
The inconvenient truth about love and divorce (2016) - godelmachine
https://ideas.ted.com/the-inconvenient-truth-about-love-and-divorce/
======
marchenko
The _real_ inconvenient truth is that marriage still works best as 'an
economic institution designed to build wealth and raise children'. It is the
best vehicle we have designed for doing those things; other arrangements have
proven sub-optimal. It may also accommodate other needs, but those are
secondary. Ironically, those who realize this tend to have happier, more
loving marriages.

~~~
hyperpallium
Sounds like _Dirty Jobs '_ don't do what you love, love what you do
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=NT1i26RbrhM&t=8s](https://youtube.com/watch?v=NT1i26RbrhM&t=8s)

I've heard that arranged marriages end up as loving relationships. If choosen
as compatible and with no choice but to make it work... plausible. Or it could
be that people put up with damaging situations.

~~~
pm90
Arranged marriages are still marriages and come with the same issues. Couple
of factors why they succeed often is:

* compatibility is established by design

* usually, its a union of families, which creates a wider social circle that helps out the newlywed couple through difficulties

Personally, I believe that _any_ two people living together and sharing so
much will inevitably end up loving/hating each other. You simply can't be
indifferent to people who are in such close social contact with you for so
long.

~~~
btilly
Another factor not to dismiss is that cultures with arranged marriages also
generally allow husbands to beat their wives. Therefore the marriage "works
out"...or else.

Or put another way, you can find a standard by which the marriage worked out.
But is it a relationship that the people involved would want to freely choose?

~~~
rayiner
That’s true. But arranged marriages (quasi-arranged marriages) are common even
among folks who live in cultural subsets where wife beating is frowned upon
(those who moved to the West or run in westernized circles). Those marriages
seem just as happg as any others.

Part of the problem as I see it is that folks in the west often use their
freedom to select for stupid things. (Omg she likes the same music!) My cousin
just got matched up with someone where the criteria was: “she’s an engineer,
her family is respectable and she’s not too religious.” I suspect it will be a
good match.

------
ohthehugemanate
Choosing a best friend for the next 50-60 years is hard! Staying best friends
for life is hard. Maintaining romantic feelings and enjoying the changing
things sexual partnership brings over a lifetime, is hard too. Oh, and let's
throw in the enormous perspective and life changes that children bring.

It takes two people who are willing to put in the time, energy, occasionally
sacrifice, and explore together. For longer than people are really capable of
projecting. Certainly longer than they stay the same person.

Alternatives exist, and I'm happy people explore them. But IMHO the core
problem of a long human relationship isn't made any easier by adding more
humans. 1:1 communication/connection seems a lot simpler than groups of any
formation. And going through life without a close, long relationship (of any
kind) does miss a lot of the value of the journey.

So props to those who make it, and figure out how to keep on making it. Props
to those who discover they can't make it with that particular person. Props to
everyone except the assholes who give you shit for trying.

------
mgamache
Trying not be acerbic but, an article on divorce that doesn't even mention
children? Ridiculous and puerile. A divorce without children is a walk in the
park. You can sign a few papers, say goodbye, and _never_ have to see that
person again. The truth is that it's better for children if parents in a low-
conflict marriage to stay together. It's not the right path for everyone,
marriage is really complicated and some children are better off with divorced
parents. But, that's not a pithy essay targeted at Millennials.

Also: "inconvenient" truth, is it really? Seems vary convenient that the
article supports the idea of dumping the guilt you might feel in when dumping
your spouse. This is giving comfort to the reader not introducing a truth that
makes the reader reconsider the impact of their actions. An inconvenient truth
might be that most people that stay married are happy they did.

[http://yourdivorcequestions.org/will-divorce-make-me-
happier...](http://yourdivorcequestions.org/will-divorce-make-me-happier/)

~~~
csense
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head of why the social taboo against
divorce exists in the first place.

Ceteris paribus, it's better for children if their parents stay together.
Therefore we've raised the social cost of a divorce until it's only accessible
to people who really need to get out.

Because of cultural changes, this doesn't work as well as it has in the past
at keeping couples together. There's good points (fewer people trapped in bad
or abusive marriages) and bad points (more families who have to deal with the
many practical problems of single parenthood).

~~~
hydrox24
> Therefore we've raised the social cost of a divorce until it's only
> accessible to people who really need to get out

I don't know what the time frame for this statement is, but all over the
western world, divorce has been made substantially easier both legally and
socially, since the end of WWII.

> Because of cultural changes, this doesn't work as well as it has in the past
> at keeping couples together.

Obviously culture and law are bound up together, but the advent of no-fault
divorce and the decreasing benefits for the married over the unmarried did far
more to make divorce easy, common, and therefore more acceptable than easing
the stigma ever did directly.

------
swsieber
Marriage requires commitment from both parties. You can still have that
commitment even if you are marrying for love. If you and your spouse are
prepared to sacrifice, you'll have a very rewarding time.

The real challenge is now days we don't encourage commitment, and your
commitment alone won't make a happy marriage (e.g. it takes two for a happy
marriage).

I agree that we need to de-stigmatize divorce that gets you out of a bad
situation.

Edit: To say that since we marry for love so we should divorce for love does a
disservice, namely because a marriage with two committed people is far more
rewarding than one that only worked because of the initial fire of love.

Edit 2: Sorry Im using sappy language, it oddly seems the most concise.

------
jeffdavis
Maybe something as complex as marriage means more than one thing?

------
throwaway09482
I strongly dislike this article. The article portrays the view that divorce is
something that's "ok, because situations change and it's alright to change
your mind". I say this as someone who almost got divorced this past year.

The problem with divorce is that _most of the time_ it involves breaking a
promise—a vow actually. And that's the real issue that I find so disturbing.
In fact, I see no problem with two people saying "I will marry you and stay
with you as long as conditions x, y, and z are met". As long as both parties
understand the conditions going into the marriage and recognize the
possibility that it may end under specific circumstances, then fine with me.
Who am I to judge someone's lifestyle choices?

But breaking an unconditional promise to be with someone forever is
disturbing. I'm increasingly repulsed by this idea that people aren't
responsible for their actions. Cause always has an effect, even if it's an
effect that is delayed for years. And personally, without having some basis of
moral axioms (keeping your word for instance), then it really just feels like
our existence borders on nihilism. What's the point of anything? If words are
meaningless, then why even bother in the first place? Why make a "promise" if
it's just going to be broken later? It means nothing. You live, you die, and
all along the way not one thing was held sacred. In a universe without any
meaning, we have to create our own, and if someone's word can't even be
trusted, then why bother with anything at all?

So in summary, I don't have a problem with divorce _per se_ , but breaking
your word to someone else is a _massive_ problem, and TED articles like this
aren't helping by contributing to the increasing vacuity of promises that have
no meaning.

~~~
tomp
Indeed, the unconditionality of the promise is one of my biggest problems with
marriage. I’d be much happier with a conditional promise (“... until death so
us part, or you hit me, or we cannot have children, or you become
substantially different than you’re now, ...”) but eventhem it’s hard to list
all the exceptions.

~~~
strikelaserclaw
don't forget to get that document notarized :P

------
qwerty456127
If "love ends" it means it either has never been there (it was limerence,
desire, friendship, confusion or whatever) or you were doing it wrong.

