Will the issue of divorce scare off men from getting married?

In My Humble Opinion
161

Think not at the personal level, but the population level here. Yes, you specifically may be just as likely to leave a marriage with a bum who never lifts a finger as a boyfriend with the same fault, but that isn’t true for the broader population. The paperwork may be an easy detail for you, and paying any lawyers fees may be easy for you.

As filmore points out and **kayaker **confirms, marriage is explicitly a burden to get out of, that leads to more misery-years for both parties involved when it’s bad. Which happens 40%-70% of the time. And this barrier exists for a lot of people at the population level. Therefore, marriage is responsible for many millions of misery-years in people that would otherwise have broken up earlier if not for the barrier, expense, and complication of dissolving the marriage.

Again, I’m making a population-level argument that marriage introduces more misery-years for both the spouses and children than would exist without it.

I actually disagree that it would not change the calculus of splitting being better than staying, precisely because it is meant to. Per above, maybe you aren’t influenced by these things, but at the population level many millions of people are. And the large portion of those that stayed in miserable, doomed marriages another few years because it was difficult inflicted those misery-years on themselves and their children precisely because marriage is more difficult to get out of.

So what happens in the 40% - 70% of the time that the marriage fails or is miserable? You think that’s better for the kids?

I don’t know what percentage of divorces end amicably, but I doubt it’s much larger than the percentage of LTR’s that end amicably, and would in fact bet the opposite way. So in this majority-of-the-time failure case, how exactly are the kids better off because it was a marriage that failed rather than an LTR? The kids will have just as much additional family with a marriage as an LTR.

People are probably just as likely to cut off all contact in either situation, and I would argue more likely in the divorce event, because of additional acrimony from the whole legal and financial morass that comes from the divorce process.

162

You can get divorced for much less than the cost of a security deposit on a new place. Co-habitating is what makes it hard to break up a relationship. Economic interdependence is what makes it hard to break up a relationship. You can move out long before you file the paperwork, if the only issue were $299 for a lawyer.

That’s not what marriage is meant to do. It’s meant to formalize a relationship status to the world. When I was living with my now-husband, I didn’t consider him my next-of-kin. I considered my mom my next-of-kin, and wanted her to fill that legal role with all it’s implications. When I wanted my husband to be my next of kin, I married him. If I ever want him not to be, I’ll divorce him. Everything else is detail that would be there whether or not we were married.

I think it’s exactly the same for the kids, either way. I think the same issues have to be discussed and resolved. I don’t see how not being married makes it any better.

I like marriage for me because it makes it clear to the world that my husband is my family and that I will prioritize that relationship ahead of my own short term goals or the needs/wants of my birth family. I do not see that the things you claim as disadvantages really have much to do with marriage at all–they are the costs of pair-bonding, of forming a mutual economic unit, and of making long term economic plans together–which you don’t seem to object to.

163

I didn’t mean to say that the barrier was insurmountable. Quite often, the barrier is one of motivation. The unhappy person decides they don’t want to make the effort or deal with the fallout, so they trudge along year after year.

However, I will admit that if finances are tough, getting divorced can cost a lot more than just the filing fee. If the divorce is contested, most people cannot manage the legal maze on their own and will make many mistakes. If one spouse can get a ruthless attorney, the other spouse may end up losing a lot and be on the hook for support payments for a very long time. The unhappy spouse may have to decide between staying in a bad marriage, going into debt to hire a competent attorney, or get taken to the cleaners and be in debt for a long time. Of course, the other spouse can file at any time, so there’s no guarantee that staying in a bad marriage will be the right financial decision in the long run anyway.

It’s probably like most things in life. If you only want an experience that only consists of the good parts, don’t go all in. Keep the relationship more superficial. Rather than get married, just date someone until you’re not having fun and move on. Don’t do things which would encumber you later on. Don’t share finances or jointly own things. Don’t have kids which will introduce an unimaginable amount of stress. Just realize you can’t have it both ways. To be able to split up at the drop of a hat may mean you give up on the ability to have a deeply emotionally satisfying, life-long relationship.

164

Most people, at least in CA, do not hire a lawyer for a divorce. I don’t remember the statistics, but most divorces are “default” divorces–meaning the respondent does not do anything–or “uncontested” divorces–meaning the petitioner and respondent have an agreement in place even if the respondent responded to the petition.

165

The only way to get “taken to the cleaners” is if you have significant assets that you have built up together. If you have significant assets that you have built up together, then there is going to be a lot of paperwork and headache and potential for lawyers, regardless of marital status.

The only way to avoid this problem is to maintain strict economic independence. But that carries tremendous opportunity cost: the flexibility of economic interdependence provides allows for great things: someone can take a risky job, because someone else has a stable income and health insurance. Someone can go back to school. Someone can commit to 70 hour weeks for 4-10 crucial years, or travel for work, because someone else takes an easier job or no job and manages the house. But once you do those things, no separation is going to be bloodless–you’ve worked and sacrificed for each other. And I wouldn’t do that with anyone who didn’t think of me as his closest relative–i.e., his wife.

If you anti-marriage people want to argue that the potential of a bad relationship leads you to chose superficial relationships and/or maintain strict economic independence, with “thine” and “mine” always delineated, I think that’s an intellectually consistent position. But I don’t understand the argument that marriage is the thing that causes the problems.

166

A couple of thoughts:

I keep seeing “40-70% of marriages end in divorce”. OK, assuming that’s true, that means it is presumably working on some level for 30-60% of people. Maybe the problem isn’t so much divorce as people getting married for the wrong reasons, or getting married in the first place.

Also, not all divorces are equal. I know a couple that split after six months. The break-up was relatively easy as their finances were not yet thoroughly entangled, there were no kids, there was no joint property. They quickly realized they made a mistake and took steps to correct it ASAP, parted ways, and neither had a long-term fallout from the problem. That, to my mind, is actually a good thing. Second marriage for the party I’ve stayed in contact with is approaching 40 years and shows no signs of breaking up.

I know people who wait until the kids are grown and independent, THEN break up, which eliminates custody issues as a problem. This is far less problematic than splitting when the kids are young.

I know people who, due to legal entanglements, remain married but are legally separated and living their own lives. It’s sort of mid-way between marriage and divorce and represents one way to deal with no longer wanting to live together but not wanting to enrich lawyers.

Relationships can be extremely complicated, that’s the bottom line, and trying to hammer them into one-size-fits-all doesn’t work well. I think marriage should remain an option, but I’d like to see less societal pressure for people to get married as clearly it’s optimal only for a subset of the population.

167

Again, I’m with filmore - yes, in the best case scenario of two amicable reasonable people splitting up, a divorce can be easy and cheap.

In the amicable case, there are still significant psychological and motivation barriers for a lot of people, even if you or I personally may not have those barriers.

I just looked but couldn’t find any statistics on the % of divorces that are amicable - if anyone has any figures on that, I’d be interested in hearing it. In my immediate circle’s experiences, amicable divorces are about 50/50 vs contested divorces. And contested divorces are anything BUT cheap and easy, as I’m sure many folk here can tell you.

It’s even a joke! Q: Why are divorces so expensive? A: Because they’re worth it.

Empirically, it is what marriage does, whether or not it’s a deliberately intended effect of marriage. And I think it actually is deliberately intended.

But whether or not it is, a marriage empirically makes it harder on a number of levels to split up.

Sure, you may not have married for that reason. I doubt it was the primary reason to marry for any couples out there on this message board - but at the population level, empirically that is the largest and most important effect marriage has when in failure mode.

And the fact that failure mode happens 40% - 70% of the time is the really salient number here - would you embark on a degree program with a 70% chance of failure? Would you buy a car with a 40% chance of failure?

You’re going to be putting at least as much time and money into the marriage as you would a degree program or car.

Exactly. Being married doesn’t make it any better, but it does make it worse. My argument was it actually makes it WORSE for that large subset of marriages that were doomed to fail anyways, by increasing the misery-years inflicted on the spouses and children.

That’s fine, and I’m happy for you. I admire people who have found a spouse they are genuinely happy with. It’s just the exception rather than the rule, and when making the one of the largest and most important decisions in life, you should take into account both the failure rate and the cost.

People would never embark on a Phd program with a 70% chance of failure, but for some reason they think nothing of putting just as many years into a marriage with the same odds.

Going back to my original “marriage bargain” contention, fully half of the disadvantages I’ve called out are primarily around the fact that marriage increases friction and induces people to stay in doomed relationships, thereby inflicting misery-years that could have been avoided. In the aggregate, this is inflicting millions of misery-years on the US population per year, and to what end?

I grant you, having kids in a LTR probably leads to most of the same problems around child support and women doing most of the housework and childrearing as a marriage would - but it’s easier to end and reduces the misery-years for those couples who never would have made it anyways - and looking at the statistics, that’s most of them.

168

I just wanted to clarify here, the 40% divorce rate comes from an earlier post where it’s the “true” vintage divorce rate vs the usually heard 50% which is marriages of all vintages commingled.

The additional 30% comes from me making the supposition that half of the marriages that weren’t divorced are probably net-negative for one or both spouses in terms of happiness and quality of life. Hence, 40% - 70% failure rate, where failure is either divorce or net misery.

Maybe you (collective you) don’t agree that half of marriages are net-miserable, but it’s certainly above zero, so substitute whatever proportion you would put there from an honest and frank appraisal of your relatives, friends, and colleagues’ marriages.

Amen! I wholeheartedly agree, and really wish 90% of people weren’t stuck on “marriage” as the vastly preferred or only acceptable sexual / romantic relationship framework.

Empirically, marriage just isn’t working for 40% - 70% of people, and if there were a broader menu, so to speak, maybe more of them could find happiness.

169

Actually, we have no idea if “marriage” is working for any given percentage of people. Getting a divorce does not mean marriage does not work.

170

I just don’t see how those psychological and motivation barriers are *different *if you’ve just been living together for 10 years and have two kids and a mortgage. Opting out of marriage doesn’t eliminate your “70% chance of misery”. The only way to avoid that is to avoid pair-bonding/family building/economic independence.

171

It’s not about eliminating the possibility of ever being miserable, it’s about reducing the number of years you’re miserable.

Miserable LTR couple - splits up as soon as feasible and moves on to potential happiness

Miserable married couple - due to psychological, legal, and financial barriers, stays in the miserable doomed marriage for 2 more years before finally splitting, contributing 2 misery-years to each person in the couple (and any kids)

Do you see a difference between those two scenarios?

172

So how would you define a marriage “not working” then, if divorce or net misery aren’t good criteria?

173

I agree. That’s probably is the main differences. LTR relationships don’t get to the “THIS SUCKS” phase since they break up earlier. Of course, this also means they don’t get to the “I’m so glad we spent our whole life together” phase as often.

LTR: Relationships split up over small problems. Involved people may have trouble working through big problems because they haven’t had to work things out. They always know they can then leave if it gets to be a hassle.

Marriage: Relationships last past small problems. This may mean small problems grow into big problems and the relationship gets to “THIS SUCKS” phase. Or it may mean the couple works to find a mutually agreeable compromise and thus creates a stronger emotional bond.

174

One, I’m not convinced that people would be so much quicker to leave a LTR. I’ve known a lot of miserable LTRs that lingered far longer than they should have, and id’ thing that the sort of people who are likely to be married now are the sorts of people that are likely to beat a dead horse in a LTR as well.

And even if it does mean two extra years of misery–well, that’s not exactly a greek tragedy. And it’s a big thing to be able to differentiate between a friend/companion and your legal family. I want my husband to be my legal family. I want that relationship to take precedence over the other relationships in my life. Do you not see any reason why a person would want to formally designate that? I mean, does adoption confuse you? That can go badly, too!

175

We don’t know the same people. I’ve known plenty of people in long-term unmarried relationships that stick with them out of inertia. They live together and moving out is hard. They have mingled finances. They have kids together.

Sometimes it’s even because they are afraid that because they aren’t married, they won’t be able to see the kids, that they’ll lose what they put into the house, etc. People can end up staying in a non-marriage because they think they don’t have the protections they would have if they were married seeking divorce.

176 
 It's only easier to end in certain ways and under certain conditions. First of all, it probably will not reduce the misery-years because cohabiting has much the same inertia effect as marriage. Sure, it's easy to split up with someone when you've lived together for two years and have no children. It's easy to get a divorce at that point, too. But once you're talking about people losing half of what they have, you're talking about longer than 2 years.  And from what I've seen, couples who break up after living together for 10 years and having a couple of kids don't have a much easier time that married couple who divorce in similar situations.

1 Difficulty of becoming a single parent/sharing custody - same whether married or not
2 Expenses in trying to maintain two households on the same income that supported one - doesn’t matter whether you’re married or not
3 Inertia - perhaps because of factors 1 & 2 or maybe for other reasons- not exclusive to married couples. They aren’t the only ones who spend extra years together “for the kids” or “trying to make it work”
4 Fighting over the finances- also not exclusive to married couples. Because most long term unmarried couples don’t plan to break up, so maybe I contribute more to my retirement account from my paycheck while he pays for my health insurance from his. Or he paid half the mortgage payments for 10 years on the house I bought in my own name because I had better credit… Or he promised to support me if I stayed home with the kids, but now that he wants to leave me he doesn’t want to give me a dime. That sort of thing causes lawsuits and drama even among unmarried couples - at least for married couples there is a general framework about who gets what.

It doesn't matter to me if people get married or not- that's entirely up to them. But I am not convinced that in the same situation ( years together, finances, children)  with the same people ending a cohabiting relationship is easier/causes less  than getting divorced. A long-term relationship *without *cohabitation is a different story- but in my experience, those don't usually  involve children or entangled finances.
177

Once you get to the economically interdependent phase–3-5 years in–I really don’t think people are faster to walk away from live in LTR than they are from marriages. I mean, if you are talking about a couple kids living together in college and then having an apartment together for 6 months, maybe that’s easier to walk away from. But once you decide to mingle your finances with someone, have children with them, make (or accept) significant sacrifices for them–things that tend to happen by year 5–I really don’t see how the certificate makes that big of a difference.

178

The statistics I’ve been able to find disagree - not being married actually makes a difference.

“Nearly 40 percent of cohabiting twentysomething parents who had a baby between 2000 and 2005 split up by the time their child was five; that’s three times higher than the rate for twentysomething parents who were married when they had a child.”

It would appear in the aggregate, it actually does make a difference.

179

Weakly suggests. There are so many potential confounding variables from that that I don’t think it offers any useful guidance to an particular individual about their particular situation.

180

I’m rather amused to learn in this thread that it’s simply terrible if a marriage with kids splits up but cohabitating with kids is great because it makes splitting up easier. Dope logic is the best logic.