The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On (2014)

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html

by philangist • 8 years ago

75 168 8 years ago

nytimes.com

sli• 8 years ago

Article is from 2014, that should probably be in the title.

sctb• 8 years ago

Updated, thanks!

carbocation• 8 years ago

Contrary to the title, the chart at the top of the page pretty convincingly shows that the divorce rate is constant across decadal marriage cohorts.

ModernMech• 8 years ago

This chart shows that for example, someone married for 10 years in the 2000s experiences a ~15% rate of divorce compared to those in the 70s and 80s who faced a ~20% rate of divorce at the 10 year mark. The trend I see looking at the 10 year mark is that the 60s had the lowest. The 70s and 80s were the highest, the 90s subsided, and the 00s are lower still, heading back to 60s levels. That seems like a surge that is over to me, no?

LukeShu• 8 years ago

That chart is pretty suspect:

- It doesn't go a good job of presenting the data that it is.

- The data it's presenting isn't clearly related to the data discussed in the article.

- It cites the SIPP as the source of the data, but makes no mention of which Panel/Wave(s) (years) it's referencing.

magduf17• 8 years ago

It's not a myth. The article even points out what's really going on, but they only dedicate at most a paragraph to it: people aren't getting married as much. The overall marriage rate has fallen, and people are waiting longer than ever to get married, if they even do. The percentage of the population that's single is higher than ever.

So sure, the divorce rate has fallen, but if your goal is a society where people are in stable marriages, we're farther from that goal than ever. Traditional marriage is slowly dying as an institution.

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.

toomuchtodo2• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.

I agree entirely with this, but just as civil rights and legalizing recreational drugs took forever (and is still ongoing), it's going to be decades of effort to dismantle the societal expectations of marriage while still enabling the benefits that come/came along with traditional marriage (legal, financial rights).

Relationships are hard enough with just two people, adding more people doesn't make it easier, so you have to provide resources to help cultivate that stability society wants to express (insert diatribe about lacking mental health funding here).

EDIT: Regarding raising kids in a poly family, "it takes a village" [+].

[+] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village

rarec• 8 years ago

Genuinely curious, if you want an open and polyamorous relationship with a group of people, why wouldn't a structure similar to an LLC or similar business group not be roughly sufficient (as far as a framework goes)?

acidburnNSA• 8 years ago

avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.

And if you're not ready for polyamory, maintaining a few good friendships can help with this and lot. Arguing politics may be super fun for you but maybe your partner hates it. So scratch that itch with a Sunday coffee group.

gameswithgo• 8 years ago

but if your goal is a society where people are in stable marriages

why would that be the goal?

Santosh83• 8 years ago

Welfare of children, which in turn because we are compelled to perpetuate our species.

gascan• 8 years ago

It lends itself to social stability, and has a bunch of benefits for the people who are in those stable marriages. E.g., the life expectancy for men is significantly higher when they are married. It's also generally found to be better for kids to have a stable home life, and we know that being a single parent is very difficult.

That's not to say you have to get married.

nkozyra2• 8 years ago

One common reason religious/cultural/governmental groups have done so is to build ubiquity, spread ideology and compete regionally or globally.

I'm not saying there's merit to it, but it has certainly bolstered the "importance" of marriage and children.

markc• 8 years ago

I believe the reasoning would be that it's good for kids. Statistically it is - relative to divorced or unmarried parents.

If the new norm were flexible open relationships however, that wouldn't necessarily correlate with worse outcomes for children. I think we just don't know.

jrs954• 8 years ago

Despite its flaws it generally works in terms of creating a stable social structure and especially in raising children. Which I mean I suppose we could just decide that’s no longer important...we’ll probably be dead before society totally unravels. Besides, at least that way we can one-up the baby boomers on something, even if it is destroying western civilization.

Okay, so I’m being a bit hyperbolic. But still — in a world which is increasingly isolated and people are more atomized and mentally ill than ever, is it really a good idea to abandon “the family” as it currently exists?

someone4542• 8 years ago

Because it creates a stable, growing society.

nkozyra2• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

I don't think these one-size-fits-all approaches work regardless of the approach. Social acceptance of ... whatever people are comfortable with should be the aim.

stochastic_monk• 8 years ago

I absolutely agree. For some people, polyamory works better, and more power to them. But for others, a single partner, married or otherwise, is what they choose. Marriage is itself a strange, archaic ritual.

zorkbonker99• 8 years ago

> Social acceptance of ... whatever people are comfortable with should be the aim

If this is what one wishes, and you don't already live in the Bay Area, then you should come here. I feel that this is what most people around me wish for.

yoavm2• 8 years ago

This*100. As someone who was involved with a few polyamorous communities, it's far from being something that everyone can feel comfortable with. Like anything with relationships and human interactions, it's not for everyone, and even if it's for you now, it doesn't mean it's for you always. What we need is to allow people the fluidity and freedom to choose how they want to live and who they want to love. I saw some people really being miserable in polyamorous relationships.

jrs954• 8 years ago

Current evidence seems to sugges that this is very harmful for children (which we’re having less of anyways). The long term trend is concerning. Western democracies can’t be sustained by a population which is getting dumber and more criminal, and that’s naturally the outcome of a society which has less and less of a priority on having children and raising them well.

watwut4• 8 years ago

Good news then, criminality rates are going down. In particular youth violent criminality. Kids also drink less, get hooked on drugs less and get less pregnant as teenagers.

btgeekboy• 8 years ago

Interestingly, I feel the opposite: people aren’t getting married because they don’t feel compelled to by society. Marriage is more highly valued than before.

Personally, I’m mid-30s. I’ve been in a long term relationship that, had I lived decades prior, would have been a marriage and ultimately a divorce. She wasn’t right for me, but it was hard to discern at first. Now, if/when I get married, it’s for life - divorce isn’t on the table, and I need to find someone that I’m comfortable marrying with that constraint.

borplk• 8 years ago

Society imposes a very heavy fine for the breakup of a marriage and it becomes a huge gamble.

Either it will work out and you'll be happy and you'll recommend it to everyone.

Or it will destroy your life.

If marriage was "cheap" to establish and break up people could do it naturally and peacefully, eventually and successfully move to stable ones if the first attempt doesn't work out.

When the risk taking a particular action gets high enough it's completely understandable why many rational people would avoid testing their luck.

Ygg23• 8 years ago

   > Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better

Personally, I can't wait, for only 1% to be able to afford partners.

xexers2• 8 years ago

I don't understand. Sharing a house with a stable partner is cheaper than not. Right?

hrktb• 8 years ago

open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

There is the concept of PACS in France, which is a legal association between two people, that doesn't have any predicate on sentimental relationships.

Of course it is mostly used as a lighter version of marriage, and ersatz for people who can't marry in the first place, but on the legal framework it's open to any pair of two people.

I'm bringing it up because the main issue with open relationships is who gets legal standing for anything official (even trivial stuff as legal representation, inheritance, shared resources etc.). A system like PACS lets you have open relationships while setting a pair of strongly binded people for when the proverbial shit hits the fan.

teddyh• 8 years ago

The general term seems to be “Cohabitation”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation

ssaurts• 8 years ago

I have no data on this, what is polyamory in practice? Is the equilibrium polygamy for a few alpha males and the rest maintaining their wives and children?

elliotec• 8 years ago

I think generally it goes as far as a committed relationship between three or more people, sometimes cohabiting, but apart from marriage which would be called bigamy.

rconti• 8 years ago

It's not a myth
So sure, the divorce rate has fallen(...)

Erik816• 8 years ago

Open and polyamorous relationships work out great if you are a high status male. It's not so clear it works out very well for anyone else. Which is probably why culture spent so much time and effort building the institution of marriage that people don't seem to mind is dying.

lisper5• 8 years ago

That's not necessarily true. Just last night my wife and I watched "Dr. Marsten and the Wonder Women", a movie about Dr. William Moulton Marston, his wife Elizabeth and their mutual lover Olive. The women stayed together even after William died. So it can work out. But it's extremely rare, and not just because of social pressures. It's hard enough to find two people who are mutually compatible. The problem of matching people up gets exponentially harder as N grows.

virtuexru• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.

Personally I think re-establishing the importance of family values and monogamy will make our future a lot better off. Not only for the children but for society as a whole.

tonyedgecombe• 8 years ago

I know the media like to bleat on about the decline of family values but I'm somewhat sceptical about that.

It seems far more likely that women just have more options than they did in our parents and grandparents time. Reversing that might improve the figures but it would also come with some undesirable side effects such as extending abusive relationships.

mr_spothawk4• 8 years ago

re-establishing the importance of family values

which values?

magduf17• 8 years ago

The society you want to re-establish was based on women being second-class citizens and barely better than slaves.

fvdessen4• 8 years ago

Personally I think re-establishing the importance of family values and monogamy will make our future a lot better off

Which is why the declaration of human rights recognises the family as the fundamental unit of society and requires the state and society to protect it. (Article 16.3). Sadly this article seems to have been forgotten.

lisper5• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

Unfortunately, jealously is wired deep into our lizard brains by evolution because it has enormous survival value for both sexes, though for different reasons. Men wan women to be monogamous so that they bear only their children, and women want men to be monogamous so that they support only their children.

[Addendum, since this comment seems to be getting a lot of attention]: When I was in college I had a long-distance relationship. Because we were 2000 miles apart it seemed silly to maintain exclusivity. People have needs. But when I found out one day that my girlfriend was out with another man I found myself overcome with jealousy. The intensity of the feeling took me completely by surprise. I was literally paralyzed by it for several hours, as in I sat in the hallway of my dorm room and could not move. This is not something I chose for myself. The intellectual part of me realizes that everyone would be better off if we didn't feel jealousy. But we do. It's not something we can simply choose to put aside.

s_kilk• 8 years ago

Unfortunately, jealously is wired deep into our lizard brains

Not actually the case, given what we know of the incredible variety of sexual/reproductive practices in pre-modern societies.

Its unfortunate that we make the mistake of observing current cultural behaviour and transhistoricising it onto all previous societies, presuming that their social relations must have been just the same as ours. EvoPsych in particular seems to be littered with this kind of fallacy.

someone4542• 8 years ago

Except for the surge in singles males that would be a direct result of polyamory.

mr_spothawk4• 8 years ago

I don't think this actually follows from poly.

It definitely follows from situations where women are expected to have one partner and men have many.

internetman552• 8 years ago

A relative and some nice married women from his town also thought polyarmory was a fantastic idea to try out. Unfortunately the husband of one of his friends disagreed and he got shot in the face.

mercutio26• 8 years ago

This is pretty clearly a joke, but it’s a bad joke, so I’m going to respond on the meta.

Cheating on a partner in a committed relationship is not polyamory. Polyamory is a relationship predicated on communication about boundaries and desires across the relationship chain.

We’re not socialized to communicate about relationships very well, and especially about intimate relationships, so this is sometimes hard for people to imagine.

a2tech• 8 years ago

Have you ever met someone in a true polyamorous relationship? Like, not just on the Internet, but in real life? And known them well enough to be a close confidant?

Because I have. And I'll tell you right now that I've never seen one work. Someone is always unhappy deep down (and usually everyone is). They'll tell people its great and that they're just squares for not joining in, but if you know the parties involved you'll see they're unhappy with their partner and looking for something elsewhere (but the source unhappiness persists) or they're doing it because they're afraid of losing someone (in which case they're secretly jealous and afraid). Not things that make for a happy relationship.

Now, I don't have a horse in this race. I've always been a 1 person kind of guy, and my interest in this has always been as an outsider that just wants my friends to be happy (and if that was an open/many sided relationship that is 100% not an issue). If these relationships had solved their problems or even made them one iota happier than they had been I'd be as encouraging as anyone.

SteveNuts• 8 years ago

This has been my experience as well, I knew someone personally that was in an open relationship and her husband became jealous because she was readily able to find sexual partners outside of the marriage, while he wasn't really having the same luck. They ended up divorcing.

sndean• 8 years ago

Someone is always unhappy deep down

My experience is the same.

For married couples that became polyamorous after getting married, in every case I know of (3), the person initiating the polyamorous relationship was able to find outside relationships easily. The person's spouse wasn't able to. After a few years of that arrangement they've all gotten divorced.

montagg2• 8 years ago

I normally don’t post on HN, but I wanted to to add some clarity to this. My wife and I are poly. We’ve been poly for about a decade, we were in a triad for two years (all three partners in relationships with one another), and have had many committed relationships over that time.

It’s absolutely not for everyone, and anyone who says folks are “too square” are needlessly self-righteous. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about polyamory. It’s frankly playing relationships on hard, and you need to be extra committed to working things out early and often. With the right personalities, it can force better relationship health because of the high risk, high reward nature of the lifestyle. I credit poly with giving me and my wife the skills to have hard conversations early and work through problems in good faith, and we do our best to conduct ourselves the same way in all our relationships in order to practice polyamory ethically.

I also take issue with you saying it can “never” work. It absolutely can, but as I said, it’s not for everyone. It also doesn’t mean every relationship lasts forever. Looking at any relationship in isolation, it’s just dating; people fall in and out of love naturally, and there’s very normal feelings of pain and loss sometimes. Those same feelings don’t stop monogamous folks from dating, and it’s the same in poly. But when that fallout does occur, there’s a wider safety net of people who are close to you and care about you and have more intimate understanding of you than having them as a friends alone, so there are definitely advantages if you put in the effort.

Because it does involve very different configurations of relationships when there’s more than one, poly requires rethinking what relationships mean generally, and it allows for a wider variety of relationship types, and I don’t just mean a linear friends with benefits to committed marriage. I mean accepting a broader range of human interactions and expectations as part of a valid relationship.

The result, if you’re willing to do the work and if it’s something you WANT to do, is a very rich set of experiences and deep relationships you might not have if you were monogamous.

So in short: it can work, it’s not for everyone and requires way more work than monogamy, and it is also inherently no better or worse than monogamy.

magduf17• 8 years ago

I have, but I didn't know them that well. It was a married couple, and they even led a polyamory group. They seemed very happy.

I will admit that what I said before is all theory, not experience from practice. When I see poly people on the dating sites, they're way too "out there" for me to have any interest in them.

I have read though that there are successful poly relationships, and that relationship counselors generally agree that the successful ones have the best communication skills of all their clients. All the stuff I've read from them highly emphasizes communication skills.

LeftTurnSignal2• 8 years ago

Out of all the people I've met, I have met a single very open couple that made things work.

They met at a strip club, and right off the bat they both said what they were and that was that. Now they're one of the more happier couples I've seen. Been married for 12 years and still doing the open thing.

But I have seen many many more open relationships come crashing down over night.

rainbowmverse• 8 years ago

There's basically two ways polyamory goes down:

1: You learn a lot about yourself and unpack all the stuff you've buried over a lifetime, figure out what you want, and are forever changed for the better. Maybe this means you decide poly isn't for you. This is how it went down for me.

2: You double down on all your insecurities, ruin everything, and blame polyamory for it. Most of the negative stories you hear come from this. All polyamory does is amplify what's already inside. It's like getting superpowers. A jackass with laser vision was already a jackass without it.

mercutio26• 8 years ago

Yes? Tons of successful polyamorous close friends?

I would basically say that every relationship I know of that started with both parties happy to be polyamorous had a happy story arc, whether it ended eventually or not (N=~8). Sometimes a non-primary partner would be unsatisfied and move on, and occasionally primary relationships evolve to something less than primary, but that’s “working as intended”, by my book.

Now, I will agree that trying to fix a broken monogamous relationship by opening it up is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps all the polyamorous relationships you’ve observed started out monogamous?

It’s also true that polyamory is gargantuan amount of work, it’s in many ways a bigger commitment than monogamy. You have way more dyads needing active and thoughtful communication, and so people whose motivation for polyamory is not wanting commitment are terrible at polyamory.

But once you get past those two hurdles (doing polyamory under duress, thinking polyamory is less work, when it’s more), it works great for people who are into it.

phyzome• 8 years ago

It totally does work for some. I have a number of friends in poly relationships. For some people it works. For some it doesn't.

I don't think it would work for most people, though. You need to be effective communicators and good at understanding your own emotions. That's not true for the majority of the population.

glitcher2• 8 years ago

It's not a myth.

Sure it is. They argue that the commonly held claim that the divorce rate is 50% is no longer accurate. Sure, one of the factors affecting this decline may be fewer marriages, but that doesn't change whatever the divorce rate actually is. I get your point that there are more nuances to the bigger picture, but when looking at one isolated statistic, citing the wrong number because there are fewer marriages is simply not accurate.

coldtea2• 8 years ago

Sure it is. They argue that the commonly held claim that the divorce rate is 50% is no longer accurate.

The argue by obscuring the larger picture meant by those making the claim.

bordercases4• 8 years ago

No it doesn't, polyamory makes the sex market winner take all which is primed by the premium women put on more attractive mates, or discount they put on less attractive ones. Because their preferences skew you would see fewer men with more women, which is the opposite of what you claim will happen. Try thinking it through!

mercutio26• 8 years ago

This has not been my personal observation of how it works, at all.

Rather, this reads as a dehumanizing portrait of women as fickle pursuers of status.

How I actually observe it working is that men who are open, thoughtful, emotionally vulnerable, and communicate without animosity can have lots of intimate partners.

Possibly not the specific partners they had their sights set on, though, which is where the “dehumanizing” part comes in.

Buldak• 8 years ago

we're farther from that goal than ever

It's still plausible that the recent trend is an improvement (and that we're therefore closer to the broader goal of general welfare, if not high marriage rates). There's less cultural pressure to marry, and so people abstain from marriage whose marriages likely would have ended unhappily, in divorce. A happy marriage is probably better than being single, but being single is probably better than an unhappy marriage.

throwaway0255• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

How is this different from being single? And what indication do you have that this would be a good idea?

Anecdotal I guess, but people who label their relationships this way have been without exception some of the most dysfunctional people I’ve ever met living in extremely unstable living conditions and breaking up and moving constantly.

mr_spothawk4• 8 years ago

How is this different from being single?

single is a lot closer to "relationship anarchy". there are all sorts of variations of "poly" though, some of which people have tried to put some hierarchical factors in place.

as a civilization, I don't think we have nearly enough data to suggest that it's a "good" idea... but it's certainly something I'm open to trying (p*unintentional).

coldtea2• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

I think there's a reason societies haven't adopted them en masse, and resorted to the more traditional model all over the world and all around history, with few (and insignificant) exceptions.

mr_spothawk4• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

Doing so is going to require a LOT of trial & error. Open/poly relationships introduce all sorts of emotional factors which (I think) most people aren't prepared for, even if they could be.

Our political institutions are wholly unprepared for a reality like that. Can you imagine the difficulty a parent might have instructing their child's preschool: "on of the moms or dads will pick Kiddo up at 3 every day" ?

Certainly it's possible that different institutions are possible, or even better. But it's not the case that our society has any historical examples of successful, publicly polyamorous (and especially, non-hierarchical) role-models.

ihsw22• 8 years ago

Poverty is overwhelmingly felt by single folks and children of single folks -- especially in communities of color. Whether you're raised in a two-parent household is the #1 indicator of whether a child of color succeeds in life.

The traditional family has (and always will) be the strongest institution for children.

Not only that but the #1 source of violence and terror in the world are single males, marriage overwhelmingly acts as the cornerstone of the civilizing process for both men and women.

3pt141592• 8 years ago

I'm non-monogamous. I'm pretty flexible about the exact arrangement (because I'm bi and I'm ok with tailoring my approach to my partner's comfort level) but the only thing I really can't do is fullblown monogamy.

That being said:

Poly has severe complications that most people in it don't really advertise. High status, attractive men are much more likely to get partners. This can lead to a dynamic where an average looking male partner is theoretically allowed to date other people, but if he's honest with potential partners about being in an existing open relationship then the pool of women willing to date him evaporates. Meanwhile, his female partner ends up dating men that in a normal monogamous context would be difficult for her to attain, potentially destabilizing the relationship.

Then you throw sex into the whole equation. Reasonably good chance that you're not going be the best sex your partner has ever had forever. Or even if everything is great, you could be someone else's best sex ever, and it could destabilize their primary relationship and it could cause real hurt to both of them.

Meanwhile, less than average looking or low status men date even less than they used to. The whole incel movement will just get worse if the whole world goes poly because men are generally less picky than women and are happier with lots of casual partners.

This isn't always the case, of course. Some people can handle jealousy. Some people can compartmentalize different sexual experiences, but most humans struggle with it. Monogamy has a stability that I don't see as frequently with poly relationships. Though many people cheat, of course.

magduf17• 8 years ago

Meanwhile, less than average looking or low status men date even less than they used to. The whole incel movement will just get worse if the whole world goes poly because men are generally less picky than women and are happier with lots of casual partners.

This seems to be saying that women should be required to "settle" for lousy men, instead of going for better men and accepting that they have to share them.

If a woman has a choice between being a co-wife for a guy who's reasonably attractive and well-employed and treats his partners really well, or a guy who's a drunk bum but will be monogamous with her, which is the more sensible choice?

Also, another factor I think is being ignored is the fact that, over the age of 30, there's more women than men (and this gets progressively worse as the age increases). Monogamy necessarily leads to a lot of unpartnered women.

devit2• 8 years ago

he's honest with potential partners about being in an existing open relationship then the pool of women willing to date him evaporates

I believe already having one or more lovers makes you much more attractive since the fact that those people chose you (among others) means you are probably a good choice.

Also, it helps you be outcome-independent (i.e. you don't care as much about whether a girl you are talking to wants to have sex with you, since you already have other girls for that), which is thought to be at least part of what makes males attractive.

Of course you won't be able to have fulfilling and honest relationships with people that insist on monogamy, but the opposite is true as well.

rhino369• 8 years ago

I'd rather be single than have someone else fuck my wife. I suspect most people feel the same way since infidelity a major cause of divorce.

lurquer• 8 years ago

I'll get downvoted, but I'll speak for the silent majority of lurkers on this thread reading the posts from the oh-so-enlightened and progressive 'polys. Any person who is ok with their spouse having sex with someone else is an immature and irresponsible fool.

zamalek• 8 years ago

people aren't getting married as much.

... because people aren't getting married for the wrong reasons. Previously, if you weren't married by 30 there would clearly be something wrong with you. It is generally becoming more acceptable to either have no interest in relationships, or to hold out for the right person. This is a healthier outlook on long-term relationships. At least with most of my friends.

If you don't ever want to get married, then don't.

If you never meet the right person, then don't get married.

It seems like I'm paraphrasing your first paragraph; but I'm not: both the decrease in marriage rates and the decrease in marriage failures are caused by this healthier perspective. The causation isn't the decline in marriage rates (because it has its own causation).

Poly is another matter entirely. I strongly believe that mono and poly are sexual identities just like any other (straight, homosexual, trans, etc.). Pairing a poly and mono together in a marriage is a great way to see things end in tears. You should be able to openly and unashamedly share what you are, so that everyone involved can make a mature decision based on this crucial factor in compatibility. Poly marriages should be legal (and should be legally documented as such). Mono marriages should also be legal (and continue to be documented as they are today).

dahart• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.

I read the book "Sperm Wars" a long time ago, but I still remember their argument that humans are mostly monogamous by nature, and that all the social factors we attach to monogamy and marriage are just rationalizing what we tend to do anyway. They also point to other species that do this, since it's a common misconception that animals aren't monogamous.

FWIW, I'm not against polyamory per-se, but I personally reject the idea that it's the solution to having unrealistic expectations. In my mind, thinking that you have to be satisfied in every way is the problem, not thinking your partner has to be the one do to it.

fvdessen4• 8 years ago

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way.

What you suggest seems to go again the Universal Declaration of Human rights (Article 16.3) which states that:

"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

ppseafield3• 8 years ago

I don't agree that everyone wants a polyamorous and open relationship. Myself, I am in one, and it suits me.

However, how do you define a family? Polyamorous families exist, families with parents in open relationships exist, and they are just as much families as monogamous families.

jpeg_hero• 8 years ago

“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women,” said William Doherty, a marriage therapist and professor of family social science at University of Minnesota, “so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”

curo2• 8 years ago

Or cost of divorce, property laws, custody laws, no fault laws — seems like a lot of variables to consider

ovulator• 8 years ago

I think this statistic doesn't say a whole lot. It means that they were the legal petitioner asking for the divorce. It doesn't mean they were the one who wanted out of the marriage.

My ex-wife had an affair and said she wasn't happy in our marriage. I was the one who did the legal paper work even though I didn't want the divorce, or initiate it in the relationship, but I was the one who initiated it legally.

influx• 8 years ago

So you “think” it doesn’t say a lot, but the only evidence you offer against a statistic is anecdotal.

What do you “think” it says then?

curo2• 8 years ago

Why is the first cohort from the 1960s? Is that a good baseline for determining whether the divorce surge is over?

dalbasal• 8 years ago

So... another example where the relationship between real trends and statistics and the ones people hear/believe are basically estranged. Pun intended, I sincerely apologize.

Beyond that.., i still have not heard a narrative that rang true to me. In some nontrivial senses, I think the instinctive conservative explanations are probably true. Society did unravel, as women's liberation and other big cultural shifts happened. Some of this is very simple, financial independence of both people changes what a marriage is and makes divorce possible.

A lot of this was probably down to feedbacks. Divorce became more common, more normal than it had been This made it an option, where it hadn't been.

I suspect that the "people just got flakier" narrative is mostly "kids today" BS, but who knows.

The way coupled get together has been totally rattled every generation for 4-5 generations now.

In any case, it's interesting that the trend is reversing. My general instictive guess is quasi-femenist. The nature of gender relations & marriage completely changed, starting in the 50s (or maybe the 20s). This basically broke marriage, as an institution. Maybe we've been putting it back together in our generation. This is pretty vague though.

I'm still waiting to stumble across a sociological narrative that tickles my "ah, that makes sense!" nerve. It's an interesting question.

felipellrocha• 8 years ago

Don't apologize for the pun. It was a beautiful pun. Be proud of it.

msla• 8 years ago

One of the big specific changes was the fact marriage got redefined with the end of coverture.

"Coverture" isn't even in Firefox's spell-check, which I suppose points to how obscure it is these days. It used to be part of what marriage was: It was the fact that a married couple was a single legal person for many purposes, that person being the husband. Wives couldn't own property in their own names, couldn't have bank accounts in their own names, and, to a large extent, couldn't exist in their own names, but had to rely on their husband to function as an adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert. An unmarried woman, a feme sole, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. Coverture arises from the legal fiction that a husband and wife are one person.

[snip]

After the rise of the women's rights movement in the mid-19th century, coverture came under increasing criticism as oppressive towards women, hindering them from exercising ordinary property rights and entering professions. Coverture was first substantially modified by late 19th century Married Women's Property Acts passed in various common-law legal jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by subsequent reforms. Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States.

Quoting Blackstone:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.

Same-sex marriage wasn't a redefinition of marriage: Same-sex marriages are exactly like all other modern marriages, by which I mean post-coverture marriages, in terms of the rights and abilities of the married persons and how they relate to each other legally. However, same-sex marriage is flatly impossible in any system with coverture: There couldn't be two males in a marriage, because there could only be one legal person, and there couldn't be two females in a marriage, because there had to be a legal person. It was as if the law was asking "Which one of you is the husband?" and expecting an answer.

Terr_• 8 years ago

I imagine the was a rather small silver-lining: If the husband -- an extra-loaded term in this context -- ran afoul of the law or king, wouldn't the wife be considered innocent or "just following orders"?

jclardy• 8 years ago

This doesn't seem to compare the actual number of marriages happening in these decades - my guess is that fewer people are getting married and/or they are marrying later in life. Meaning people aren't pursuing marriage just because that is what they are supposed to do, but instead because they actually want to.

As for people being flakier - I still think that is actually true - but as a result of communications technology. When you had to agree on meeting someplace a week in advance and not have contact with that person till then, you inherently have to be more "reliable," otherwise you would become known as being flakey for not showing up.

So I don't think it is the people that have changed, just that we still are adjusting to having the ability to be instantly connected with everyone in our lives.

amyjess• 8 years ago

One thing that people don't talk about much is how much people just suffered before divorce was normalized.

People who call their spouse "the old battleaxe" or "the ball and chain". Old married couples who are miserable, hate each other's guts, and fight all the time. People who spend as much time as humanly possible at work (both at the office and travelling for business) so they don't have to go home. People who sit there and take it as their spouse cheats on them again and again and again. People who silently suffer through abusive relationships and just have become highly skilled at covering up bruises. People who become abusive because they can't stand their spouses and are taught that it's more wrong to leave your spouse than it is to hit your spouse.

And you'll still see it to this day in religious communities where divorce is stigmatized. My ex-best friend once told me about his brother's marital problems. At the time, he was about 50 and got married very young. He couldn't stand his wife anymore, to the point where he became a violent suicidal alcoholic. At one point after one fight where he put his fist through a wall inches away from his wife's head, he walked into his shed. Several minutes later, his mother followed him in, and she found him with an empty handle of whiskey on the ground and a shotgun pointed under his chin. He had quickly emptied one object into his head, and he was about to do the same with the other object. She talked him out of suicide. And according to my ex-friend, that was a regular thing.

Why didn't he leave her? Because he—and the whole family—was very religious, and their church (a small ultraconservative sect of the Churches of Christ) didn't recognize divorce. Even if he legally got a divorce through the courts, his church would consider him an adulterer and disfellowship him if he ever got remarried. And his church was the center of his life, so he couldn't go against them. Because his church doesn't allow divorce, he abused his wife, nearly killed himself, and traumatized his mother (who was still on antidepressants after losing her husband in a farm accident 15 years ago).

I'm not excusing his abusive behavior—it's reprehensible no matter what, and he's a terrible human being—I'm just pointing out that stigmatization of divorce only helps encourage and normalize abuse.

pimmen• 8 years ago

I think later marriages is a big contributor to stabilizing divorce rates.

I got married at age 24 and after a very tumultuous time for us with economic hardships, a more hectic schedule (she was working two jobs at a time while I was doing my masters and working), death in the family, extended medical leave because of clinical depression aggravated by the death in the family, returning to school after her medical leave we grew into different people after just six years together. We decided to split.

Now that I have a stable job and I've experienced more of life, I know myself more. I know more about the type of person I would love to spend my life with and what type of person makes me miserable. And, of course, what makes me a difficult person to be with and what I can change about that. I believe there is no such thing as a dream person cut out for everyone of us. I believe successful marriage is about honesty, expectations and compromises but I also believe that if we know ourselves better and are less shallow when we decide to commit to relationships they have a much higher probability of success.

PrimalDual3• 8 years ago

On the other side of the polyamory issue, I am not sure the weakening of marriage is all that good. Single parenthood doesn’t seem to be that good for the children and I also dont see how polyamory solves the issues of paternal responsability. I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Polyamory also seems to ignore certian aspects of human sexual competition that aren’t really compatible with civilization. I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society.

_dczq• 8 years ago

==I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization.

Would you say the same about prostitution?

dsfyu404ed• 8 years ago

Would you say the same about prostitution?

We haven't exactly messed with it too much over the millennia. It's acceptableness to society and the way prostitutes are treated by society has remained roughly constant after you adjust for the baseline trend of increasing personal freedom and decreasing violence.

alpineidyll3• 8 years ago

The most conserved marriage agreement in recorded history is a property agreement, usually with women regarded as second class humans. The largest and most durable civilizations for example ancient China, endorsed plural marriage until the immediate past. It is totally inaccurate to call modern marriage with equality a conserved social structure.

ashleyn5• 8 years ago

I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society.

Or perhaps "society" shouldn't be so arrogantly entitled to intrude on the consensual relationships I may choose to enter. With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.

padobson2• 8 years ago

You make a good point. OP's point more serves as a scalable approach to reproduction and child rearing rather than sexuality. With widespread birth control available, sexuality doesn't have to overlap as much.

rwcarlsen3• 8 years ago

That is an interesting way to think considering that you receive huge benefits from society (in addition to some disbenefits). If everybody lived in a local optimum, the world would probably be a pretty crappy place to live. There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world.

ManFromUranus2• 8 years ago

A good comment I read here on HN was to the effect of: the minimum viable unit of humanity is not a single couple (two people), it is actually a village / tribe (more like 150 people).

With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.

This is incorrect. You actually owe society everything. You don't generate your own electricity. If you are robbed / assaulted you won't prosecute the offenders on your own. You don't feed yourself and on and on. You don't even ensure your own safety, mostly "the herd" accomplishes that for you.

The only reason you can exist at all is because of the thousands and millions of competent caring people around you who you can communicate with because you speak the same language. There are so many details and dependencies that you have and are taking for granted they can't even be enumerated accurately.

Even your health didn't just fall out of the sky, you owe your health to the fact that your parents passed on functioning genes to you, and that the environmental laws ensured you weren't poisoned, on and on and on. You literally DO owe society everything. Yet I would be good money that you only value your society to the extent it enables you to pursue your own desires and vices.

CuriouslyC• 8 years ago

I'm pretty sure monogamy is ubiquitous because it reduces social instability, not because it makes people who engage in it happier. I think the argument against monogamy on the grounds that it reduces individual happiness are pretty strong. If we can solve the problem of social instability in other ways, why not abandon monogamy if it is provably inferior?

You can argue that non-monogamy is problematic in nuclear families, but nuclear families aren't a given. In fact, the phenomenon of nuclear families might be the result of monogamy itself. Through the vast majority of human history we have formed tribes, with non-monogamy being significantly more common. Perhaps if non-monogamy became the norm, we would see a shift away from the focus on family and back towards a tribal perspective. Considering that increased rates of depression correlate pretty strongly with reductions in "family" size in the developed world, that might have added benefits.

I think people in advanced western civilizations have domesticated themselves sufficiently in general that we'd be okay with more mate competition. I think the improvement in number and quality of relationships likely to result is worth it. I also think we'd be happier if "infidelity" wasn't a thing.

The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On (2014)

Related Stories