5 ms·

No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. People change, and relationships come and go. Embracing change (as this article recommends) means

No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. People change, and relationships come and go. Embracing change (as this article recommends) means not holding onto relationships after they've gone stale.

saltcured 9y ago
I think one of the compromises being inadequately discussed so far in these threads is that people sometimes need to realize they are holding onto a personal identity or value system that has gone stale, and ruin relationships in the process. I think that the process of letting go of attachments, in the spiritual sense, is really about internal desires and inflexibility in the individual. This can emerge as a toxic effect in all their relationships.
imron 9y ago
> No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. It's actually more than that. Failed marriages are more likely to lead to negative outcomes in life, with single-parent households more likely to be in poverty, children more likely to abused by non-biological step-parents or partners, and children of failed marriages also more likely to get involved in criminal behaviour (both as a juvenile and an adult). Which is not to say that all failed marriages lead to those problems, or that stable marriages don't, just that there is a greater likelihood of it happening, and when applied to society as a whole the effect is noticeable, and therefore there is a benefit to society in promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I suspect the negative outcomes aren't because "failed marriages are bad", it's because we have stigmatized them to the point that support networks for divorced people in these situations are very poor and lead to negative outcomes. There's plenty of evidence to show that children raised by married parents who stay together "just for the kids" have a bunch of their own problems because of that. Maybe those problems are less bad, but I'd still suggest that's the case merely because that's the more "socially accepted" thing to do. I think promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships is fine, but stigmatizing those who "fail" at that for whatever reason is the root cause of the negative consequences you describe.
  - imron 9y ago
    For sure the same problems exist in more traditional marriages too (and I made sure to explicitly mention this in my post), it's just that the likelihood of those things increases for marriages that end in divorce. Individually, there are plenty of separated families that are successful and happy, and plenty of long-term marriages that are miserable and awful for the people involved. When applied to society as a whole though, on average, long-term, stable marriages have better life outcomes for the people involved than ones that ended in divorce. I don't think it's necessarily a result of stigmatization either, rather it's that life is just objectively more difficult for a larger percentage of divorced families, and in order to be able to make a living, compromises have to be made. For example, take a married housewife, who suddenly finds herself divorced, and is now a single mum needing to work to survive because maybe alimony and child-support aren't enough (or the dad is a deadbeat and doesn't pay as much as he should). Years out of the workforce (and maybe also sacrificing education and/or career development for her children) limit the jobs available and alimony/child support might not be enough to make up the difference. So maybe she has to work multiple jobs, or is working at odd hours and so the children become latchkey kids, with little/no adult supervision and guidance when they come home. It not stigmatization that causes the problem, it's just an objectively more difficult situation than if the marriage had been stable and healthy, and although latchkey kids is not a phenomenon limited to single-parent families, it is more likely to occur in single-parent families because circumstances are more likely to require it. Likewise for things like sexual abuse. The chance of it happening increases significantly with non-biological parents or partners. Again that's not anything to do with stigmatization, rather that if a divorce occurs, then when the parents get involved with new partners it increases that risk. It happens too with biological parents, but just at a lesser rate.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Looking at your example, I see that more a problem of our general social organization than as a problem with divorce. In some cultures, extended families are close-knit. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and parents all help with taking care of and raising children. The Western concept of the nuclear family vs. extended family just doesn't really exist, or is at least minimized. Divorce there doesn't really affect the divorcee's livelihood, or that of any children. I'm not saying that's an ideal structure, just that it's a possible structure. The idea that Western nuclear family structure is the be-all end-all is a little silly, though. It's very fragile in exactly the ways you describe. The point I'm trying to make is that divorce is hard on people in large part because we as a society have decided that divorce should be hard on people. It doesn't have to be; we've just set up our family and community structures and support systems in such a way that divorced people (especially divorced people with children) will often have a harder life.
- Arizhel 9y ago
  And these are excellent reasons to avoid having children. It's a minefield fraught with peril, and is more likely to end up with a negative outcome than not. Modern society simply does not facilitate having children, and the standard two-adult nuclear family is like a 2-wheeled vehicle: fundamentally unstable and one wrong move ends in a crash.
  - imron 9y ago
    Arguably, the negative outcomes to society of not having children is far greater.
    - Arizhel 9y ago
      Only in the long term, and only to society at large, not to people individually. Moreover, society actively punishes most people for having kids, rather than promoting it (some paltry tax breaks are not sufficient to be considered promotion), so if it produces a negative outcome to society, that's society's fault.
- obstinate 9y ago
  I think it's far from established that failed marriages lead to these problems. They are associated with these problems. Correlation usually isn't causation. https://www.gwern.net/Causality https://www.gwern.net/Causality
  - imron 9y ago
    Some of them are pretty direct causes, which is not to say that it always leads to those problems, but that there is a higher likelihood that it will lead to those problems.

saltcured 9y ago

I think one of the compromises being inadequately discussed so far in these threads is that people sometimes need to realize they are holding onto a personal identity or value system that has gone stale, and ruin relationships in the process. I think that the process of letting go of attachments, in the spiritual sense, is really about internal desires and inflexibility in the individual. This can emerge as a toxic effect in all their relationships.

imron 9y ago

> No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. It's actually more than that. Failed marriages are more likely to lead to negative outcomes in life, with single-parent households more likely to be in poverty, children more likely to abused by non-biological step-parents or partners, and children of failed marriages also more likely to get involved in criminal behaviour (both as a juvenile and an adult). Which is not to say that all failed marriages lead to those problems, or that stable marriages don't, just that there is a greater likelihood of it happening, and when applied to society as a whole the effect is noticeable, and therefore there is a benefit to society in promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships.

kelnos 9y ago
I suspect the negative outcomes aren't because "failed marriages are bad", it's because we have stigmatized them to the point that support networks for divorced people in these situations are very poor and lead to negative outcomes. There's plenty of evidence to show that children raised by married parents who stay together "just for the kids" have a bunch of their own problems because of that. Maybe those problems are less bad, but I'd still suggest that's the case merely because that's the more "socially accepted" thing to do. I think promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships is fine, but stigmatizing those who "fail" at that for whatever reason is the root cause of the negative consequences you describe.
- imron 9y ago
  For sure the same problems exist in more traditional marriages too (and I made sure to explicitly mention this in my post), it's just that the likelihood of those things increases for marriages that end in divorce. Individually, there are plenty of separated families that are successful and happy, and plenty of long-term marriages that are miserable and awful for the people involved. When applied to society as a whole though, on average, long-term, stable marriages have better life outcomes for the people involved than ones that ended in divorce. I don't think it's necessarily a result of stigmatization either, rather it's that life is just objectively more difficult for a larger percentage of divorced families, and in order to be able to make a living, compromises have to be made. For example, take a married housewife, who suddenly finds herself divorced, and is now a single mum needing to work to survive because maybe alimony and child-support aren't enough (or the dad is a deadbeat and doesn't pay as much as he should). Years out of the workforce (and maybe also sacrificing education and/or career development for her children) limit the jobs available and alimony/child support might not be enough to make up the difference. So maybe she has to work multiple jobs, or is working at odd hours and so the children become latchkey kids, with little/no adult supervision and guidance when they come home. It not stigmatization that causes the problem, it's just an objectively more difficult situation than if the marriage had been stable and healthy, and although latchkey kids is not a phenomenon limited to single-parent families, it is more likely to occur in single-parent families because circumstances are more likely to require it. Likewise for things like sexual abuse. The chance of it happening increases significantly with non-biological parents or partners. Again that's not anything to do with stigmatization, rather that if a divorce occurs, then when the parents get involved with new partners it increases that risk. It happens too with biological parents, but just at a lesser rate.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Looking at your example, I see that more a problem of our general social organization than as a problem with divorce. In some cultures, extended families are close-knit. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and parents all help with taking care of and raising children. The Western concept of the nuclear family vs. extended family just doesn't really exist, or is at least minimized. Divorce there doesn't really affect the divorcee's livelihood, or that of any children. I'm not saying that's an ideal structure, just that it's a possible structure. The idea that Western nuclear family structure is the be-all end-all is a little silly, though. It's very fragile in exactly the ways you describe. The point I'm trying to make is that divorce is hard on people in large part because we as a society have decided that divorce should be hard on people. It doesn't have to be; we've just set up our family and community structures and support systems in such a way that divorced people (especially divorced people with children) will often have a harder life.
Arizhel 9y ago
And these are excellent reasons to avoid having children. It's a minefield fraught with peril, and is more likely to end up with a negative outcome than not. Modern society simply does not facilitate having children, and the standard two-adult nuclear family is like a 2-wheeled vehicle: fundamentally unstable and one wrong move ends in a crash.
- imron 9y ago
  Arguably, the negative outcomes to society of not having children is far greater.
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    Only in the long term, and only to society at large, not to people individually. Moreover, society actively punishes most people for having kids, rather than promoting it (some paltry tax breaks are not sufficient to be considered promotion), so if it produces a negative outcome to society, that's society's fault.
obstinate 9y ago
I think it's far from established that failed marriages lead to these problems. They are associated with these problems. Correlation usually isn't causation. https://www.gwern.net/Causality https://www.gwern.net/Causality
- imron 9y ago
  Some of them are pretty direct causes, which is not to say that it always leads to those problems, but that there is a higher likelihood that it will lead to those problems.