18 again" phase right now which is very trying. As I said you take it day by day and do the best you can.

My advice to people who are getting married is to wait on the children for at least 2 years if at all possible. Enjoy your couple time while you can. All you get are a few stolen moments here and there once the children arrive.

And now for something completely different:

I've noticed that people are getting married at a much younger age than people of a generation or two ago. This leads to two problems:

1. We young people(and I use the term fairly loosely) are hormonally imbalanced(ie, we take whatever looks/feels best) and generally shortsighted when it comes to relationships. In places like India(where parents and children actually respect each other) your parents help you choose a mate; that solves the hormonally imbalanced issue. Also, people, such as your parents, have a better sense of what makes a relationship last and hence, they have a better idea of who you can get along with for an extended period of time. Do i think that our parents should help us choose mates? No, because in our society people are far too independent-minded to take what their parents say seriously.

2. Young people are also often less economically sound than people who are in the midst of their careers. Adding stress to a relationship because bills aren't being paid on top of having to raise a family only exacerbates the problem.

thats my .02

Relationships and life wont go back to being what they were. When people taste freedom they don't want to go back to being in a cage.

I agree with sheep, sometimes separations are putting the kids first. I know if my parents were together I would probably not be in college right now.

I'm glad that my boyfriend and I have been friends so long that we just talk through things. We still argue and fuss over some things, but in the end it only makes you stronger. Lots of people now a days maybe are scared of being alone? So they marry the first one that comes along..

Stress and other things build up in relationships, i guess the love just has to be strong enough to handle it.

And now for something completely different:

I've noticed that people are getting married at a much younger age than people of a generation or two ago.
Are they really? I thought the marriage age trend was upward, not downward.

The average age to get married in 1998 was 27 for men and 25 for women. This is only a slight change from 1900 when the average age to get married for men was 26 and the average age for women was 22.
In reality, people are living together more and longer before getting married. Some people believe that these people care less about marriage and take it less seriously than the generations before them. It is a statistical fact that couples who cohabit before marriage get divorced more often than couples who don't, so it stands to reason that as the rate of premarital cohabitation rises, so will the rate or divorce. I'm not saying one causes the other, but they are highly correlated, probably influenced by the third factor of religion. Religious people often take the marriage contract as a covenant, as something almost supernatural. They take it very seriously, so it takes more to dissolve it than for your average person. As religion declines in our society, divorce rates may also rise for that reason, some say.

<3 Mary

It is a statistical fact that couples who cohabit before marriage get divorced more often than couples who don't, so it stands to reason that as the rate of premarital cohabitation rises, so will the rate or divorce. You're right about that, but it should also be noted that most people who do wait to cohabit or have sex before marriage, are also in arranged marriages, which prohibit such things as divorce.

You're right about that, but it should also be noted that most people who do wait to cohabit or have sex before marriage, are also in arranged marriages, which prohibit such things as divorce.
Very good point, there...

It may not just be in arranged marriages, but also people who are very religious. If they don't believe in living with another/sex before marriage, then they most likely don't believe in divorce.

It is a statistical fact that couples who cohabit before marriage get divorced more often than couples who don't, so it stands to reason that as the rate of premarital cohabitation rises, so will the rate or divorce. I'm not saying one causes the other, but they are highly correlated, probably influenced by the third factor of religion. Religious people often take the marriage contract as a covenant, as something almost supernatural. They take it very seriously, so it takes more to dissolve it than for your average person. As religion declines in our society, divorce rates may also rise for that reason, some say.

18% vs. 24% is not "strongly correlated," though the significance of that correlation may be quite strong, and there are a long list of possible confounding factors. Further, while there is a significant (significant != strongly) correlation between cohabitation and divorce in first marriages, no such relationship exists in marriages after the first one.

Source: National Survey of Family Growth, Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, 2002

People aren't staying together these days because people are lazy and stupid (see below). While some marriages (ones in which abuse or adultery occurs) rightfully end in divorce, I believe the vast majority of divorces are filed due to "irreconcilable differences," like not being able to stand your husband's penchant for beef jerky.People shouldn't be required to stay together because they are rushing into marriage for stupid reasons like wanting to be sexual active. Mormons have a very highest divorce rate with among a young group of people, all due to the fact that they have a million hormone enraged young adults that are put under scrutiny to wait till marriage, that they end up marrying whomever comes along. This is just one of the reasons divorce is more prominent.

Second being that divorce is now more accepted. You don't have to stay with someone who irritates the hell out of you, just because. I kind of like the fact that if two adults realize that they made a huge mistake by marrying eachother, they have the freedom to get a divorce and find their happiness. Divorce is not a good thing, but considering the alternatives it really isn't such a bad thing either.

PEOPLE ARE LAZY
Because people are lazy, they fail to get to know the person they are marrying before they do it. Then, when there are tiny things they don't like about their spouse, instead of seeking counseling or just plain trying to work it out, they just get a divorce. Because it's the lazy person's way out. Just that simple.Do you know what is involved in a divorce? If you did, you would realize that getting a divorce is anything but lazy. Or cheap.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID
Because people are stupid, they may know things about their future spouse that they do not like and think they can change those things. Then, when they (finally) figure out their spouse won't change, they just, um, get a divorce.You don't say? You mean when they finally realize they will be miserable for the rest of their life because you can't change another person, they go out and get a divorce? Why that really is an abomination now isn't it?.. ;)

Of course relationships aren't what they used to be! Life and society are not what they used to be. Abortion, unwed motherhood, and the culture of divorce are running rampant, ungluing the concept of marriage and relationship as we know it. The world is becoming more free with its concept of a relationship, so relationships become simultaneously less meaningful and less permanent. Funny, you seem to put strong emphasis on meaningful relationships, yet are also saying that if you're not fortunate enough to have married into one, you are still forever bound to such a relationship?

Marriage should and does have meaning to me, which is why I believe that divorce can sometimes be necessary. We are human SangReal, and we do make mistakes.

P.S: I'm not trying to pick on you babe, you're just fun to argue with. <33

Frankly, Sangreal, I'm suprised by that statistic. Generally speaking, people that I know are getting married as young as 18. Granted, those relationships don't usually last, but stilll, they're getting married.

Also:
You're right about that, but it should also be noted that most people who do wait to cohabit or have sex before marriage, are also in arranged marriages, which prohibit such things as divorce.
As for arranged marriages, divorce is still very possible. My indian friends tell me that marriages aren't so much "arranged" as "offered." Dating doesn't exist. The two people meet on a friday, see if they are compatible over the next couple days, then get married by monday. (That practice may be particular to the part of Indian that these guys are from but hey, its short notice;)) Parents "suggest" people of the opposite sex. Whether or not the two parties get married is up to the individuals.

Countries with arranged marriages generally have a lower divorce rate than those that don't. Part of it is culture/religion, and part of it has to do with my aforementioned reasons.

You're right about that, but it should also be noted that most people who do wait to cohabit or have sex before marriage, are also in arranged marriages, which prohibit such things as divorce.
I wasn't. My best friend wasn't. My grandmother wasn't. My sister wasn't. But, ya know, that's only anecdotal evidence. I would like to see documented proof of what you claim.

Do you know what is involved in a divorce? If you did, you would realize that getting a divorce is anything but lazy. Or cheap.
I disagree. The truth is, in America at least, $300 and a couple days in court gets you a divorce, provided no children are involved.

You don't say? You mean when they finally realize they will be miserable for the rest of their life because you can't change another person, they go out and get a divorce? Why that really is an abomination now isn't it?..
No. But it is stupid.

People shouldn't be required to stay together because they are rushing into marriage for stupid reasons like wanting to be sexual active. Mormons have a very highest divorce rate with among a young group of people, all due to the fact that they have a million hormone enraged young adults that are put under scrutiny to wait till marriage, that they end up marrying whomever comes along. This is just one of the reasons divorce is more prominent.
Is it? In my experience, the pressure to "wait" is waning in our society, while divorce is skyrocketing. I mean, what was the divorce rate 50 years ago, when almost everyone waited for marriage? Like 2% or something?

What is the Mormon divorce rate? I'd be very interested to see an actual rate rather than just saying it is "very highest." I don't think these people marry just "whomever comes along." The truth of the matter is, these people are very serious about who they marry, and they generally stay together for a long time (again, the evidence is anecdotal). This is because they spiritualize marriage and sex as a representation of their relationship with God.

Funny, you seem to put strong emphasis on meaningful relationships, yet are also saying that if you're not fortunate enough to have married into one, you are still forever bound to such a relationship?

Marriage should and does have meaning to me, which is why I believe that divorce can sometimes be necessary. We are human SangReal, and we do make mistakes.
When you get married, you take a vow to stay married "until death do us part," not "until I decide I don't like his choice of foods" or "until the way he picks his teeth after dinner starts to drive me crazy." People need to realize that marriage is not something they should take lightly. Rather, it is a vow that should not be broken except under very rare circumstances (ie, spousal abuse or adultery). You should get to know the person you are going to marry before you do so. If you did, you might figure out you wouldn't be happy with that person BEFORE you walked down that aisle, and you wouldn't need a divorce because you never got married. Sure we all make mistakes, and if the mistake is a serious one (ie, he beats the hell out of me rather than he likes beef jerky and it smells bad), divorce is warranted. However, the question was why marriage just isn't what it used to be, and the answer is that divorce is the easy way out of being lazy, stupid, or plain intolerant.

<3 Mary

Angie: I know you're not picking on me. You're smart and fun to debate with. I'd almost take the opposite side of what I believe just to see how you'd argue against me. <33333

You people are scaring me... Makes me think my marriage is going to end up in a DIVORCE...
Sex before marriage... Check
Living together before marriage... check
Married real young... Check...

I disagree. The truth is, in America at least, $300 and a couple days in court gets you a divorce, provided no children are involved. $300 is quite a bit of money, especially for housewives.

And you're wrong about the "couple days" thing. It may be that quick and "painless" for some, but when my parents were getting divorced, it took foreeeever before they even got to the child custody arrangements (of my brother).

Sure, it may have been because my father was being a difficult ass, but still, it took months and months, not two days. And it was very emotionally exhausting for all of us, but worth it - I'd call it anything but "lazy". Just the opposite, in fact.

$300 is quite a bit of money, especially for housewives.
Oh, because I'm sure that both parties wouldn't have to contribute to the cost of a divorce. Besides, the housewife is a dying breed.

And you're wrong about the "couple days" thing. It may be that quick and "painless" for some, but when my parents were getting divorced, it took foreeeever before they even got to the child custody arrangements (of my brother).

Sure, it may have been because my father was being a difficult ass, but still, it took months and months, not two days. And it was very emotionally exhausting for all of us, but worth it - I'd call it anything but "lazy". Just the opposite, in fact.
What I meant was, people are too lazy to get to know the person they are marrying before they marry them. This lack of effort on their part leads to dissatisfaction in the marriage, which they are too lazy to try to work out without resorting to divorce. Past laziness often leads to future problems.

I wasn't implying that a divorce took place over the span of two days. Rather, the time spent in court is only about two days. I also explicitly stated that this was only true if children were not involved.

<3 Mary

Oh, because I'm sure that both parties wouldn't have to contribute to the cost of a divorce. Besides, the housewife is a dying breed.
Not if the other party is fighting against the divorce. Or has no money to contribute.

Whether housewives are uncommon or not is irrelevant, because that does not disclose the fact that they still do, in fact, exist. And I was just using that as an example, because my mother was a housewife. But there are so many other factors as to why someone may have a hard time affording a divorce.

I wasn't implying that a divorce took place over the span of two days. Rather, the time spent in court is only about two days.
I know exactly what you were implying. I was not implying that you meant in the span of two days. I was talking about court time, as well.

I also explicitly stated that this was only true if children were not involved.
Yes, and that's why I explicity stated this:

when my parents were getting divorced, it took foreeeever before they even got to the child custody arrangements (of my brother).

I disagree. The truth is, in America at least, $300 and a couple days in court gets you a divorce, provided no children are involved.
The average divorce, given there are no complications, is not very expensive. However, if you do happen to have thing such as assets that were not divided up before divorce, children, or are trying to go for alimony (grr), then you will most likely be facing some court time. This is where it not only can get very expensive, but can be a very dragged out conflict. I know a man at my work whose wife left him for no reason whatsoever, and then tried to rape him of every pen he had. She wanted almost $700 in alimony every month, and this is on top of child support (which he had 50% custody) for. Yes he faught this, but it wasn't cheap and it wasn't painless. Especially for the children involved.

Is it? In my experience, the pressure to "wait" is waning in our society, while divorce is skyrocketing. I mean, what was the divorce rate 50 years ago, when almost everyone waited for marriage? Like 2% or something? I should probably note that people are actually getting married at older ages not the other way around. Here are some statistics (http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/98/04/divorcerate.pdf) for you.

http://www.csuchico.edu/~twaters/syllabi/Soci1_SPR97/family.html
Marriage. Rates of marriage formation and dissolution have gone up and down. Marriage dissolution--divorce and death. Age at first marriage has also changed. As low as 20 for women in 1950, now on average 24. Men from 22 to 26 for same dates. Currently at about same age as in 1890. Age gap between males and females at marriage is decreasing. 100 years ago, about 4 years on average. Currently about 2 years.

In 1960, 28 percent of American women aged 20-24 years old unmarried

In 1970, 36%

In 1990, 63%

Cohabitation has in the last 20-30 years emerged as a marriage-like (or single-like?) arrangement which sociologists are still evaluating.


Migration--People in their 20s are the most mobile. This mobility has also increased as marriage is delayed (i.e. correlates with going to college). This pattern is true across cultures, although some cultures are more mobile than others (Nam, pp. 228) I would not base an argument on this lecture alone, but it does bring a few very importants point to the table.

What is the Mormon divorce rate? I'd be very interested to see an actual rate rather than just saying it is "very highest." I don't think these people marry just "whomever comes along." The truth of the matter is, these people are very serious about who they marry, and they generally stay together for a long time (again, the evidence is anecdotal). This is because they spiritualize marriage and sex as a representation of their relationship with God. It is about the same as other religions actually. While temple divorces are substantially low, civil divorce is much higher, but harder to track. When I gave my own notes about young mormons having a significantly high divorce rate, I was mostly referring to a specific mormon temple where I happen to know a lot of people that attend (ex boyfriend, and good friend are boy mormon), where there is a very high rate of your girls between the ages of 18-22 years, whom are usually both divorced and with children. Yes their culture does value marriage very high, along with god. They also value any sexual relations very high as well, and so what do you expect every young adult to go out and do? That's right, get married very young.

then you get married, you take a vow to stay married "until death do us part," not "until I decide I don't like his choice of foods" or "until the way he picks his teeth after dinner starts to drive me crazy." People need to realize that marriage is not something they should take lightly. Rather, it is a vow that should not be broken except under very rare circumstances (ie, spousal abuse or adultery). You should get to know the person you are going to marry before you do so. If you did, you might figure out you wouldn't be happy with that person BEFORE you walked down that aisle, and you wouldn't need a divorce because you never got married. Sure we all make mistakes, and if the mistake is a serious one (ie, he beats the hell out of me rather than he likes beef jerky and it smells bad), divorce is warranted. However, the question was why marriage just isn't what it used to be, and the answer is that divorce is the easy way out of being lazy, stupid, or plain intolerant.


SangReal I believe you are taking a lot of what I have said, directly out of context. Nobody is arguing whether the fact that the divorce rate has increased, is a good thing or not. I don't believe that divorce should be taken lightly, either. However, I am to see that a lot of our booming divorce rate has less to do with "stupid reasons" and more to do with the availability of it.

Whatever the reason is not my concern right now, as everyone will have their own reasons. It may not seem right to you, but like I've said before nobody is perfect, a lot of people do wait to get married, and still end in divorce. Infact, why don't you show me evidence that waiting for marriage depletes the divorce rate? Sure it probably lowers the marriage rate too, but taken both into consideration I would doubt it would have that much of a different.

From what I have researched, the No-fault (http://patriot.net/~crouch/adr/nakonezny.html) law in effect in all 50 of your states, seems to be a very likely cause. Which by the way, goes hand in hand with exactly what I am saying.

I believe that the institute of marriage has not changed that much, rather how acceptable things like seperation and divorce are more widely recognized, therefore it is practiced more.

Oh and SangReal, I feel the same way about debating with you.. ;) <333 ya.

I should probably note that people are actually getting married at older ages not the other way around. Here are some statistics (http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/98/04/divorcerate.pdf) for you.
Um, I never argued that people are getting married younger. In fact, I posted a statistic earlier to the contrary. You must have me confused with someone else.

It is about the same as other religions actually. While temple divorces are substantially low, civil divorce is much higher, but harder to track. When I gave my own notes about young mormons having a significantly high divorce rate, I was mostly referring to a specific mormon temple where I happen to know a lot of people that attend (ex boyfriend, and good friend are boy mormon), where there is a very high rate of your girls between the ages of 18-22 years, whom are usually both divorced and with children. Yes their culture does value marriage very high, along with god. They also value any sexual relations very high as well, and so what do you expect every young adult to go out and do? That's right, get married very young.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. From what I understand about the Mormon religion, you have to spend two years after high school or college graduation doing "missionary service," whether at home or abroad. Only after such service can you get married, which puts your earliest marriage age at either 20 or 24, so maybe these are late converts to the LDS Church. Btw I'm not a Mormon, so maybe a Mormon could give a clarification/correction?


Whatever the reason is not my concern right now, as everyone will have their own reasons. It may not seem right to you, but like I've said before nobody is perfect, a lot of people do wait to get married, and still end in divorce. Infact, why don't you show me evidence that waiting for marriage depletes the divorce rate? Sure it probably lowers the marriage rate too, but taken both into consideration I would doubt it would have that much of a different.
I know the statistic is out there, and I will find it. edit: actually I didn't find that statistic, but I did find one that indicates that people who cohabit before marriage are more likely to get a divorce than those who don't. I know it's not the same thing, but we can assume that those who cohabit are far more likely to be sexually active than those who don't, can't we?

Cohabitors were 33% more likely to get divorced than those who did not cohabit. (http://www.home.duq.edu/~harden/iipc/cohabit.html)
Also see here (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf).

However, as the lecture goes on to explain, it is the ATTITUDE of the cohabitors that predicts the demise of their marriage, not their actual status as cohabitors. Which gets around to what we have both been trying to say, each in our own way: marriage has changed due to our attitudinal changes. I say people take marriage less seriously, you say people find divorce more available as an option. Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. Apparently it's a combination of the two.

<3 Mary

P.S. See here (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm) for common myths about divorce and here (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubmyths%20of%20marriage.htm) for myths about marriage.

I'm not so sure about that, actually. From what I understand about the Mormon religion, you have to spend two years after high school or college graduation doing "missionary service," whether at home or abroad. Only after such service can you get married, which puts your earliest marriage age at either 20 or 24, so maybe these are late converts to the LDS Church. Btw I'm not a Mormon, so maybe a Mormon could give a clarification/correction?

I was raised a Mormon (and by Mormon, I mean LDS), and while I no longer practice that religion, I have a pretty good background. Both my parents and my older brother are all active. Anyway... no one HAS to go on a mission, but it is encouraged for the young men. My brother went. A man has to be 19 and a woman has to be 21 before they can go on a mission, if they so choose. Anyone can get married at any time (assuming they are of legal age), whether they've gone on a mission or not, but to have a TEMPLE marriage, there are a few steps that must be taken first.

First, you have to be found worthy to enter the temple. This is done by a couple of interviews with members of the clergy (the bishop and stake president). Then, you have to take out your endowments (a ritual performed in the temple), which also must be done before a person can go on a mission. Then, there is the sealing, which is the actual marriage. The emphasis on the sealing, as compared to a normal marriage, is that you are married for "time and all eternity", not just "til death do us part". For that reason, temple marriages do tend to last longer than others.

And yes, many Mormon girls get married very young. I did. I was married at 18... and divorced at 23. With a kid. HOWEVER... the statistics for how many temple marriages are still together may be skewed. While my ex and I got a divorce, we did not get a TEMPLE divorce. I believe (and I was inactive at the time of the divorce, so I never found out for sure) that those have to be done by the presidency of the church, and they don't like to give them until one of the members of the couple is ready to remarry, as the temple divorce strips you of certain "blessings" given during the sealing.

From what I'd seen, though, most such marriages do tend to last, or at least more than do in "normal" society. A great focus is put on the family, and while divorce is allowed, they offer a lot of counseling for couples considering it.

Thank you, sariala, for the clarification. I stand corrected.

Oh, and I found the study I was looking for about premarital sex and divorce, not that it really matters. If you aren't in college, you probably don't have the JSTOR database, but I'll cite it anyway since you might wanna go check it out at your local library to make sure I'm not lying, haha.

Among white women first married between 1965 and 1985, virgin brides were less likely to dissolve their marriages through divorce or separation than women who had not been virgins at marriage (25% to 35%
Though it goes on to say...

...it is prior attitudes, and not sexual activity per se, that influences the risk of divorce.
Still, they are highly correlated. Does it have something to do with the personality of people who make the choice to have premarital sex and the people who choose not to? Hmm...

Source: Kahn, Joan R. and Kathryn A. London. "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce." Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 4. (Nov., 1991), pp. 845-855.

However, this is not really a debate about premarital sex...though it's not totally off topic.

<3 Mary

Um, I never argued that people are getting married younger. In fact, I posted a statistic earlier to the contrary. You must have me confused with someone else.

I think she may have been going by this, as I was:

Is it? In my experience, the pressure to "wait" is waning in our society, while divorce is skyrocketing. I mean, what was the divorce rate 50 years ago, when almost everyone waited for marriage? Like 2% or something?

As far as relationships/attitudes "not being what they used to", I don't have much to add that the lovely miss Angie hasn't already covered...

I'm just surprised about the divorce after cohabitation statistics.

Maybe my boyfriend and I are weird, but we're kinda of the opinion that if you're already living with someone, you get to know them inside and out; you see all of their habits--good and bad, what the kitchen looks like after they've had friends over, where the toilet seat usually ends up, which way they like to face the paper towel rolls when you change them...you should know whether or not you are compatible with this person. So why in the world would you get married to them if you don't mean it? *is confused*

Does anyone have a study where they are given reasons for a "post-cohabitation marriage" divorce? I'd be interested to know...it's not like they can say, "the sex was bad" or "such-and-such habit drove me crazy..."

I was wondering too. My guess is that we are seeing some spurious covariation that is the result of a set of confounding variables working in the background that just accidentally correlate in a strange way.

That whether the couple cohabitates doesn't seem to affect second marriages seems to reinforce the point that this may be confounded by something like age. We just don't have much of a real multivariate analysis (e.g., a Multifactorial ANOVA) to determine what those potential confounders might be.

Um, I never argued that people are getting married younger. In fact, I posted a statistic earlier to the contrary. You must have me confused with someone else. I think I quoted the wrong words, but it was you I meant this for. You have made references throughout your debate on how people are rushing into marriage right now, which is in part, to blame for the depletion of the act of marriage. I was simply offering you reference to the contrary. Whether or not you laid specific reference to such yourself, you're still using it in your argument.

I'm not so sure about that, actually. From what I understand about the Mormon religion, you have to spend two years after high school or college graduation doing "missionary service," whether at home or abroad. Only after such service can you get married, which puts your earliest marriage age at either 20 or 24, so maybe these are late converts to the LDS Church. Btw I'm not a Mormon, so maybe a Mormon could give a clarification/correction? Sariala answered you better then I could have ever. <;) (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm)>

Does anyone have a study where they are given reasons for a "post-cohabitation marriage" divorce? I'd be interested to know...it's not like they can say, "the sex was bad" or "such-and-such habit drove me crazy..."I too would be interested in seeing another statistic that would be so kind as to show such referrences like ethnical and religious backgrounds of those studied, as the study seems to make several references to religion, yet fails to list any..

Or you could be like me and reduce your life to one simple equation that eradicates all interaction with potential mates of the opposite sex.

Wake up -> eat -> go to work ->work your ass off all night ->come home/eat ->sleep ->repeat

This eliminates the necessity of finding love, marriage, reproducing, divorce, etc.. It's convenient because you can skip the marriage aspect of a relationship and head straight to the post-divorce neurosis. Whats up with that 'tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all' crap? Seriously, just bypass that shit and head straight to the subtle numb feeling of lost love just below the surface of your brain and relax in it. Its not half bad.






/sarcasm? :D

Speaking from experience, staying together just for the sake of having two parents in the house is not a good solution. It's about on the same level as getting married because of pregnancy.

I just want to say that getting married because of pregnancy isn't a bad thing as long as it's well thought out AND that it's not the only reason a couple is getting married. If two people love each other and a kid happens to be in the near future, what's so wrong about marrying if they both feel that they are ready to take that step?

I just want to say that getting married because of pregnancy isn't a bad thing as long as it's well thought out AND that it's not the only reason a couple is getting married. If two people love each other and a kid happens to be in the near future, what's so wrong about marrying if they both feel that they are ready to take that step?
He said just for the sake of...as in, the only reason.

Of course, I'm not one to speak for him, but that's how I took it.

I just want to say that getting married because of pregnancy isn't a bad thing as long as it's well thought out AND that it's not the only reason a couple is getting married. If two people love each other and a kid happens to be in the near future, what's so wrong about marrying if they both feel that they are ready to take that step?

But I meant when it IS the only reason they get married. You know this isn't exactly a rare phenomenon. I mean, maybe they really like each other but they aren't ready to get married. Then the chick gets pregnant and all of a sudden they feel they have to go through with it whether they are ready or not.

My parents' anniversary is 5 months before my birthday. So do the math...

To clarify: do I think people are getting married too young? No. I think that people are getting married too early in their relationships. People put off marriage in favor of college, work, or independence these days, so they are older when they get married. However, as they get older they start to realize: hey, I'm kinda getting old and I want to get married, have a family, whatever. So their biological clocks start ticking (and I mean ticking LOUD), so they meet somebody they kinda like and get to know them a little, then marry them, without knowing them enough first. This has nothing to do with their age, really. This scenario could happen to a 40 year old or a 28 year old or whatever.

Do I think couples should ever get married ONLY BECAUSE the parents got pregnant? Absolutely not! I also think this is contributing to the widespread divorce "epidemic."

As for cohabitation and divorce: the reasons given in the Giddens study/Hall lecture are that cohabitors tend to have an attitude of "pure relationship," which is defined as a relationship that is both (a) organized and sustained primarily from within the relationship itself. The relationship exists for its own sake, not for any other purpose such as a shared project or common goals, and (b) not anchored in or supported by external social criteria such as norms, traditions, or formal institutions such as marriage.

A pure relationship is voluntarily constituted and maintained by the partners on the basis of the relationship’s value as a site for the individual’s self-actualization.

A major implication of this feature of pure relationships is that childbearing is not a necessary part of the pure relationship. Childbearing could be a potential threat to the pure relationship unless it is seen to contribute to the self-actualization of both adult partners.

Another implication is that the durability of pure relationship is dubious - they can’t be taken for granted. Pure relationships can be terminated, more or less at will, by either partner at any time.

Couples who cohabit prior to marriage are signalling an inclination on the part of one or both partners to form a "pure relationship." Hence, the association between premarital cohabitation and divorce should be explained by attitudes that measure Giddens’s inherently unstable pure relationship.

It’s the attitude that makes the difference, not what happens during cohabitation.Source (http://www.home.duq.edu/~harden/iipc/cohabit.html)

I was wondering too. My guess is that we are seeing some spurious covariation that is the result of a set of confounding variables working in the background that just accidentally correlate in a strange way.

That whether the couple cohabitates doesn't seem to affect second marriages seems to reinforce the point that this may be confounded by something like age. We just don't have much of a real multivariate analysis (e.g., a Multifactorial ANOVA) to determine what those potential confounders might be.
You would be absolutely right, IF this were an isolated result. However, it is not. Unfortunately, this result has been obtained in many studies. It is important to note that cohabitation and premarital sex do not seem to affect marital stability IF the person has "serially cohabited" - that is, cohabited with people who were not their future spouse (Rutgers study, pg. 7 (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf)). I don't remember the effect ever being confined to first marriages; however, second marriages might all be subject to the "serial cohabitation effect," since all second-timers have cohabited (albeit maritally) previously.

As for cohabitation and divorce: the reasons given in the Giddens study/Hall lecture are that cohabitors tend to have an attitude of "pure relationship," which is defined as a relationship that is both (a) organized and sustained primarily from within the relationship itself. The relationship exists for its own sake, not for any other purpose such as a shared project or common goals, and (b) not anchored in or supported by external social criteria such as norms, traditions, or formal institutions such as marriage.

Source (http://www.home.duq.edu/~harden/iipc/cohabit.html)



My guess is that this theory was formed after an analysis of the data using a single researcher's theory on the matter, but without regard for whether such was actually occurring or attempting to establish a minimal latent graph which would demonstrate a causal link from the raw data of the analysis.

It seems that what the quote that you cited is trying to establish is a causal network giving a common cause on the basis of a theory about the nature of how relationships work, without giving an accord to whether such is actually what is happening in the relationship proper. It seems that the simplest explanation is that the differences in the variances can be explained through confounding variables.

While it is possible that a common cause is possible between the two, such would need to be evaluated independently and while it makes a fair hypothesis, it is not something that I would advocate until checking out the possibility of a known and measured variable confounding with the results.

If there is a multivariate analysis in the field that you are aware of (true multivariate, not "we measured a bunch of variables and then did two variable regression analysis on each"), I would be interested in seeing it.

One other small point...

Relationship != Marriage.

I'm not married. Of all the couples the The Other Half and I know, only one other is married. The rest of us just sorta... get on with it.

I don't see the point in getting a certificate of state/religious approval of my union - It's nobody's business but mine. And The Other Half and I have been together for 12 years now.

We won't be featuring in anybody's studies anytime soon, and there are LOTS of people in my situation.

So, is it worth focussing on the scientific analysis? I'm not saying it's worthless, but it can't be the full picture.

So, is it worth focussing on the scientific analysis? I'm not saying it's worthless, but it can't be the full picture.
Thats true. In relationships there are so many important factors involved in two people melding their lives together that scientific analysis, while useful, doesn't quite get the whole picture. Hundreds, if not thousands of little things that are part of the way that people function can be a point of disagreement with another individual and cause friction. Personally, I think that having a high tolerance for another person's "little habits" can be crucial for a successful relationship; this seems to work best if both parties have some tolerance for stuff that they might not necessarily do but their partner does all the time.

Thats true. In relationships there are so many important factors involved in two people melding their lives together that scientific analysis, while useful, doesn't quite get the whole picture. Hundreds, if not thousands of little things that are part of the way that people function can be a point of disagreement with another individual and cause friction. Personally, I think that having a high tolerance for another person's "little habits" can be crucial for a successful relationship; this seems to work best if both parties have some tolerance for stuff that they might not necessarily do but their partner does all the time.
Right, but what does this have to do with why relationships aren't what they used to be? Haven't people always had friction and quirks?

Right, but what does this have to do with why relationships aren't what they used to be? Haven't people always had friction and quirks? I'd imagine there has always been friction and quirks in relationships. I figure that it's our expectation of how fast the friction and quirks will be resolved that has changed. When that expectation gets shattered, the bitter and foul feelings that result get translated into a lower success rate as far as relationships are concerned.

With each passing day, we are able to get more and more things and services faster and faster. The disconnect comes when that expectation for "more, better, faster" gets applied to human relationships. Our world is a world where everything has been upgraded and improved several times over in a relatively short period of time, but we're still working with "Human Being 1.0".

I think that because of our culture, we're used to stores being open 24/7 and getting what we want as soon as we want it. Time between desire and acquiring has been reduced to nil. Because of this, patience as a virtue is largely extinct to many people; therefore, they aren't as tolerant and they want things fixed now.

You would be absolutely right, IF this were an isolated result. However, it is not. Unfortunately, this result has been obtained in many studies. It is important to note that cohabitation and premarital sex do not seem to affect marital stability IF the person has "serially cohabited" - that is, cohabited with people who were not their future spouse (Rutgers study, pg. 7 (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf)). I don't remember the effect ever being confined to first marriages; however, second marriages might all be subject to the "serial cohabitation effect," since all second-timers have cohabited (albeit maritally) previously.


The number of studies is irrelevant to the existence and affect of a confounding set of variables. If a confounding set of variables exist then the same results are still going to show up because the confounding variables still exist in the later studies.

I cited where the second marriage cohabitation effect was observed (2002 CDC). Why this effect occurs is a matter for debate and, again, is likely ruled by hidden variables and/or confounding variables.

This may not be my place, but I think people are starting to develop stronger feelings at a younger age, when in fact we are not mature enough to know exactly what we want yet - I hate to say it, but I do not have too much pride...We are constantly changing; in body, mind, preferences, etc. We are too young to make the committment a relationship brings. Maybe I am wrong, but this is why it is a debate, I suppose. I just think today it is based too much on who has the hottest bf/gf - and the "it" person is always changing. Obviously not everyone is like that, but a good majority are...Anyways, thanks for letting me ramble :D

But I meant when it IS the only reason they get married. You know this isn't exactly a rare phenomenon. I mean, maybe they really like each other but they aren't ready to get married. Then the chick gets pregnant and all of a sudden they feel they have to go through with it whether they are ready or not.

My parents' anniversary is 5 months before my birthday. So do the math...

That's understandable. I do think that pregnancy does put pressure on couples to get married, if only to provide security for themselves as well as the child. When my bf and I thought that I might be pregnant, I started to consider marriage when I previously wouldn't have dreamed of getting married quite this soon. I will admit that finding out that I was indeed pregnant is one of the main reasons that I'm going to be married in a few months, but I wouldn't say it's the only reason. I love him in a way I have never loved anything else in my life, and I do want to be with him for the rest of my life. I honestly couldn't imagine marrying somebody for anything less than love.

I think that the problem is that people don't know what they want. Or maybe they need to feel loved, so they go out and find someone for a while, then after boredem sets in, they kick ya to the curb. That's just me though. :p

I believe it is because we have started getting into relationships at younger ages (even 12-13 now). Dating in turn should ultimately be for the goal of finding 'the one you can spend the rest of your life with'. And in dating at the age of 12, you aren't really even beginning to understand that. So in growing up, with that sort of naive look at relationships in dating, I believe that we obtain these morals to which dating becomes more of a game, or a sexual thing, rather than finding the true someone.

I believe it is because we have started getting into relationships at younger ages (even 12-13 now). Dating in turn should ultimately be for the goal of finding 'the one you can spend the rest of your life with'. And in dating at the age of 12, you aren't really even beginning to understand that. So in growing up, with that sort of naive look at relationships in dating, I believe that we obtain these morals to which dating becomes more of a game, or a sexual thing, rather than finding the true someone.
I somewhat agree with this. Nowadays, dating and sex has become all too casual. There's people having sex with complete strangers at parties, even at very young ages.

But, I don't agree that dating's just for finding "the one". People go on dates to enjoy themselves, and I think that's a great thing to do. I've dated my friends before; we had fun, afterwards we're still good friends, and that's all there is to it. But I know the difference between a casual date and actual love. The old days, nothing was casual. Now it's too casual. I think the key is to have a balance between that. You want to find true love, but you want to have fun along the way as well.