Couple.Divorce()

Kevnar

I blame the "Wedding Industry". These people that sell the bridal mags, the dress makers, the caterers, decorators, the "Wedding Story" type shows, etc. They fill women's heads with all these romanticized notions of "the beautiful day". So women want to rush to the altar so they can be the star of a little fairy tale show cooked up by some high-priced wedding planner. The trouble is, after that the women realize that the reality of living with that person for the rest of your life is nowhere near as romantic as their wedding "show" might have predicted. Most marriages that are going to end in divorce usually end within 2 to 5 years. The groom is just a prop in the ceremony. It's all about the bride, and every woman wants to be a bride. It's like I used to say, "You don't want to marry that guy. You just want to have a wedding." I bet the divorce rate would drop off signifigantly if the wedding industry offered people mock weddings. The whole ceremony, the decorations, the dress, etc, with some stand-up hottie of a groom. Set that all up so the women can get all the gooey feelings of a wedding, without having to actually marry anyone. As for men, they just want to get their carrot wet, so to speak. They think marriage will ensure a steady supply of sex. Then they are surprised to find that the opposite is true. The sex was just the carrot to lure them into the wedding. Now that it's over, it's over. Granted there are exceptions to these rules, and I'm sure you'll all stand up in protest, but I'm just ranting about the typical scenarios here. If you've found something good, congratulations. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though. ;P Just my cynical 2-cent opinion. Since you asked.

"How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?" - Daniel Haley, The Onion

Tim Smith

I think you aren't remembering what it was like for women even pre 1960. There was a huge social stigma that women suffered that men didn't. A divorce was always the woman's fault in peoples eyes. Then if you roll back the time 30 more years, women were basically still property. They had limited power in the relationship. Women's rights over the last 100 years has really changed things for women more than most even realized. If you talk about older African American's they will tell you the same about the civil rights movement. We might not be there yet, but us youngsters really don't know what it was really like 50 years ago. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.

Nitron

The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. Before evaluating any given fact about religion, people bring to the table a pair of rose-colored glasses representing their world-view. This world-view is a culimination of all their experiences and beliefs, as well as the root of their logic. Everyone needs a starting point for their arguments: a faith-based assumption so to speak. From the secular athiest point of view, all there exists in the universe is molecules in motion. Love is nothing more than random firings of neurons that can be duplicated by consuming lots of cholocate. It is their belief that the universe came into being merely by chance, and there is no intelligent creator (God). However, that assumption is not scientifically provable, and as thus is merely an assumption of faith. There is no scientific method to prove what is beyond the universe or supernatural. Now from a bible-believing point of view, the faith assumption is that the bible is the inerrant word of god. A revealing of the nature of God to his people. Like the secular point of view, this assumption is also not provable by scientific method, but is a faith assumption. Thus it is the bible-believer who argues that the only reason the laws of the universe make any sense is that there is an intelligent creator. It is the bible-believer who states that it is no accident that the earth is the exact distance from the sun that it needs to be. The bible-believer will argue that the only reason man can do what he does is that an intelligent creator set it all in motion. Well, considering those two points of view, an athiest marriage is nothing more than random electrical neural patterns, with no set course and no arguable reason to be in the relationship in the first place. Wheras, the believers in a supreme being (God) have taken an oath in front of God as has been revealed to them in God's word. Thus the marriage has a goal and substance, and is not merely random chemical and electrial responses to the presence of the other individual. I am not intending to move this to religious debate, just supporting my response. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Paul Watson

So a man never lost any status from a divorce? I am not just talking about kings, politicians and top business men but also just the average joe on the street. I am curious. While I do realise women were treated very poorly I did also think that men suffered loss of face (especially religious men) in divorces.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Kevnar

I'm all for extensive pre-nuptual counselling being mandatory for any couple thinking of tying the knot. Make sure they are compatable, both with each other and with the relationship itself. It's funny how people are forced to take 4-8 years of career training before they are allowed to practice their occupation of choice, law, medicince, whatever, but when it comes to a life-long choice like marriage or parenthood, any idiot with gentials can sign up and ruin someone's life with no training at all.

"How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?" - Daniel Haley, The Onion

Paul Watson

You have a very wrong idea about what and how atheists think then. But so as to not end up in a lengthy debate you answered my question and the answer was: No, atheists have no chance in marriage. I disagree, but thanks for the response.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Navin

Yes, somehow IAlimony and IChildSupport objects never seem to get deleted. :-D You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.

brianwelsch

Paul Watson wrote: Simple enough question Not quite. I think part of the problem is we are in between tradition and self-empowerment. With that, I mean, there were traditional reasons for marriage and reasons to keep them together, whether they were political, financial, social, whatever. Today, marriage is more becoming an expression of love. The problem is we too often enter the contract under the of traditional reasons, even though our true expectation is that of a beautiful life of love and romance and support. We buy the fairytale idea of what marriage is, no matter what those who are married are telling us, but then leave chance to ensure it for us. One day, we wake up wondering what the hell happened here!? Then, it a fit of trying to reclaim our lives and "try it again", we convince ourselves divorce will be tough for a while, but I'll survive, and who knows maybe even be happy on the other side of it. By and large, society supports this because you can easily blame the other party for all wrongs, and feel good about yourself. Who can deny your wish to find happiness after all? Obviously, all cases are unique, and I in no way intend to say that divorce is wrong in any case, so if you are divorced, please take no offense at my over simplification of it. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Paul Watson

I don't know about that Kevnar. Girls have had whacked out ideas about marriage long before the wedding industry blossomed. I think the wedding industry has mearly capitalised on an already existing need and belief. My sister's friends from when she was a little girl would dream about marriage, dress up, gush etc. That was long before they started reading the trashy magazines. My sister was never like that and still is not to this day. Has her head screwed on straight she does.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Nitron

Paul Watson wrote: You have a very wrong idea about what and how atheists think then. I was refering to secular atheism in particular. http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml[^] http://www.secular.org/aboutsca.html[^] I was not intending to be in contrast with other flavors of atheism, so I apologise :rose:. But again, a discussion for a different day. :rose: - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Kevnar

Paul Watson wrote: I think the wedding industry has merely capitalised on an already existing need and belief. You're probably right there. But I think they are contributing to they frenzy at least as much as they profit from it. The wedding industry has fewer repeat customers than other industries, they must constantly drum up new business in order to stay alive. At least this is what the bridal shop told my wife and I when we were planning our wedding. The trouble with my theory is the women who would actually fall for this kind of mayhem probably aren't on CP to affirm my opinions. Women on CP usually have a brain in their heads to start with.

"How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?" - Daniel Haley, The Onion

Lost User

I'm not typing very coherently today am I? I agree with you though. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

l a u r e n

no paul thats naive men never lost face because it was put down to a failing of the woman in the relationship ... dont forget that a couple of hundred years ago in europe u could have ur wife conveniently burned for being a witch ... that was a great no-payout-divorce option at the time im sure im not bleating an anti-man thing here but men really never have and never really do suffer loss of face from divorce i also would like to point out that some divorce settlements where the guy ends up having to pay maintainance to some dilly bitch who is clearly taking the p*ss really annoys me too so yes women can be 'in the wrong' in some senses too (but the debate wasnt really about that)

"penguins have no bill"
biz stuff about me

Alvaro Mendez

I agree 100%. Unfortunately this would cause divorce lawyers to riot. :-) Regards, Alvaro

That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable. -- despair.com

l a u r e n

"all's fair in love and war but in love there's no geneva convention" is the only way i figured to deal with what can (and all too often does) happen in love

"penguins have no bill"
biz stuff about me

Jeremy Falcon

Yes Paul, I made the post this long for you. Anyone else on CP that wants to listen is very welcome to. :) The cold, hard truth on attraction... Out of all the people I've ever met in my entire life (it's been a few), more times than not, it's the chick in the relationship that's unhappy with it and bitchy. I've seen a couple relationships the other way around, but that's only by the infamous "asshole" types that some of my ex-acquaintances of the past and I know of. Most male saps jump when the chick says to - sad but true. Masculine is attracted to feminine and vice versa. That's the laws of nature. You can't have a sissy guy and a chick together and expect to be happy - just settled for. You can't have a butch-chick and a macho guy together either. And, I'm talking about in attitude also, not just the physical aspect. There are a lot of "settled-for" relationships because women don't know what they really want and most guys are sissies. You don't seem to find as many strong, burly, macho-type men these days thanks to growing technology and all-around laziness of people. Consequently, some of the masculine machoness is robbed. And, you can't tell me girls don't like that crap because I have personally had a butt load of girls and guys alike that just love to stare at my chest - even at places like work and the mall! And chicks love to look at guys in the gym just as much as the guys love to look at chicks (the problem is guys stare). So, I speak with experience here. Like Freud said, everything revolves around sex (and I believe the ego too, but they are semi-related anyway). You don't see girls dreaming of sissies, and you don't see guys dreaming of fat chicks - period. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to make their own position in life seem better because they are too lazy to do something about it. If a girl is with her dream guy, she's going to want to stay. If a guy is with his dream girl, he's going to want to stay - end of story. Anything else is just "settled-for", whether it be due to insecurities, learned social traits/habits, or whatever. So, what makes a dream partner? The combination of the physical AND emotional (like personality) things each person needs. You can't have one without the other; otherwise, it's being settled for. Just to help my point along. You can have a macho-type guy that is too much of an asshole. Let's say he's abusive. Then his personality sucks, a nice body won't do much good as far as attraction goes, etc. So, you see, it goes both ways. The re

Kevnar

Simply put, a divorce is the evetual result of a marriage that never should have happened in the first place. Figure out why people marry the wrong person to begin with and you'll have the tools to solve the divorce problem.

"How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?" - Daniel Haley, The Onion

Lost User

Just random thougts .. I was never married or divorced :-). So this is just thoughts that seem logical now - may have nothing to do with what happens out there. The question is whether people become happier in a marriage? As in any partnership, when partners start questioning what the other partner brings to the table, the marriage are in trouble. If spouses do not support each other in thick and thin, what is the point in being married anyway? I don't really know why people get divorced at a higher rate, but I know that it is certainly not a good experience. Everyone involved comes out bruised ... and probably, it is proportional to the emotional investment they made. The only reason can be that people have unrealistic expectations of what a marriage brings to their lives. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

Jon Newman

I'm not sure about classical role models, but traditional roles are losing out. The idea of you marry, then spend the rest of your lives together has dissapeared. I think its due to a more 'global' society. Before, you were born, raised, married and died in one city/region, so you didnt really meet as many people, plus people know there is always something better out there and are now more likely to persue it due to the statements peterchen made. Although I would think the dedication,responsibility and loyalty aspects are far more promenent. As well as family, in the past, family viewpoints were considered paramount, if your family disapproved of a marriage, it was difficult to have one. Now, people don't care what their families want, and will get married on whims that don't work. This is more to the point of 'individuality' and independance.

"How long has the "Quote Selected Text" been around???"
- Marc Clifton, Lounge 4 Mar '03
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03

Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]

peterchen

Mom is at home doing the household, raising the kids, waiting for the man to come. He's at work, bringing home the money, feeding the family. It's the expectations of who-does-what you have when you go into with a partnership. Now people (at least those who married to quickly) can even get split up because, in the end, she's permanently mad that he never does the dishes, never putas the toilet seat down, always works late, etc. (People should figure out this before they marry - but truth is, may have changed the day they changed rings) One should not forget that these role models come from a time where a) doing the house hold, for a family including grandma, and 3 children, *was* a full-days job, and b) "he's at work" regulary meant 6x10 plus 1..2hrs commute - after that you come home, eat and fall into your bed.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen