Why do so many marriages fail today?

[CODE-D]

People get married first then learn about each others true self later, kinda backwards really.

 

[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.

To answer your original question:

First, divorce shouldn't be automatically conflated with bad - for many couples, it can be seen as a relationship mediator or positive change. For others, it allows one half of the couple to legally escape a distressing, binding situation (victims of spousal abuse now have the freedom to leave, whereas it was not always easy before).

But to get to the bad side of divorce - I think everything stems from a lack of communication. Many people mentioned schedule differences, money philosophies, even birth control (which I think is a bit absurd, because love is NOT solely focused on physical attraction); all of these can be attributed to communication. You build relationships through communication - if you cannot communicate with your partner, then your problems will just build up. Every interpersonal, romantic relationship will have problems - if you cannot effectively communicate with your partner about how to navigate those problems, you have no chance.

I would also say that a little humility goes a long way - you have to be able to accept yourself (and your partner) as less than perfect, and capable of making mistakes. Once you learn that, and the ability to acknowledge your own imperfections, its easier to communicate about solving problems, saying sorry, and being responsible about the success of the relationship.

 

[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.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Pretty straight forward.

Why?

Is it simply to do with the fact that there are no faults divorces now, so in the past people were just as unhappy but were unable to divorce each other?

Or is it more complicated and is it a reflection of our social climate?

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

We have higher living standards now. In the old days, marriage was one of the only ways up the social latter(especially for women), and it was a social law that you get married when you have children. Nowadays you can be single and be the richest person on the planet and we have birth control.

Many people who get married these days aren't doing it for the reasons their grandparents probably did it, so it doesn't work as well in the modern context. Now people marry for love. "Love" is a very new reason to marry, and it shows in the divorce rates.

We as a society really need to think about marriage and how it can work for us, even if it means that we decide it's not worth it.

I personally don't want to get married. If I want to be with someone for my whole life, it will happen or fail, social contract or not.

 

[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.

EDIT: also, perhaps you should clarify the difference between "traumatizing" and "stigmatized." Because while divorce is LESS stigmatized now, it's still not completely accepted, and it's certainly not any less traumatizing for those undergoing it.

 

[Canid117]

Because divorce is socially acceptable now. Rates were a lot lower when it was a ***** to legally get rid of your spouse.

 

[Pyramid Head]

I personally believe that marriage hasn't kept up with the social climate. No one really quite seems to grasp what marriage is anymore since it's no longer legally binding a misogynistic nut to a sex slave, and as society becomes more and more relaxed about bullshit norms that keep growing weaker as women gain civil rights, it's hard to make sense of it. Society really just needs to sit down and think about what marriage is.

Oh, and the celebrities who get married as publicity stunts and shotgun weddings that turn abusive don't help either.

 

[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)