Marriages don’t last anymore because..

[PictureImperfect]

Had a debate with an colleague about why divorce seems so much more common now.

They said that in past generations, couples stayed together because they wanted to work through things and were more committed to making relationships last. I said I think it’s mainly because women have more freedom and independence now. Yes, most of the childcare still falls on women, but that was even more true in the past. Back then, loads of women didn’t have the opportunity to work full time and build careers like their husbands, so they relied on them for financial stability. Now that women can provide their own stability, they’re simply less likely to tolerate an unhappy marriage.

To me, that just seems like basic common sense but my colleague laughed and said I was completely wrong. According to them, people today just can’t be bothered to put in the effort and treat relationships as disposable. They also scoffed when I said women still don’t have the same opportunities as men.

It’s had me thinking, I honestly thought this was just obvious, but now I’m wondering what others think. AIBU, or is my colleague?

@NeedANapAgain Plus the line of “one in two marriages end in divorce”, ie you had a 50/50 chance, is a complete fallacy.

Is it? I thought it was about 43% for first marriages, and since second and third marriages fail at a much higher rate, that pushes it to 50% of ALL marriages.

I also read somewhere recently that by the 30th anniversary, more than half of marriages (I assume mostly first ones, due to the length) were no more. Eleven percent had ended because of the death of one spouse, and the rest divorce, of course. I wish I could remember the total figure, but I can't, and I can't find it now.

Closeted gay.
Trying to 'save' his mother, which he couldn't when he was a kid. (ie controlling)
Child molester.

There are a whole heap of nasty things a woman may have found out after they were married, esp back in the goode olde days.

@Horsie

I'm not sure how I feel about your reasons for divorcing. On the one hand, if you have a decent partner who is willing to put in the work, then it's hard to see why divorce is OK. But on the other hand, life is very short, and I don't think people should spend their one life feeling unhappy.

Clearly this is a "how long is a piece of string" question: there's a huge gap between divorcing someone who is decent and considerate but boring when you have a settled life because you fancy someone else and divorcing someone because you genuinely hate one another and it's making the family environment toxic.

The first scenario is selfish and probably unnecessarily disruptive, the second probably self-preservation.

I don't really believe in "putting in the work", either. All marriages involve give and take and compromise and sometimes ignoring irritants. But I don't believe any amount of "work" can turn around a relationship which has become defined by hatred, contempt or lack of respect. I just don't think people are like that.

I suppose my broader point is that I don't accept the idea that a durable marriage for its own sake should be a goal that always takes precedence over individual happiness. There is usually some trade-off between the needs of the marriage and the needs of the individuals. But if the marriage makes both parties miserable then its internal logic has collapsed.

You can’t “just do it online” unless the two people getting divorced are able to amicably agree a fair split of assets and residency/ visitation for the children between them and any required maintenance payments for children, neither needs legal advice, both parties willingly and honestly disclose all financial information and valuations for assets such as houses and pensions are easily obtainable, neither obstructs the process.

And even if the whole legal process can be done online with an amicable and fair agreement, it is still a huge decision, a huge upheaval for both people usually involving moving house, both inevitably adjusting to much poorer financial circumstances, potentially having to move children to different schools, dealing with the emotional fallout of it, having to explain it to children and help them to cope with the psychological impact of it and establish a good co-parenting relationship that works for the children…. Etc.

Your post is ridiculous. Nobody takes these decisions lightly, particularly when there are children involved.

It is much easier generally to get a divorce now.
You dont even have to have a reason anymore.
I'm talking about the ease of getting one.

What is exactly the problem with that?

Why should being married be seen as a tickbox of success and people be made to try harder for a marriage they no longer want?

Marriages fall apart for a myriad of reasons. Why make it harder if one party doesn’t want to remain married nor wants to fight for the marriage? Why saddle the person who does want to remain marry with someone who doesn’t want them?

People change, some for the better, some for the worse. Agreements made at the time of marriage can be broken, boundaries crossed and things people used to just grin and bear refuse to do so.

Plenty of spouses say their partners changed after xyz events, several begged to go to marriage counselling and therapy for months, years while the other refused until divorce is on the table and then they want to work things out after the one fighting has given up.

Why do you care how long people choose to be married or divorce being easier than it used to be?

It really isn’t anyone business but those involved including their reasons, and from what I’ve heard and seen it is rarely on a whim.

The legal mechanics of acquiring a divorce may be easier now, but that doesn't mean the emotional strain, the financial costs, and how hard it may be on children may be any easier.

It's a bit of a family legend that a cousin of mine got married in the late sixties, very early seventies, and my poor aunty was beside herself, she knew this was not a good marriage in the making. It lasted 12 weeks. In the seventies.

You said women live off the state or the husband.

I am questioning your misogyny and why you seem to not realise that women who do neither, exist.

Dear God….

The bar is in hell.

I didn’t actually say that. What I wrote and what you’d like to think I said are two different things.

The women who do neither are not the issue, and no concern of anyone.

What you wrote:

Women can marry the state instead and be supported by the taxpayer instead of a husband. So women are enabled to make poor decisions in choosing the father of their children, and men can walk away from their responsibilities knowing the state will pick up the tab.

You are stating there is a binary choice..

But it isn't easy. All the issues of finances and children still have to be dealt with. There has to be a cooling off period. The only difference is that blame has been taken out of the process - and that is a GOOD thing. It takes out some of the heat. My late husband was angry and uncooperative because I was divorcing him on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and when he received the petition he let me know that he was going to be as uncooperative as he knew how. It didn't matter that every word of what was in the petition was true, and that I had in fact toned it down from the reality. The only thing that saved the situation was me pointing out that I had evidence in writing (email) that he had received and read the petition and that he couldn't stop it, and that what was in it would only ever be seen by court administrators and the judge. If we had been able to have a no blame divorce, it would have saved us so much stress. Having blame free divorce means women are safer because there is less anger in the situation.

Marriages don't last anymore because the wives can get away now,

I said they’ve been enabled to. Not that they all do. Do you often have difficulty reading?

Don't be ridiculous. Plenty of people sacrifice their children believing grass is greener only to discover it isn't.

I think you’re oversimplifying massively. You make it sound like if parents just stay together, that automatically gives kids stability, but that’s just not how it works. One parent (usually mum) ends up carrying more and resentment builds over time, and that tension seeps into the home. Kids pick up on it. I don’t think there is a shortage of adults who would say they wish their parents had split rather than grow up around coldness or passive aggressive behaviour. That kind of environment might look stable from the outside, but it doesn’t always feel that way to the children living in it.

The reason is that they no longer want to be married.

Why would we force people to remain married when they don’t want to be? How do you think that would work out?

@PictureImperfect you are both right !
I mean look at the internet as a major factor backing up your friends point .Its like a sweaty shop for men .
Women breathes the wrong way and back on line swiping they go.

Lower than hell.

I hear the sound of bicycle wheels in reverse.

It’s not a straight 50/50 chance. If a couple marries as teenagers, has a child before or soon after marriage, lives with family members, etc., etc., the chance of divorce shoots above 80% and skews the numbers. Likewise, marrying later, with a steady income, having a previous serious relationship (but no children), waiting at least two years to have a child, etc., and you drop to a roughly 20% chance of divorce.

Benefits.sometimes good so if for example fleeing dv. But also means can jump ship at slightest thing

People don't jump ship at the slightest thing. Out of all the divorced people I know, every single one experienced either cheating, abuse or both.

"Hard" or extreme porn magazines were available in the late 70s and early 80s, as were "cine" sex tapes. Yes, it may have been more difficult to get access to what is now easily accessible online, but the "hard" magazines and cine films were going round our secondary school in the late 70s and early 80s. Yes, you couldn't buy the stuff "off the shelf" from your corner newsagent, but it wasn't difficult to find shops selling it "under the counter" and not difficult to find school friends with "older brothers" who'd lend it to you. I saw beastiality, penetration, anal, etc in porn magazines when I was 14/15 years old in the school yard/fields at breaks and lunchtimes! To say it didn't exist back then is very naive.

Top shelf magazines from your corner newsagent were tame by comparison, but that was just the pictures/images. The stories etc contained in them was often "hardcore".

I think that's common sense really. Most young people are naive and don't have real world experience, so they're more likely to enter into relationships without thinking through the consequences, i.e. "lust over love over reality", less likely to be settled career wise nor financially etc., so more likely to have a stressful relationship due to lack of money, living with parents, etc., and stress causes arguments, etc. They're still developing, so their interests, outlooks and attitudes will change, so more likely to realise that their "true love" wasn't fit for a lifelong relationship after all, once the initial lust/excitement has faded and they realise they don't actually "like" their partner. Everyone I knew who married young or had children young (i.e. under say 20) has divorced/separated and all have said the same, i.e. they weren't mature enough to make a life-long commitment, and when "life got in the way" of their effectively teenage romance, they quickly fell out of love and then the arguments etc started as they found they wanted different things.