PDA

View Full Version : Divorce



PHAT
22-05-2004, 08:04 PM
We have three good family family friends who are on the cusp of separating. Why? We have lots more family family friends who, like us, are rock solid. Why? to paraphase Tolstoy, "All happy families are happy in the same way. All unhappy families are unhappy in there own way."

Because of what they have seen recently, our children have interpreted the usual/normal odd snit or brickering between their parents as evidence that their whole world is about to disintergrate. I wonder if the fequent exposure of society to divorce, provides the excuse of normalcy. Thus, removing societal pressure to make it work, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think our society has forgotten/lost the ethos behind marriage - the rearing and protection of the next generation. While our society is not about to distintegrate, I fear that our society will be less happy in the future for all the divorce.

Comments please.

JGB
24-05-2004, 06:02 PM
I think it has more to do with couples getting married not knowing what they are in for, and are not really in love in the first place. These days marriages are often carried out like a business transaction for tax or other benefits that married couples recieve in our society.

But to claim divorce rates show unhapiness in society is joke. The fact that divorce is not seen as an 'evil' thing is almost good. Couples should not remain together if its never going to work out, thats worse for the chldren than if the parents lived together in an unhappy relationship, for the misguided belief thats its in the benefit of the children?!

I believe divorce rates in countries like India and the middle east would be higher than ours if it was freely possible and not regarded with stigma as it is... when it is possible at all for the female to undertake a 'divorce' without 'consent' from the husband. :(

jenni
24-05-2004, 07:08 PM
There is no doubt that keeping kids in a "bad" marriage is a harmful thing to do. However it is getting to the point where people bow out of marriage just because it has gone a bit flat.

I know one couple with 4 children who are in the process of getting divorced. They have said they still like each other and there are no problems, but they want something more in the relationship and so are splitting up while there is still time to find a new partner (presumably some mythical "perfect love").

My personal view is that they are selfish wretches and should stick with the marriage until the kids are grown up.

No marriage is perfect - after the first x years the romance starts to dwindle (and dies a lot more under the pressure of children). However if you work at it you end up with a mature relationship of friendship and respect, where you become a true partnership and family and not a disjoint collection of individuals.

Garvinator
24-05-2004, 07:28 PM
I know one couple with 4 children who are in the process of getting divorced. They have said they still like each other and there are no problems, but they want something more in the relationship and so are splitting up while there is still time to find a new partner (presumably some mythical "perfect love").
my view is that this couple should try some sort of marriage counselling first before divorcing. usually all that is required to rekindle some sort of spark is some time spent together away from the normal home pressures.

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2004, 07:31 PM
Matt, I know this will antagonise you, but many of the most enduring and loving marriages I've observed have been CBC. Among families with children I've known, those where all children reach 18 without their parents divorcing, seperating or at least going close, have been a minority.

The old ideal of being able to completely efface one's self in order to support a family appears to have more or less gone down the gurgler, if it was ever that generally real at all. Modern parents have to juggle their self-interest, their relationship with each other, and their family, as priorities, often while also very busy. There are all kinds of ways that people find to get it wrong - sometimes by trying too hard to be something that they're not. I agree that parents who are raising children should make supreme efforts to stay together if at all possible during this process. I am not sure whether Matthew's suggested solution to this issue (to make child-rearing the overarching purpose) would actually work for all families, or whether it would itself be a fatal and unsustainable imbalance for many. More power to him if it works for him though.

Garvinator
24-05-2004, 07:34 PM
Matt, I know this will antagonise you,
do you want to just save time and move this to the perpetual flamewar rubbish section already :whistle:

Cat
24-05-2004, 07:43 PM
Of course we don't know the individual circumstances, but it's a very interesting question and touches on something I have been trying to rationalise and understand myself - that is the role of loyalty and faith within human societies.

It's interesting that notions of nationhood is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the emergence of European Republicanism in the 17th/18th centuries most societies were generally ruled by some kind of monarchy. Political borders were sometimes ill-defined, often shifting. In some societies the king also became a deity, such was the loyalty and the respect recorded. However, loyalties were generally directed towards immediate family, then wider family and then local community. There was a sense of shared responsilibity within the community.

Today these kind of community loyalties have been destroyed and there are number of reasons why this has happened. Individuals are far more mobile, not only commuting large distances to work, but also often affected by migration. Since the industrial revolution people have been migrating to cities, and international migration has followed. Different ethnic, cultural and religious groups find themselves thrown together. But people live in bigger dwellings also, they have television, the internet, their individual pleasuredomes inhibiting interaction with their neighbours. Consequently the sense of responsibility to and within these social groups is loosened. One no longer has to explain one's action to one's neighbour, if you commit adultery your aunt isn't just down the road to pull you in line, more likely Bruce will turn a blind eye. Gradually our senstivities diminish and our tolerances know no limits.

But there is something far more insidious afoot, something ripping into the heart of our society, tearing our family bonds apart, destroying our sense of humanity. Aliens are competing for our individual loyalties, for the loyalties of our neighbours, for the loyalties of our wives, and especially for the loyalties of our children. These Aliens are far more sophisticated than we are and have far greater understanding of what drives us as individuals, our desires, our wants our basic interests. They know what price we hold over our soul, they know how much we would sell our grandmother for, they know what we'll do tomorrow even before we've thought about what we'll do today.

These Aliens know because they have all the facts and figures, they've been studying us systematically for decades. Their interests could not be more different from ours, yet they tell us what to think, what to say and what to do and we do it. They are among us!

Richards is loosing his marbles you say! There ain't any bloody Aliens around where I live. Oh yes there are!!!

The Aliens I'm talking about have not arrived from another planet. You can't see or touch them, yet they are all around you. They control every soundbite entering our living room, every image entering our children's eye's. They are with us as soon as we can speak and death is our only escape. They create clever logo's to inspire our children's interest, pretty things for our wives to appreciate and shiney things for our men to desire. It's the Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging, for everything we could want. Who needs a child, a wife or a husband, when you have the latest Sony Shiney Thing?Who has time to care for poor old Aunt Jones when the Myer Sale is on? It's not greed, these are things YOU need!!

In America, the average child witnesses 200,000 violent acts on television before they reach 18. Children spend more time recieving information from television than from their teacher. I doubt that Australia is very different. Corporate logo's are dieified, need and greed are confused, promises of satisfaction delivered over and over. All the while parents are portrayed as bumbling fools, uncool, living dinosaurs, out of touch and a threat to their child's social acceptance -they cannot be trusted. Big kids are just so cool, because they have Nike Power and drink from the Coke of Everlasting Cool. They prey to their Corporate Gods in the Church of the Poisoned Mind. They are carefully crafted, worked and sculptured into the most desirable of Corporate Clones, and we loose them.

What we loose is their loyalty. Their respect, not only for us but also for the ideas and principles we work so hard to instill. Generation by generation, notions of society and community are replaced by corporate culture, material ambition and ruthless enterprise. We become the Aliens, not menacing or threatening but sad and pathetic. We cling to noble principles, outdated traditions and ideas that have no home any longer. The defiant power of Big Brother is neutralised by reality TV. Who the hell is Orwell, we love Big Sister. Love IS hate.

PHAT
24-05-2004, 07:45 PM
But to claim divorce rates show unhapiness in society is joke. The fact that divorce is not seen as an 'evil' thing is almost good. Couples should not remain together if its never going to work out, ...

Divorce involving children lead in most cases to the parent with the children - usually the mother - crashing into proverty. If you think proverty is not a receipy for unhappines, you have never known proverty, or read much.

If divorce is "giving up", it may well be a net evil. If divorce is "cutting your losses", it may well be a net positive. The trouble is, I think, is that "never going to work" is a symptom of selfishness. In deed, divorcees are more likely to divorce again in any subsequent marriage. That would seem to me to be an indication of inflexable selfishness.

PHAT
24-05-2004, 07:56 PM
I know one couple with 4 children who are in the process of getting divorced. They have said they still like each other and there are no problems, but they want something more in the relationship and so are splitting up while there is still time to find a new partner (presumably some mythical "perfect love").

My personal view is that they are selfish wretches and should stick with the marriage until the kids are grown up.


Is "selfish wretches" the best you can do? How about "psychopathic maggots".

Anyway, if they want a bit more out of life, can't they be more French in and out of their relationship. :uhoh:

JGB
24-05-2004, 08:01 PM
[QUOTE=Matthew Sweeney]Divorce involving children lead in most cases to the parent with the children - usually the mother - crashing into proverty.QUOTE]


Can you prove this?? 'most cases'... crashing into poverty?? :hmm:

Cat
24-05-2004, 08:13 PM
[QUOTE=Matthew Sweeney]Divorce involving children lead in most cases to the parent with the children - usually the mother - crashing into proverty.QUOTE]


Can you prove this?? 'most cases'... crashing into poverty?? :hmm:

60% of the World's Population (4 billion people) exist on less than $2/day, most of them women and children, and mostly dispossessed.

PHAT
24-05-2004, 08:16 PM
Matt, I know this will antagonise you, but many of the most enduring and loving marriages I've observed have been CBC.

But they are not actually married, they are shacked up with a certificate. The consumation of a marriage is part of all societies because the nexus between shagging and children is welll known.


Among families with children I've known, those where all children reach 18 without their parents divorcing, seperating or at least going close, have been a minority. /

So?


The old ideal of being able to completely efface one's self in order to support a family appears to have more or less gone down the gurgler,

Not so old idea! And why has it gone down the gurgler? An emphesis on individual selfinterest per chance?


Modern parents have to juggle their self-interest, their relationship with each other, and their family, as priorities, often while also very busy.

As any decent parent will tell you, the kids are the first priority. The rest is an insignificant juggle. You cannot know it until you have tried it - hence the contempt the childless receive (from us) when they attampt to tell parents what is or is not good for families.


I agree that parents who are raising children should make supreme efforts to stay together if at all possible during this process.

You are sooooooooooo lucky that you agree.


I am not sure whether Matthew's suggested solution to this issue (to make child-rearing the overarching purpose) would actually work for all families, or whether it would itself be a fatal and unsustainable imbalance for many.

Well, the fact that our societies are founded on the idea that the wellbeing of children is the purpose of marriage is an a priori arguement for insisting that failing couples with children, pull their horns in and make it work.

PHAT
24-05-2004, 08:31 PM
[QUOTE=Matthew Sweeney]Divorce involving children lead in most cases to the parent with the children - usually the mother - crashing into proverty.QUOTE]


Can you prove this?? 'most cases'... crashing into poverty?? :hmm:

Do I realyhave to google for you?:confused:

http://www.apfn.com.pt/Noticias/Jul2000/infovitae26.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/english/hansard/previous/057_94-04-26/057PB1E.html

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2004, 08:31 PM
I know one couple with 4 children who are in the process of getting divorced. They have said they still like each other and there are no problems, but they want something more in the relationship and so are splitting up while there is still time to find a new partner (presumably some mythical "perfect love").

My personal view is that they are selfish wretches and should stick with the marriage until the kids are grown up.

I agree.

Some people in these cases seem to be acting out of fear that if they don't find a new partner soon they will be "left on the shelf". I know men my age (early thirties) and women even in their mid-twenties who fret like crazy about this - and it's all the more silly when I also know people twice the age or older who have successfully started new relationships, often with people a decade or two their junior.

PHAT
24-05-2004, 08:42 PM
The Aliens I'm talking about have not arrived from another planet. You can't see or touch them, yet they are all around you. They control every soundbite entering our living room, every image entering our children's eye's. They are with us as soon as we can speak and death is our only escape. They create clever logo's to inspire our children's interest, pretty things for our wives to appreciate and shiney things for our men to desire. It's the Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging, for everything we could want.

I recently read "NO LOGO" by Naomi Klein. Should be compulsory reading at highschool.

Read the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312421435/qid=1085395156/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2579715-4212120?v=glance&s=books

JGB
24-05-2004, 08:56 PM
Do I realyhave to google for you?:confused:


Yeah great... :hmm: but it does not tell me that as a result of a divoce most children with the mother will go crashing into poverty. It is more likely ok everyone knows that; but these sites are far from supporting your claim,and you can goggle for me as much as you like, good luck finding your evidence for the 'most cases'.

and Dave... your 60% figure etc etc.. on $2 a day is all good, but please relate it to my question on how 'most' (more than 50%) mothers and children spiral into poverty as a result of divorce.

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2004, 09:01 PM
But they are not actually married, they are shacked up with a certificate. The consumation of a marriage is part of all societies because the nexus between shagging and children is welll known.

Doesn't follow, people marry for all sorts of reasons and always have done (for instance people would sometimes remarry for company in later years after their partners had died), although reproduction-based marriages were obviously more predominant when childbirth rates were higher.


So?

I think I was agreeing with something you had said, just ignore it.


Not so old idea! And why has it gone down the gurgler? An emphesis on individual selfinterest per chance?

Partly, yes - although an important point is to what extent it's an increased emphasis on it and to what extent it's just an increased honesty (and reduced sexism) about it.


As any decent parent will tell you, the kids are the first priority. The rest is an insignificant juggle.

Well, how are we defining "decent parent" in this case? Since the subject is divorce, it would seem sensible to select as "decent parents" those who do not divorce (or have their marriages otherwise cease functioning effectively from the children's viewpoint) before their children leave home. Agreed?


You cannot know it until you have tried it - hence the contempt the childless receive (from us) when they attampt to tell parents what is or is not good for families.

Your Dishonour, I respectfully submit that my experience of having my own parents divorce when I was a teenager is not entirely irrelevant to this case. :hand: :p


Well, the fact that our societies are founded on the idea that the wellbeing of children is the purpose of marriage is an a priori arguement for insisting that failing couples with children, pull their horns in and make it work.

That's fine (so long as it does work.). What I'm suggesting is to see certain minimum standards of self-interest, partnership and care for the family as all not negotiable. I'd agree that the last is going to be most important while the children are being brought up, with the others perhaps having to take a back seat, but does it really work if child-rearing is made the be-all-and-end-all of everything?

Of course, I have no specialist knowledge about this subject - but does anyone here?

Cat
24-05-2004, 09:14 PM
Yeah great... :hmm: but it does not tell me that as a result of a divoce most children with the mother will go crashing into poverty. It is more likely ok everyone knows that; but these sites are far from supporting your claim,and you can goggle for me as much as you like, good luck finding your evidence for the 'most cases'.

and Dave... your 60% figure etc etc.. on $2 a day is all good, but please relate it to my question on how 'most' (more than 50%) mothers and children spiral into poverty as a result of divorce.

Because globally huge numbers of mothers and children are being simply abandoned by the fathers, whether it be a formal divorce or whether it be the dissolution of a defact relationship.

If you look at the Australian Government Statistics you will find single mother families significantly over-represented at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Even if you argue (fallaciously) they were the poor to begin with, it creates a desperate cycle of poverty which is disastrous for any society

JGB
24-05-2004, 09:29 PM
I am not dissagreeing with this arguement David it sounds correct, i am just questioning that as a result of divorce that most women and children end up in poverty. This I did not know and if someone can prove that I would be astounded.

Cat
25-05-2004, 04:35 PM
I am not dissagreeing with this arguement David it sounds correct, i am just questioning that as a result of divorce that most women and children end up in poverty. This I did not know and if someone can prove that I would be astounded.

Whether its most or simply a large proportion is immaterial, the important thing to recognise is the devastating effect divorce has, both economically and socially, on not only the children but the partners themselves.

We (the medical and counselling services) regard family breakdown as a catastrophe for all members of that family and strive, if at all possible, to keep the family unit together, as it has been shown time and time again that this is the best outcome. Of course, sometimes things so bad that the situation is irretrievable, often couples leave it too late to seek help.

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2004, 06:01 PM
Whether its most or simply a large proportion is immaterial, the important thing to recognise is the devastating effect divorce has, both economically and socially, on not only the children but the partners themselves.

That effect certainly makes sense in terms of property and child-minding expenses alone.


We (the medical and counselling services) regard family breakdown as a catastrophe for all members of that family and strive, if at all possible, to keep the family unit together, as it has been shown time and time again that this is the best outcome.

The cases I see where I do wonder if splitting up would be the best thing for everyone are cases where the parents intractably fight over major issues with the children always caught in the middle. However even there if the family is split up the parents sometimes continue fighting over custody, which gets even worse. I know someone in this situation - it is hideous.


Of course, sometimes things so bad that the situation is irretrievable, often couples leave it too late to seek help.

Or don't even attempt to.

Gandalf
26-05-2004, 01:23 AM
I haven't had a chance to read through all this, though from my skim it does seem to be quite an intriguing thread.

Matt, I applaud the content of your first post. Marriage isn't just about having love now, but making sure you can deliver that love every day, until you die. Like any true relationship it takes work to maintain, and in today's "I want more, and I want it yesterday! Me me me!" society, there simply isn't enough of that selflesness around to keep the institution of marriage truly alive.

Just a note though, Marriages have always been a "contract" of sorts. They were a union of two estates, stating ownership and entitlements. For the rich, that is. Poor people as often as not didn't bother marrying, since they were subjects of lords. Why bother with a contract when there's nothing at stake?

As for the argument of not enough preparation vs not enough effort, it's really a matter of both and none. Too many people go into marriage because they think it is the "logical next step" in their relationship - but they don't take the time and effort to look introspectively at the implications and consequences of these decisions. Conversely, the two people involved may be perfectly suited for one another, and hence enter a "good" marriage. However, when later they grow distant, cold or bitter, one or both simply may not be willing to put in the work required to keep the relationship going. Nobody is willing to put themselves after the needs of another anymore, not even their wife or husband. Really, if you can't sacrifice your pride for the happiness of your wife (until, at least, you can talk and thresh out the real problems) then why did you bother marrying her? If you can't hold your own feelings back long enough to listen to your husband, or suspend your anger at him, can you honestly say you remember why you married him?

This is just me thinking aloud. Please note that as a Catholic some of my ideas on marriage have a theological basis, but everything above applies to any marriage. By agreeing to that union you make a pledge (to yourself, to your partner, and if applicable to God) that you will do everything in your power (and sometimes beyond it) to defend and nurture the love of your spouse, to stick it out and to work hard for him/her. Divorce is what happens when people forget the magnitude of this pledge, either before taking it or after doesn't matter, because the end result is the same.

eclectic
26-05-2004, 01:00 PM
This is just me thinking aloud. Please note that as a Catholic some of my ideas on marriage have a theological basis, but everything above applies to any marriage.
I thought it might be appropriate here to note the difference in attitude to divorce between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church line is: You're married for life (unless an annulment proves the marriage was never in effect.)

The Orthodox Church line is : People would ideally like to marry for life but the reality is that due to human frailty and this not being an ideal world marriages can and do fail and keeping an acrimonius marriage together most likely does unnecessary harm to the partners and children involved.

The topic of marriage and divorce was taken off the agenda at the Eucumenical Council of Trent (mid 1500's) so that any negotiations with the Orthodox Church would not be put offside if ever a reunification to combat protestantism was likely.

Note too that the attitudes of these churches to their priests marrying almost parallels their above (lack of) pragmatism towards divorce.

Thus in the Orthodox Church a man who is already a priest can marry but a married man can't become a priest and you can't marry if you wish to become a bishop.

In the Catholic Church priests have to be celibate if they belong to the Latin Rite. Those belonging to the Oriental Rites (these switched allegience from Constantinople to Rome) are due to their venerable tradition allowed to retain married priests.

One could perhaps suggest that contemporary scandals concerning priests within the Catholic Church are due to enforcing celibacy upon those who can't cope with it.

Getting back to the thread topic of divorce ...

Perhaps Matthew (given he started the thread) might like to put up a poll about what is the primary cause of divorce.

eclectic

Oepty
26-05-2004, 01:23 PM
An interesting discussion.
Just a couiple of points. There are married Catholic priests, you have to get special dispensation from the Pope. John Fleming is one example you might have heard of.

Secondly, I probably would agree with eclectic that the problems in the Catholic Church are partially caused by the general banning of marriage, althoguh certainly not totally.
Scott

eclectic
26-05-2004, 02:12 PM
An interesting discussion.
Just a couiple of points. There are married Catholic priests, you have to get special dispensation from the Pope. John Fleming is one example you might have heard of.

Secondly, I probably would agree with eclectic that the problems in the Catholic Church are partially caused by the general banning of marriage, althoguh certainly not totally.
Scott
Converts who were married ministers in their former church do get such a dispensation. Perhaps John Fleming might be in that category.

eclectic

PHAT
26-05-2004, 04:50 PM
Doesn't follow, people marry for all sorts of reasons and always have done (for instance people would sometimes remarry for company in later years after their partners had died), although reproduction-based marriages were obviously more predominant when childbirth rates were higher.

I think that in general, society does not take a marriage seriously unless there are children. Twilight marriages and gay marriages are viewed as just two people making a public commitment to eachother until something happens - that sees them single again. The only marriages that count are those that include children. That is why the important question is why do parents dovorce.



Well, how are we defining "decent parent" in this case? Since the subject is divorce, it would seem sensible to select as "decent parents" those who do not divorce (or have their marriages otherwise cease functioning effectively from the children's viewpoint) before their children leave home. Agreed?
Kind of agreed. I wish I could say that either "decents" are a subset of "non-divorcers" but it is likely that "non-divorcers are a subset of "decents". The proportion of "divorcers" who are also "decents" is probably very low, in my opinion.


Your Dishonour, I respectfully submit that my experience of having my own parents divorce when I was a teenager is not entirely irrelevant to this case.

And my parents also divorced when I was 16. Mom ended up in a psych ward and police cells and dad went off with a home breaking slut. [Not as much of a melodrama as I posted 31-12-2003 :lol:]




What I'm suggesting is to see certain minimum standards of self-interest, partnership and care for the family as all not negotiable. I'd agree that the last is going to be most important while the children are being brought up, with the others perhaps having to take a back seat, but does it really work if child-rearing is made the be-all-and-end-all of everything?

True, child-rearing is not the be-all-and-end-all. However, if a society and parents do not get it right enough, the economic costs are enormous and the personal costs are a private hell. We know that divorce is a catastrophe for most children. Why do we as a society, condone divorce of parents so readily. Unwarrented divorce should be up their with paedophilia as an abuse of children. The magnitude of the effects of divorce compared to sexual assault are not dissimilar. Yet few people are willing to get stuck into divorcing couples for being such selfish scum.

[/QUOTE]

Rincewind
26-05-2004, 05:08 PM
I'm not a adherent of the Russellian model - but he had some interesting ideas on childrearing. In general, thought it too important to be left in the hands of parents. :p

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2004, 05:19 PM
I think that in general, society does not take a marriage seriously unless there are children.

I haven't noticed much evidence of this. (I gave "twilight marriages" as you call them a mention because they were one of the old reasons why people sometimes married for non-breeding purposes, not because they're such a prominent one nowadays). I do notice though that there tends to be more pressure on couples to marry if they intend to breed than if they do not.


That is why the important question is why do parents dovorce.

Fair enough, since that is the point of this thread.


Kind of agreed. I wish I could say that either "decents" are a subset of "non-divorcers" but it is likely that "non-divorcers are a subset of "decents". The proportion of "divorcers" who are also "decents" is probably very low, in my opinion.

I move a small amendment - the proportion of "divorcers" who are also both "decents" is probably very low. ;) Some cases are clearly one party's fault.

Generally I think that parents should stay together until the children have escaped; they can divorce after that if they must. A curious aspect of this, though, is the way Howardism (especially the way Centrelink takes parental income into account for students) is driving more and more people to live at home with their parents into their mid-20s. I don't know what the impact of parental divorce is on adults who are still living at home.


Unwarrented divorce should be up their with paedophilia as an abuse of children. The magnitude of the effects of divorce compared to sexual assault are not dissimilar.

I think this is exaggerated, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I've known people who have been sexually abused as children (at a range of ages) and the psychological damage is frequently hideous - in particular to their own relationship skills. Having parents divorce is certainly nasty but doesn't generally seem to be on that kind of level, except maybe in the worst cases.

PHAT
26-05-2004, 11:03 PM
I do notice though that there tends to be more pressure on couples to marry if they intend to breed than if they do not.

Boy oh boy did we get pressure to marry when we got breeder confirmation. We stayed unmarried for a decade until our kids got sick of us calling them little bastards. So we got married. It made no difference at all to our behaviour towards eachother (still fine), but curiously it feels nice, right, good - we should have done it when we started breeding :doh:



I move a small amendment - the proportion of "divorcers" who are also both "decents" is probably very low. ;) Some cases are clearly one party's fault. Seconded - MS


A curious aspect of this, though, is the way Howardism (especially the way Centrelink takes parental income into account for students) is driving more and more people to live at home with their parents into their mid-20s.

At much as I dislike the Howard government, I cannot agree. Kids used to FO as soon as they could, living in squalid shared accommodation. Nowadays, they are so self-centered that they would kill eachother if they tried. They seem to put a higher value on the things that their money can buy than the independance their money could buy.




I think this is exaggerated, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I've known people who have been sexually abused as children (at a range of ages) and the psychological damage is frequently hideous - in particular to their own relationship skills. Having parents divorce is certainly nasty but doesn't generally seem to be on that kind of level, except maybe in the worst cases.

Yep, I think that child sexual assult is going to havea greater impact than divorce - but not by much, I'll try to dig up some evidence for or against.

Cat
26-05-2004, 11:04 PM
I haven't noticed much evidence of this. (I gave "twilight marriages" as you call them a mention because they were one of the old reasons why people sometimes married for non-breeding purposes, not because they're such a prominent one nowadays). I do notice though that there tends to be more pressure on couples to marry if they intend to breed than if they do not.

I move a small amendment - the proportion of "divorcers" who are also both "decents" is probably very low. ;) Some cases are clearly one party's fault.



Divorce rates in Western Societies are around 50%. Many 'celebrity' marriages seem to be measured in hours or days. These are the icons that are set to inspire the next generation

Garvinator
26-05-2004, 11:09 PM
Divorce rates in Western Societies are around 50%. Many 'celebrity' marriages seem to be measured in hours or days. These are the icons that are set to inspire the next generation
britney being an example ;)

PHAT
26-05-2004, 11:09 PM
An interesting quicky site. No refs but seems unbiased.

http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/divorce.html

PHAT
26-05-2004, 11:12 PM
Divorce rates in Western Societies are around 50%. Many 'celebrity' marriages seem to be measured in hours or days. These are the icons that are set to inspire the next generation

In deed! Icons who treat the institution of marriage like a disposable napkin. What good role models :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2004, 01:03 AM
At much as I dislike the Howard government, I cannot agree. Kids used to FO as soon as they could, living in squalid shared accommodation. Nowadays, they are so self-centered that they would kill eachother if they tried.

They don't, I know quite a lot of people in the 18-25 bracket doing it and share-housing is much the same as it has ever been. The ones who are so self-centred they would kill each other if they tried generally are so either because they've been spoilt rotten (in which case they'll stay at home anyway) or because they're rich bastards who can afford their own flats. Think I mentioned before that for three years I lived in a share housing system where flatmates were more or less randomly allocated by a bureaucracy. That was ... peculiar.

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2004, 01:08 AM
Divorce rates in Western Societies are around 50%. Many 'celebrity' marriages seem to be measured in hours or days. These are the icons that are set to inspire the next generation

I think celebrities have always had a tough time of it because celebrity often means (i) lots of suitors so there'll always be someone else (ii) financial comfort so the negative consequences of breakups are less pronounced (iii) lotsa drugs for those that way inclined. It would be interesting to know just how bad the picture is there overall or if you get a slightly distorted picture from the media focusing on the spectacular breakups. I mean, "<insert name here> Stays Happily Married For Yet Another Month" doesn't attract all that much attention, unless the celeb in question has effective royalty status.

antichrist
30-05-2004, 02:06 PM
I know a chap went to 3rd world country, slept with a working girl for 2 weeks who also robbed him, sponsered her to Aussie and married her, now 18 years later they are still together.

frogmogdog
09-06-2004, 09:50 PM
socrates thought you couldn't lose in marriage.

if it was good you were happy, if it was bad you were a philosopher.

(or maybe a chess player)

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2004, 12:13 AM
Or a songwriter.