Why do so many marriages fail today?

[SillyBear]

3. Acceptance of divorce, obviously. It's less traumatizing on children and on the adults now than it was in the past. There is more support and less stigma.

Um i wanna call bullshit on that, when my parents divorced it was not that easy. at all. it fucking kills me still and it caused me to hate my father more than anyone on this planet, so i call bullshit hardcore.

And I'm going to call bullshit on your call of bullshit! XD

There is no shred of doubt that in the past divorce was more traumatic for all involved. If you were the child, everywhere you went people would be judging you and your life. You would be put down by everyone and you would be seen as a lesser child. A "bastard" child.

Today, no one really cares that your parents broke up outside your family. You can still find work, love and opportunity. In the past you would have a really hard time finding any of that if your parents were divorced, because it was a huge social stigma.

Hope I explained it well enough!

Actually, having done my psychology thesis on divorce, overall, divorce has a more negative impact on the children of the divorcees. Yes, it might be socially more acceptable now, but there is a whole host of other psychological issues that affect children of divorce all their lives, including greater difficulty in school as a child, lower levels of commitment, communication, and honesty with their relationship partners, and a greater chance of divorce themselves when they become adults and marry.

Did you even read what I wrote man? That's lovely, but it has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I was just saying in the past divorce was even more traumatic than it is now. Which it was.

...except you only spoke about the (hypothetical) social aspect. Psychologically, that is not necessarily true, and you don't really have any foundation for that statement. Divorce was (hypothetically) more traumatizing in a social way (because it was uncommon) but it's marginalizing to state it's less traumatic now for those people who have to deal with it. Which, btw, is what the poster was saying when you tried to tell him "nope, not more traumatic now." He was talking about it's effect on him, psychologically. You're essentially talking about two entirely different constructs.

Obviously I only talked about the social aspect because that is the only thing that has changed. The psychological effects of having your family fall apart would be virtually identical whether it be 1880 or 2011.

So yes, divorce was more traumatic for people in the past because of the social aspect. I don't see why you're trying to pick an argument with me, absolutely nothing of what I said was incorrect.

edit: I also find it strange for someone who has studied psychology to be acting like social effects and psychological effects are two completely different things.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Here's an anecdote my grandmother loves to tell with a straight face every time I don't do my chores:

There was a girl who was very lazy, and although it was about time she got married, no one wanted her. However, a man approached her parents one day and asked for her hand in marriage. They warned him that she is very lazy, never does the house work, and would not make a good wife. He said that since she is pretty he would have her anyway. The morning after they got married, she slept in. The next morning he woke her up at dawn and beat the shit out of her with a stick, after covering her with some sort of heavy blanket (not sure how to translate that bit). Ever since then, she was a loyal and diligent wife! And they all lived happily ever after.

So remember little girls, if you don't do the housework, your husband will beat the shit out of you, just like you deserve. This is an anecdote from only two generations ago. If you squint a little, this post does in fact answer your question.

I hope you didn't do your chores after she told you that.

 

[LTAshler]

Relationships between humans, as flawed beings, will often fail for various reasons. There is a somewhat simple answer, but I doubt many of you are going to like it. Look at relationships 100 years ago and relationships today. The divorce rate has climbed exponentially since the 60's and the sexual revolution. Society has fallen to viewing sex as a purely recreational exercise and not a meaningful connection between two persons that have committed to each other for life. TLR: Relationships have largely become focused on getting sex, not on valuing the other person and helping them grow.

A great deal of marriages also fall apart because of financial trouble. People are simply irresponsible with their money.

EDIT: Also, people misunderstand what it means to love. Love is NOT an emotion, it is a commitment to support and care for the other person, doing what is best for them even if it means something undesirable for you. Many people 'fall in love' but what they're really experiencing is infatuation. Infatuation wears off, love, or rather REAL love, does not.

 

[RatRace123]

I think people are looking to find their "love" too early. I've seen many people declare their undying love for one another after a short amount of time together.
Maybe people just don't want to be alone and they'll seek comfort in whoever they can, and then real life kicks in and they think that maybe they really don't want to spend their lives with this person.

I have a cynical view of love and relationships though, so my opinion is hardly that of a professional.

 

[LTAshler]

An absence of God and waiting for sex until marriage, this is my belief.

AMEN. Look at the world 100 years ago, then look at us today. No points for guessing what the single greatest difference is. I would expound, but I'm tired.

 

[Xisin]

Most people when they get married say, "Well if we have a problem or multiple problems that we can always get divorced." When you get married divorce should be the last thing on your mind!!! Marriage is hard!! It takes time, work, good communication, and a bunch of other things. Alot of people nowadays don't want something that can't be easily fixed. They don't want to work at something that could very well be the best thing in their life.

I don't buy the "we grew too far apart." No, I'm sorry but that is bull-crap! If that were really true no marriage would have ever worked. Yes, you change and so does the other person, but love (I mean real honest and true love) is recognizing that change and accepting and caring about that person for what they have become. Why else would we say for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and health till death do us part? To some people that means nothing. They just get bored and decide I don't think I want to love this person anymore or either stop trying to make it work. When love isn't like that.

You like someone for the qualities and you love them for their defects.

I have to say I disagree with a lot of what you said, almost all of it actually. I think that before getting married a contingency plan should be laid out. To think nothing will ever happen seems naive to me. Does the couple need to sign a prenuptial agreement?

People can grow apart as well. I speak to my father maybe once or twice a year. It's not because I dislike him, it's just as we grew we found we had nothing in common. Therefore we don't force each other company on the other.

I might be odd on this one, but I personally, think marriage has nothing to do with love. To me, marriage is no more or less than a certificate from the government that groups 2 people together is all aspects in life, legally. My husband and I have been together for 8 years and the only thing that changed when we got married is our tax forms.

On topic, I think the marriage rate is high because of independence. With child support and most people having full time jobs, parents aren't forced to stay together to make it work financially.

 

[Silva]

A lot of the reasons mentioned so far probably do have something to do with the increasing divorce rates in the West. One I haven't heard too much about so far is the effect of feminism on the relationship dynamic.

Before I go on, let me say that I think that feminism and the push for gender equality are noble goals and were worthwhile developments over the last 50 years.

However, even a noble and worthwhile cultural movement can have its fallout and its collateral damage.

In this case, I think that in pushing so hard for the individual freedom of women from male oppression, the anti-oppressive dynamic has been reflected in relationships as well - sometimes, very sadly, in relationships where there was never attempt at oppression by the male.

The support of female as individual also means that men have probably grown increasingly paranoid about being controlled by their partners. To us I think it can appear, superficially, like women have these vast support groups that they can call upon to help force us into a particular decision and that males can't do this because we're simply not as in touch with our emotions, or indeed as close to all of our friends.

Instead of the simplicity of classical relationships, where there were clear dominant and submissive roles, these roles now shift and shock all the time, increasing stress levels for both partners.

I think that we in the West place freedom on a pedestal and forget what friendship and love are - they are chains that bind us to other people, and to a degree to what they want from us and from the external world. Not always is being chained a bad thing, and I speak about men here as well, we need to remember sometimes that freedom isn't everything and that submitting to the wishes of another isn't necessarily an insult to pride.

But men are having trouble adjusting especially since our Western traditions of emotional repression and stiff self-control are not at all suitable to submissive roles, even for relatively small periods of time.

On one level it may be seen as karma for thousands of years of male dominance. On another, many of us in the younger generation only know the period after feminism was introduced. Should we really bear the blame for our forefathers, and suffer the result of a clash between our classical roles and our current situation? Is that truly fair?

To me it's clear that individual fault and blame are immature ideas and that the male-hating that can go on in more extreme circles is extremely counter-productive to understanding and improving the longevity of marriages and other connections today. Genders are not football teams. We shouldn't yell and goad our colleagues to win in dramatic tournaments of gender power. There is no "winning" in such competitions.

I think that both genders have to look closely at this situation and strive for true gender equality, and the positives of helping our counterparts adjust towards new emotional expression paradigms and child raising methods to equip both genders with new approaches and mentalities.

And for God's sake, to the women out there: help us form a Brotherhood of men, because the Sisterhood is rising and if feminism is truly about equality then this is what will be missed when inevitably women begin outstripping men in every field, which they will do if the trend continues. After all, a man who feels that he is on a leash is often an unhappy one. And unhappy men - like unhappy women - can do terrible, stupid things. Do we really want that on a mass scale? I don't think so.

 

[zeldagirl]

3. Acceptance of divorce, obviously. It's less traumatizing on children and on the adults now than it was in the past. There is more support and less stigma.

Um i wanna call bullshit on that, when my parents divorced it was not that easy. at all. it fucking kills me still and it caused me to hate my father more than anyone on this planet, so i call bullshit hardcore.

And I'm going to call bullshit on your call of bullshit! XD

There is no shred of doubt that in the past divorce was more traumatic for all involved. If you were the child, everywhere you went people would be judging you and your life. You would be put down by everyone and you would be seen as a lesser child. A "bastard" child.

Today, no one really cares that your parents broke up outside your family. You can still find work, love and opportunity. In the past you would have a really hard time finding any of that if your parents were divorced, because it was a huge social stigma.

Hope I explained it well enough!

Actually, having done my psychology thesis on divorce, overall, divorce has a more negative impact on the children of the divorcees. Yes, it might be socially more acceptable now, but there is a whole host of other psychological issues that affect children of divorce all their lives, including greater difficulty in school as a child, lower levels of commitment, communication, and honesty with their relationship partners, and a greater chance of divorce themselves when they become adults and marry.

Did you even read what I wrote man? That's lovely, but it has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I was just saying in the past divorce was even more traumatic than it is now. Which it was.

...except you only spoke about the (hypothetical) social aspect. Psychologically, that is not necessarily true, and you don't really have any foundation for that statement. Divorce was (hypothetically) more traumatizing in a social way (because it was uncommon) but it's marginalizing to state it's less traumatic now for those people who have to deal with it. Which, btw, is what the poster was saying when you tried to tell him "nope, not more traumatic now." He was talking about it's effect on him, psychologically. You're essentially talking about two entirely different constructs.

Obviously I only talked about the social aspect because that is the only thing that has changed. The psychological effects of having your family fall apart would be virtually identical whether it be 1880 or 2011.

So yes, divorce was more traumatic for people in the past because of the social aspect. I don't see why you're trying to pick an argument with me, absolutely nothing of what I said was incorrect.

edit: I also find it strange for someone who has studied psychology to be acting like social effects and psychological effects are two completely different things.

Because everything you said was pure conjecture that's not entirely true. Less stigmatized does not mean less traumatic in social situations.

Yes, social dynamics and divorce has changed, but that doesn't mean it's less TRAUMATIC. Less *stigmatized* perhaps, and traumatizing in a *different way*, but not *less*. Also, you're using the word "social" in only one context - perhaps I misunderstood you in that case, but there's a lot more to the 'social' aspect of divorce than just 'less people judge you now.'

I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm having a discussion.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I think a lot of people just rush into marriage, thinking it's something that they need to do as part of the relationship.

Honestly, I think before anyone should even CONSIDER marriage, they should live full time with their partner for 6 months to a year. Why? Because while you're dating each other, you are on your best behaviour most of the time. If you're living together for a long time...you CAN'T keep up the best behaviour forever.

As a result, you will get a better idea of who your partner really "is" and what they need and expect. If you don't know that for sure, then you can't expect to be able to hold out a lifelong relationship.

...You might say that the notions of "marriage before sex" and "not living together until marriage" are outdated and silly, but numbers don't lie. As the numbers for premarital sex and premarital cohabitation have gone up, the divorce rate has climbed along with them. Maybe there's a little something to those old ways, after all?

I agreed with almost everything you said, up until this point. If you don't live with the person for a year before getting married, how can you be sure you can deal with your partner's many quirks you never get to see unless you're with them full time? If you haven't had sex before getting married, how can you be able to commit to a person who might be absolutely horrible in bed (or on the other hand, a tigress that you will never be able to satisfy)? You need to at least get a TASTE of everything important that you will share with your partner, or else you might just be committing to a permanent relationship that has a few large holes in it before it even is set in stone. Before you set the stone, you need to double check the whole damn framework, or you're building a bridge that might collapse when under heavy strain years from now.

That being said, I think that a lot of couples RUSH to the sex stage way too fast. Jumping into bed with someone within a month of dating just doesn't sit right with me...I think that sex should be approached a bit more carefully and respectfully than that. And if all you're chasing is an orgasm...Guys...The right hand can do the same damn thing, but with NONE of the complications of dating a girl!

That and the pre-divorce numbers might be inflated by the fact that until recently, divorce was a MASSIVE social no-no. So waaaay fewer people did it, since the common mentality was "You MUST stick it through. No excuses. You promised society and your god that you would be with this person forever, so you MUST."

 

[AMMO Kid]

Mainly because of the "right person myth." Most people believe that once they meet the right person that everything will be okay. They meet said person and the chemistry explodes. Everything goes well with said person until they get married and are forced into difficult situations which forces the chemistry out of the relationship. After all that this person has been through, somehow the idea gets into his or her head that "I married the wrong person!" and the breaking process is complete. Said person doesn't even try in the marriage anymore. All the people I know who prepare for marriage by working on "becoming the right person" rather that "waiting for the right person" still have happy marriages.

That's just one cause, but it's definitely one of the main reasons why people divorce.

EDIT: Just to add to that, a higher percentage of second marriages fail. That probably has a lot to do with this.

 

[Slangeveld]

1) People marry too fast.
2) People marry for wrong reasons.
3) Living has become more difficult and confined.

A combination of many of the points made in this tread.

And one reason that's dangerous and rather awkward to mention, but... Divorcing is easier now, especially on the female side compared to say, 30-40 years ago.

 

[Farther than stars]

Oh, it's definately social climate. Specifically tied strongly to the deChristianization of society (which seemed kind of obvious, modern marriage stemming from Abrahamic religion). Although it doesn't have so much to do with whether people are Christian or not, but more with the way that the religion is interpreted; a lot of the West these days being less conservative and less literal about Testiment than people were before the second half of the last century.
You can think of it along the lines of the now-more-widely-accepted phenomenon (sorry, couldn't think of a better word): premarital sex. It's just a reassesment of dated values to create more current ones.
I'm hesitant to say whether this is a cycle or progression in the way of thinking, since the big picture about marriage is so complex when involving the different elements both of human nature and specific cultures (i.e. India still knows plenty of arranged marriages even though that's unthinkable to most people in, say, Belgium).

(8th)

 

[Farther than stars]

edit: I also find it strange for someone who has studied psychology to be acting like social effects and psychological effects are two completely different things.

The overlapping causality between social effects and psychological effects actually depends very much on situation and even personal philosophy. Psychology covers human reactions to triggered responses and its only overlap with sociology is how a group of people influence the way those triggers are received. But the strength of that argument depends on how extensively you believe in the Tabula Rasa school of thought concerning human consciousness.

Also

An absence of God and waiting for sex until marriage, this is my belief.

Because nothing is better than finding out your wife and you aren't sexually compatible just after you married her. That helps things along just great!

I'd thought such sarcasm was rather rudely aimed at someone expressing a sincere opinion on a serious topic, especially since this person also qualified it as being a personal belief. You can still make your point, although I personally would have appreciated it more if you had delivered it more compasionately.

(9th)

 

[Lilani]

That and the pre-divorce numbers might be inflated by the fact that until recently, divorce was a MASSIVE social no-no. So waaaay fewer people did it, since the common mentality was "You MUST stick it through. No excuses. You promised society and your god that you would be with this person forever, so you MUST."

I don't care to enter into an argument about the sex before marriage thing, because I assure you I am not going to budge on that. Now, what I'm about to say regarding this quote has absolutely nothing to do with arranged marriages, forced marriages, advantageous marriages, abusive marriages, or marriages between "religiously brainwashed" people. Those are completely different situations from what I am talking about here, so please do not bring any of those up to try and dilute the point I'm making. That being said, here goes:

Do you really think a heightened desire to salvage a marriage is really such a bad thing? Many here in the thread are saying that people are getting married too fast, or for the wrong reasons. They just jump on in. Then, later if the water is too hot or too cold, they jump back out again. Easy in, easy out. They don't try to work things out or find a middle ground. But if you truly love someone, you will work for that. And truly, that is what relationships are. Work. And lots of it. Today's easy divorces are just ways of getting out of that work, which as statistics show more and more people in our generation don't like to do.

Marriage as a whole is being seen less and a permanent thing and more like flight school. Our own social "revolutions" have given birth to a "crash and trash" mentality when it comes to marriage. It's not a big deal anymore, whereas in the past if a couple married, it was quite expected they were to be together for life. The fact that society expected them to be together," as you said, reinforced that fact in their mind, causing them to regard marriage as a permanent thing. Now, since society doesn't expect them to stay together anymore, that desire to make an effort to make things better is gone. What could have been a "reconcilable difference" before is now grounds for divorce. Why fix what you can just throw away altogether?

Now, I know at this point you probably have all sorts of contradictions in your head to what I just said. But just look back at the top and remember those exclusions I listed. What I just said only pertains to marriages formed from love, and nothing else. And now, you may say that a marriage formed from love is not comparable to the past, but I'd like you to tell that to my parents and my grandparents, who have been together for 30 and ~48 years respectively. I can tell you from personal experience that they are all perfectly in love with each other. Their marriages were founded on pure love, long before the divorce rate hit its peak.

Also, just to touch on your little point on living with them for 6 months before marriage, I think you are rather selling yourself short to assume that you cannot learn someone's character unless you are living with them. And even so, if the little nuances of living with someone like leaving the cap off the toothpaste or leaving the toilet seat up are enough to break your relationship, I don't think it was destined to go too far in the first place. If you decide to live with someone and you aren't sure if you can argue with them or work the little things out, then I think you missed an important step somewhere.

 

[Amaury_games]

Just a little advice from a guy who celebrated his 7th anniversary exactly 10 days ago and is still happily married (no kids in the picture...yet)

1. Birth control, people, birth control. Don't bring another life into the world until you have your shit straight first.

2. Live below your means. It's better to have an older car and be able to fix the plumbing/Air conditioner/random crap that quits on you than to have a nice car and be broke.

3. Chillax. Discuss and work out your problems and don't hold grudges.

4. While sometimes you can seem more like business partners, you are still lovers. Act like it.

Many couples don't do the above things, and it's the poor kids who really pay for it in the end.

This. Some of my thoughts. Exactly. Thank you.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

We've become a society addicted to quick fixes and easy solutions. Neither of those can be applied to marriage without serious consequences.

Sad, but I think that's probably true.

Also, and this is my personal opinion, but I feel like a lot of people "fall in love" too easily (which IMO probably wouldn't be considered love in the first place).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Why?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. What do you think?

The numbers lie.

Consider this. 50% of marriages end in divorce. However, that doesn't mean that 50% of People who get married will get divorced.

Think about it:

If I get married and it lasts until we're both old and die, then I count as one successful marriage.

On the other hand, my good friend gets married, gets cheated on, and gets divorced. Then my friend gets married again... and gets cheated on again, and gets divorced. And then my friend gets married a third time. Since that just happened recently, I don't know how that one is going to end yet, but... well, I have my theories.

So that's one successful marriage to three unsuccessful marriages. However, the numbers are 50%, so that means that somewhere out there are two other happily married couples to balance out my real life friend who's had two divorces and married for a third time to reach that 50%.

There are people with MORE divorces than that. For every repeat-divorcee, there are multiple happily married couples to balance the numbers.

 

[MajoraPersona]

I'd say it's partially a result of the looser divorce restrictions, combined with the increased emphasis on marriage for love versus marriage for political, or simply child-rearing reasons. People today tend to decide to get married when they feel a strong emotional attatchment to another person. However, one of the fundamental aspects of living beings is that they adapt. When forced into a new environment, an organism will do its best to survive, changing in whatever way it can. With marriage, one is expected to fit into their role as a spouse, along with their role in society. As the initial excitement of falling in love 'fades', a conflict arises. "Marriage is for people in love," thinks the person in question, "but I no longer love my spouse." They become accustomed to their new life, but still perceive marriage as an event centred around a rush of emotions.

The comparison between love and drugs can be used in this circumstance: a person in a long-term relationship will build up a 'tolerance', as their spouse becomes a more permanent aspect of their life.

It is important to note, however, that this does not mean that people should not marry for love, or that love is the reason why people get divorced.

We've become a society addicted to quick fixes and easy solutions. Neither of those can be applied to marriage without serious consequences.

This is partially correct. Every living thing loves quick fixes and easy solutions. Thinking about short term survival tends to work better than focusing on long term gain. Why organize an attack on the herd of gazelle when there's a perfectly good corpse right in front of you? You KNOW that you should save your money, eat 'healthy' food, etc. But those actions only provide benefits if you're alive tomorrow. Thinking about the short term is an instinct that ensures you get to see another sunrise.

Does this impulsive behaviour work in a marriage? Not usually. Marriage is a practice that came about as a result of being able to ensure comfortable living for indefinite periods of time, barring outside forces. More specifically, it became prevalent when humans first had property they wished to pass on to their offspring. As such, it doesn't go so well with short-term decisions.

 

[Lynx]

To make a long argument short:

The fact that humans live longer now than before, which makes "till death do you part" a whole lot longer,
the fact that western women are a great deal more independent now than before and we don't need a man to survive,
the fact that people marry for different reasons now than before (e.g. romance over financial security),
the fact that it is so much easier to file for divorce than to actually WORK on your issues,
the fact that media keeps butting in on how we should and shouldn't have sex (DESPITE that it's one of the most personal matters of your life),
the fact that people are obsessed with romance, infatuation, sex and looks,
the fact that we don't spend enough time on just being together as married couples,

and lastly, the simple fact that people today are so insanely obsessed with having the perfect life: perfect house, perfect spouse, perfect amount of children, perfect job and so on, and so on. You can't have it all, so choose what you want to work on the most.

That's all I have.

 

[Zeema]

either from a lack of communication

or a need to satisfy a need of longing