Life's short, get a divorce

[susan314]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

My theory is that it is a matter of living in a society with more choices.

I think divorce is more common now because both parties in a marriage are more likely to have the education and opportunities to find a better life if they are not getting what they want/need/deserve out of marriage.

By the same token though, I think that we live in a more selfish society today than we did back then. People are far more concerned about "what's in it for them" than they were years ago. (About everything - not specifically marriage/divorce. I'm certainly not saying that people who get divorced are selfish!) You really could put a positive or a negative spin on that, but I don't think anyone would dispute the notion that in today's society people are more concerned about immediate gratification.

Back then, people were more likely to start and finish their career with one employer. (People were more loyal to their employers, and employers were more loyal to them.) Back then, people were more likely to save money and pay cash for a major purchase. (As opposed to getting in over their heads in credit, for the immediate gratification of the material good.) Back then, people were more likely to begin their careers and marriages in a community near their extended family. (Moving and living in new cities is exciting, of course...not trying to say that's a "bad" thing. It just creates complications in the marital relationship that weren't as big of an issue back then - time/expense involved in traveling to visit families, possible feelings of isolation, etc.)

I could go on, but I'm tired. To sum it up, society has changed in a myriad of ways since then, and a lot of those seemingly unrelated things may have had more influence on marriage/divorce things than we even realize.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by susan314

By the same token though, I think that we live in a more selfish society today than we did back then. People are far more concerned about "what's in it for them" than they were years ago. (About everything - not specifically marriage/divorce. I'm certainly not saying that people who get divorced are selfish!)

That is a fair point.

My question though is whether the shift in attitude towards self is due more to a change in fundamental human nature or to a shift in societal structure that permits fundamental human nature to more fully manifest itself.

I think the latter is true. Self-interest is at the core of all living beings. Survival of the fittest and all that.

But the beauty of having a society where people are free to look out for themselves is that those of faith have the opportunity to live by the example they choose and truly espouse it.

This is where a lot of the "religious right" in this country misses the boat. A society geared around choice is actually supportive of the Christian lifestyle because Christianity, like any other religion, is based in the strength of the individual to make choices in accordance with his/her beliefs regardless of peer pressure.

Catholicism is a test case for where US Evangelical Christianity is headed because of its stance on issues like this. My undergrad degree was Spanish Literature- with a focus on Medievel and Renaissance texts. The entire literary focus of that nation for hundreds of years centered around the murderous tendencies and sexual molestation of a political power that based itself in the hope and beauty religion is supposed to provide.

It amuses me that such behaviors continue today and are excused as outliers when in fact they are merely part of a culture steeped in our darkest history.

Christianity is only as good as the person living it and whether they pattern their life after its teachings or twist its teachings to justify their life choices.

And only the individual can really know which is the horse and which is the cart in that scenario.

A society that offers opportunity for ALL to be self-sustaining will allow for those whose personal beliefs guide them to a proper life to put in the effort necessary to ensure a life in accordance with those beliefs.

Anything less merely ensures that religion and societal trends dictated by a segment of society will be used to oppress others- in marriage and all other things.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

That is a fair point.

My question though is whether the shift in attitude towards self is due more to a change in fundamental human nature or to a shift in societal structure that permits fundamental human nature to more fully manifest itself.

I think the latter is true. Self-interest is at the core of all living beings. Survival of the fittest and all that.

But the beauty of having a society where people are free to look out for themselves is that those of faith have the opportunity to live by the example they choose and truly espouse it.

This is where a lot of the "religious right" in this country misses the boat. A society geared around choice is actually supportive of the Christian lifestyle because Christianity, like any other religion, is based in the strength of the individual to make choices in accordance with his/her beliefs regardless of peer pressure.

Catholicism is a test case for where US Evangelical Christianity is headed because of its stance on issues like this. My undergrad degree was Spanish Literature- with a focus on Medievel and Renaissance texts. The entire literary focus of that nation for hundreds of years centered around the murderous tendencies and sexual molestation of a political power that based itself in the hope and beauty religion is supposed to provide.

It amuses me that such behaviors continue today and are excused as outliers when in fact they are merely part of a culture steeped in our darkest history.

Christianity is only as good as the person living it and whether they pattern their life after its teachings or twist its teachings to justify their life choices.

And only the individual can really know which is the horse and which is the cart in that scenario.

A society that offers opportunity for ALL to be self-sustaining will allow for those whose personal beliefs guide them to a proper life to put in the effort necessary to ensure a life in accordance with those beliefs.

Anything less merely ensures that religion and societal trends dictated by a segment of society will be used to oppress others- in marriage and all other things.

So are you saying marriage is purely a religious institution? Help me understand.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

So are you saying marriage is purely a religious institution? Help me understand.

No, did not mean to suggest that.

I was just pointing out that in a certain religious context marriage can be- and has often been- used to promote the submission of one party to another in a way that is ultimately harmful in many cases.

One of the beauties of the luxurious life we lead today is that a person does not have to get married or stay married because it is the only way to have a secure future.

But that also lends itself to an abuse of the institution.

Still I think that is okay, because two good people who get married will make the best of it- regardless of the final outcome.

[AGDee]

I'm curious what you all think are "frivolous" reasons for divorce? Which problems can be fixed that people get divorced over? Yeah, like Brittney Spears first marriage was a frivolous marriage and divorce, but outside of celebrities, what makes you think that people don't work very hard to try to make it work before they give up on it?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm curious what you all think are "frivolous" reasons for divorce? Which problems can be fixed that people get divorced over? Yeah, like Brittney Spears first marriage was a frivolous marriage and divorce, but outside of celebrities, what makes you think that people don't work very hard to try to make it work before they give up on it?

Gwirl, your real question is what folks think are "frivolous" reasons to get married... Because you can only get divorced if you were married...

But folks break up in relationships all the time due to "legion" reasons.

Kids these days--and a kid is under 25 in my eyes--think that working hard on a relationship is sharing your myspace page with your significant other...

When bills cannot be paid because one person depleted the bank account happens, it is easier to logically come to the conclusion that a pair-bond should end... So why work hard to try to make it work before they give up on it?

Whereas, really, the logic should be placed, first, without romantic blinders, on HOW mates overall spending habits and values before formalizing and legalizing a pair-bond relationship. Then when a bank depletion occurs, each person can come to a rationalization that each other has these different cultural norms to progress to a mutually beneficial relationship...

Basically, until my husband and I sat down with a financial advisor, our relationship was headed for disaster. But my husband began to understand my financial values and goals, whereas, I began to understand his financial values and goals. We would have been better off if we had done that before we were married. But we did not. So a word to the wise:

No Romance Without Finance is a Nuisance...

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Whereas, really, the logic should be placed, first, without romantic blinders, on HOW mates overall spending habits and values before formalizing and legalizing a pair-bond relationship. Then when a bank depletion occurs, each person can come to a rationalization that each other has these different cultural norms to progress to a mutually beneficial relationship...

Basically, until my husband and I sat down with a financial advisor, our relationship was headed for disaster. But my husband began to understand my financial values and goals, whereas, I began to understand his financial values and goals. We would have been better off if we had done that before we were married. But we did not. So a word to the wise:

No Romance Without Finance is a Nuisance...

Very well said! A relative of mine spent 10 years paying off bills and restoring her credit after a former spouse did his damage. It amazed me to see just what he was able to get away with and leave her responsible to take care of.

I don't look on this as "unromantic" as it were, though some might think it a bit cold and calculating to think about money before marriage. Any kind of long term relationship takes work- and I figure adjusting one's personal financial discipline, if necessary, is just one more way that one puts some necessary personal effort into a union.