Hkizzle Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 So the divorce rate is around 50% in the US and over a third in most developed countries. That's just the people that decide to finally end it. Amongst the people that stay in a marriage (usually for the kids) many are unhappy as well. Of course there are couples that are happily married for decades, but that's actually in the minority now. They say biologically we're driven only to have relationships for several years. That's the time required to have children and bring them to a toddler's age where the child needs less input from the parents. We try really hard to make relationships work but yet most people have several 2-7 year relationships in their lifetime. So maybe no matter how hard we try to find "The one" most of us are geared towards a series of relationships in our lifetime? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Toasted Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Ooooh - Fun Topic! I think as the average persons life expectancy changes our views on Marriage will as well. Say you know you'll be lucky to live to 50 and get married at 25. But if you know your living to 70, thats an extra 20 years for that person to get on your last nerve, lol
stepka Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Coming from someone who was married for 23 years: that sounds about right.
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I agree with your statement that people are biologically geared to have 2-7 year relationships, but would add that "in love" lasts only up to 2 years. I think the reason for everyone's unhappiness and the divorce rate is the relatively recent trend of marrying for love. We've already established that "love" only lasts for up to 2 years - afterward you have to have something much more to build a successful marriage/relationship. However, over the last several decades we've been programmed to think that we're supposed to look for "the one," our "soulmate," but that doesn't last. So we're unhappy and looking for the the guy/girl who's REALLY the one. So now, not being in love anymore is a valid reason for divorce - if you married for love, shouldn't you be able to divorce since you don't have that anymore? And then of course the ones who remain married despite not being in love anymore are often unhappy because they think they're supposed to have some kind of fairy tale "happily ever after" and they don't. Prior to this trend, marriage was primarily a contract between individuals and/or families to promote social, political, financial situations, therefore no/low divorce rate.
JustLooking123 Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 .... We've already established that "love" only lasts for up to 2 years..... Who is "we"? How did they establish this? Just curious.
Thaddeus Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I agree with your statement that people are biologically geared to have 2-7 year relationships, but would add that "in love" lasts only up to 2 years. Who is "we"? How did they establish this? Just curious.New Again has her facts straight. See Romantic Love Lasts Just a Year and The eternal question: Does love last? Point is that that flush of first love is relatively short-term. It's just that we're so inundated with Hallmark-type myths about love lasting forever and all the rest that we feel that when we don't feel that blissful rush of love then that's reason to leave the marriage.
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Who is "we"? How did they establish this? Just curious. Scientists - it's a pretty widely studied topic. Is it clear from my post that I'm talking about "in love" versus "love" (such as you have for family, friends, etc.)? If I remember correctly one of the biggest studies on this topic looked at pictures of people's brains (whatever that's called), and hormone levels, etc. and determined that "in love" is a biochemical reaction and has a shelf life of up to 2 years.
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 New Again has her facts straight. See Romantic Love Lasts Just a Year and The eternal question: Does love last? Point is that that flush of first love is relatively short-term. It's just that we're so inundated with Hallmark-type myths about love lasting forever and all the rest that we feel that when we don't feel that blissful rush of love then that's reason to leave the marriage. Thanks, that's a much more eloquent way of stating my point.
Author Hkizzle Posted July 25, 2009 Author Posted July 25, 2009 Yeah New Again's got it right. Romantic love is hormonally driven. There's several key chemicals that make us more attracted to someone we love. Once those chemicals are gone then the reinforcement is gone. That's why we often are unable to see the bad side or ignore the bad side of people we love at the beginning, then after a long time the things we used to be able to accept become annoying. Look up dopamine or oxytocin and pair bonding to get more info.
sally4sara Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 So the divorce rate is around 50% in the US and over a third in most developed countries. That's just the people that decide to finally end it. Amongst the people that stay in a marriage (usually for the kids) many are unhappy as well. Of course there are couples that are happily married for decades, but that's actually in the minority now. They say biologically we're driven only to have relationships for several years. That's the time required to have children and bring them to a toddler's age where the child needs less input from the parents. We try really hard to make relationships work but yet most people have several 2-7 year relationships in their lifetime. So maybe no matter how hard we try to find "The one" most of us are geared towards a series of relationships in our lifetime? What are your thoughts on the matter? I guess you're right depending on how you measure happiness and if both people must be happy or just one person to be happy for you to look at the past generation's success of long term marriages. I think men were happier with the way marriage was two generations ago, but women were not. I feel what is holding many back from being happily married for decades is that women have changed from silently being unhappy to actively voicing their needs in a relationship while men have not stepped up to being more accepting of the needs of their partner being just as important as their own. The unfortunate by product of this is some women deciding that men are natural born jerks and not bothering to keep in mind that they're becoming exactly what they disliked about men of the past. In short, it gets us no where good while half the population is either evolving or becoming what they hate, while the other half stays the same or grows suspicious of women who want the same rights men have had all along.
Author Hkizzle Posted July 25, 2009 Author Posted July 25, 2009 Traditional marriages worked because: 1) As you mentioned unhappy people (usually the woman) stayed together. 2) There was a divison of labor. Men went out to work and women took care of the home and kids. Now that most women are independent they don't need to put up with husbands that behave badly. But that's why once you remove all the social pressures and factors that drive people together, people are more inclined to be driven by their basic instincts. Many people think once they fall out of love then it's time to move on. In other words we've swung from one extreme to the other.
Ruby Slippers Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 New Again, you gave a great summary of the chemicals behind the phenomenon, and sally, you bring up a good point about women's relatively new freedom. My definition of love has evolved and matured as I have learned more about the science of love and sex and been through a few relationships. For me, the ideal is to have the rush of being in love for a few years, followed by a long-term, highly compatible partnership, in terms of friendship, problem solving, sex, worldview, and long-term plans and hopes. And hopefully the relationship can be punctuated with occasional (as frequent as possible) bursts of that in-love rush. I have even studied and practiced concrete ways to reignite that flame. But the core has to be the slow-burning love that you choose to give each and every day anew. Falling and being in love is basically an indulgence in a chemical high, and when it's strong, it's pretty all-consuming. But at the core, it's just the mating drive. As I see it, I can constantly replace my partner when I build up "a tolerance", or I can invest in building a life and shared history, and get "the high" through shared activities, such as adventures with some risk (mountain climbing, traveling, new experiences), a constantly evolving and exploratory sex life, creative projects together, and a continuous commitment to developing myself and expanding my mind and relationship skills.
sally4sara Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Traditional marriages worked because: 1) As you mentioned unhappy people (usually the woman) stayed together. 2) There was a divison of labor. Men went out to work and women took care of the home and kids. Now that most women are independent they don't need to put up with husbands that behave badly. But that's why once you remove all the social pressures and factors that drive people together, people are more inclined to be driven by their basic instincts. Many people think once they fall out of love then it's time to move on. In other words we've swung from one extreme to the other. What we need to see for marriage to gain a better success rate today is for our society to place a higher importance on men as care givers and fathers within the home. Right now, people react weird about men who stay at home with the kids. Even women sometimes won't accept this. We give women who are the bread winner the guilt trip for not staying with the kids and we give the fish eye to men who don't climb the career ladder with zeal. Till each gender gets a taste of pride for both roles, we will continue to see resentments build and marriages fall apart. Till this changes, neither gender will grow to appreciate how beneficial it is to have a partner in life and parenting. We're telling women they can do it all on their own while we don't expect the same of men. Really, no one SHOULD be doing it all on their own. It shouldn't be touted as an ideal. I don't think it will change much though till men learn the "role of a woman" first hand. There is nothing physically making them incapable of doing it after all.
Toasted Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 "Traditional marriages worked because: 1) As you mentioned unhappy people (usually the woman) stayed together. 2) There was a divison of labor. Men went out to work and women took care of the home and kids. Now that most women are independent they don't need to put up with husbands that behave badly. But that's why once you remove all the social pressures and factors that drive people together, people are more inclined to be driven by their basic instincts. Many people think once they fall out of love then it's time to move on. In other words we've swung from one extreme to the other. " Agree - Women's educationlevels/salaries have increased and the birthrate per woman has dropped to the point they can be self-sufficent. So instead of looking for a husband that can provide they look for less materialistic things. (not that there aren't a few gold diggers out there, lol). On the other hand - I think if a man knows his wife can be self sufficent he feels less obligated to stay in an unhappy marriage. Just my personal opingion though...
Thaddeus Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I think if a man knows his wife can be self sufficent he feels less obligated to stay in an unhappy marriage.I see where you're coming from but I don't really think that's the case. The way I see it, both personally and with a number of friends of mine, is that the woman has no need to be in a marriage because she's not reliant upon her husband to maintain her lifestyle. And the courts (at least in this jurisdiction) don't take into accout the reasons for the dissolution of the marriage. The result? A real-life example: Bob and Mary get married (names have been changed), no pre-nup. Both are gainfully employed, earning roughly the same income. All is fine for about 18 months until Mary has an affair. Bob finds out, Mary gives him the "I love you but I'm not in love with you" excuse. Mary sues for divorce, moves in with her new man. Court orders that, even though Mary is now living with someone else, Bob still loses a substantial percentage of the assets that he had before marriage, virtually all the assets attained within the marriage and has to pay spousal support. So, in short, there was no way that Mary could lose, and no way Bob could win.
sally4sara Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I see where you're coming from but I don't really think that's the case. The way I see it, both personally and with a number of friends of mine, is that the woman has no need to be in a marriage because she's not reliant upon her husband to maintain her lifestyle. And the courts (at least in this jurisdiction) don't take into accout the reasons for the dissolution of the marriage. The result? A real-life example: Bob and Mary get married (names have been changed), no pre-nup. Both are gainfully employed, earning roughly the same income. All is fine for about 18 months until Mary has an affair. Bob finds out, Mary gives him the "I love you but I'm not in love with you" excuse. Mary sues for divorce, moves in with her new man. Court orders that, even though Mary is now living with someone else, Bob still loses a substantial percentage of the assets that he had before marriage, virtually all the assets attained within the marriage and has to pay spousal support. So, in short, there was no way that Mary could lose, and no way Bob could win. This is a great example of how women's roles are evolving in a patriarchal society. The court's decision was made based on traditional assumptions amidst a different type of partnership. This attitude of women needing monetary assistance cannot change without a new acceptance of men as fathers and care givers and women as equals and bread winners. Now the construct men designed is harming other men.
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Women's educationlevels/salaries have increased and the birthrate per woman has dropped to the point they can be self-sufficent. So instead of looking for a husband that can provide they look for less materialistic things. (not that there aren't a few gold diggers out there, lol). On the other hand - I think if a man knows his wife can be self sufficent he feels less obligated to stay in an unhappy marriage. Just my personal opingion though... I think it's more socially acceptable today to say you're into a guy because of his green eyes, great smile, etc. (superficial) than it is to say you're into a guy because he has a good job/money/etc. (which I translate to being ambitious and hardworking - admirable qualities, no?). I'm generalizing here, and focusing on married/divorced women with children, not single women, but women today are not necessarily more able to be self sufficient these days. Women in general make 1/3 of what men make during their lifetimes, and women live longer. Additionally, it's very difficult for a woman who took a couple years off to raise her kids, or who was a stay at home mom and now is divorced and needs to go back to work to get a job. Add to that she wasn't working for the last however many years, so her salary won't be that high to start most likely.
Toasted Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 " I see where you're coming from but I don't really think that's the case. The way I see it, both personally and with a number of friends of mine, is that the woman has no need to be in a marriage because she's not reliant upon her husband to maintain her lifestyle. And the courts (at least in this jurisdiction) don't take into accout the reasons for the dissolution of the marriage." Well, I guess I was thinking more about people who aren't cheating but being honest about their situation. Years ago if a man left his wife and two kids because he was unhappy he was a selfish (insert your choice of words here). I don't think that stigma has compleatly left - but I do think its less. Especially if his wife can support herself on her own. I guess it depends on what generation you circle in as well. I think an affair is a totally different scenario. The person being cheated on is getting screwed over big time - emotionally, socially and financially. Believe me - speaking from personal experience as well!
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 New Again, you gave a great summary of the chemicals behind the phenomenon, and sally, you bring up a good point about women's relatively new freedom. My definition of love has evolved and matured as I have learned more about the science of love and sex and been through a few relationships. For me, the ideal is to have the rush of being in love for a few years, followed by a long-term, highly compatible partnership, in terms of friendship, problem solving, sex, worldview, and long-term plans and hopes. And hopefully the relationship can be punctuated with occasional (as frequent as possible) bursts of that in-love rush. I have even studied and practiced concrete ways to reignite that flame. But the core has to be the slow-burning love that you choose to give each and every day anew. Falling and being in love is basically an indulgence in a chemical high, and when it's strong, it's pretty all-consuming. But at the core, it's just the mating drive. As I see it, I can constantly replace my partner when I build up "a tolerance", or I can invest in building a life and shared history, and get "the high" through shared activities, such as adventures with some risk (mountain climbing, traveling, new experiences), a constantly evolving and exploratory sex life, creative projects together, and a continuous commitment to developing myself and expanding my mind and relationship skills. Nice post!
Toasted Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 "I'm generalizing here, and focusing on married/divorced women with children, not single women, but women today are not necessarily more able to be self sufficient these days. Women in general make 1/3 of what men make during their lifetimes, and women live longer. Additionally, it's very difficult for a woman who took a couple years off to raise her kids, or who was a stay at home mom and now is divorced and needs to go back to work to get a job. Add to that she wasn't working for the last however many years, so her salary won't be that high to start most likely. " I agree with you - however looking over a longer period of time - compare say women in the 1920's to women today. It's still not compleatly equal - but I think women today have a much easier time making it their own.
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 We're telling women they can do it all on their own while we don't expect the same of men. Really, no one SHOULD be doing it all on their own. It shouldn't be touted as an ideal. I don't think it will change much though till men learn the "role of a woman" first hand. There is nothing physically making them incapable of doing it after all. Couldn't agree more.
New Again Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Well, I guess I was thinking more about people who aren't cheating but being honest about their situation. Years ago if a man left his wife and two kids because he was unhappy he was a selfish (insert your choice of words here). I don't think that stigma has compleatly left - but I do think its less. Especially if his wife can support herself on her own. I guess it depends on what generation you circle in as well. This is a really interesting point - sounds pretty accurate as well. May I ask if you're a man or woman?
sally4sara Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I think it's more socially acceptable today to say you're into a guy because of his green eyes, great smile, etc. (superficial) than it is to say you're into a guy because he has a good job/money/etc. (which I translate to being ambitious and hardworking - admirable qualities, no?). I'm generalizing here, and focusing on married/divorced women with children, not single women, but women today are not necessarily more able to be self sufficient these days. Women in general make 1/3 of what men make during their lifetimes, and women live longer. Additionally, it's very difficult for a woman who took a couple years off to raise her kids, or who was a stay at home mom and now is divorced and needs to go back to work to get a job. Add to that she wasn't working for the last however many years, so her salary won't be that high to start most likely. Currently, during this economy crunch, women are retaining their jobs more than men BECAUSE employers still get away with paying them less. And the reasons used to pay women less tend to be "well she will probably just quit once she has a kid" and "men need to make more to support their family". What if both parents found worth in taking a stint off to care and guide their children?
Recommended Posts