Ok, I'm sure we've all heard the claim, at least in the US, that 'half of all marriages end in divorce', right? Well, did you know that it's a lie!?!?!?!? Well, ok, maybe not a lie, but at least a gross mis-representation of the actual truth. I just recently found this out myself thanks to one of my wife's (Oh, by the way, I just got married :) ) counseling classes.

The truth, it turns out, is that this 'statistic' actually originated as a probability analysis. That means that, because there are two possible outcomes: you either divorce or someone dies, that there is a 50% probability that divorce will be the outcome. Someone stated this, someone else irresposably simplified it to 'half of all marriages end in divorce' and way too many people never bothered to check their facts when reporting it. The truth, according to http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html (crap, I can't figure out how to make that a link now) is that only about 38% (admittedly that was in 2005, but that 'statistic' has been around a lot longer than that) and never capped 41%.

Additionally, that 38-41% includes all marriages so John Faithful's 4th marriage, which is exponentially more likely to fail than his third, which was exponentially more likely to fail than his second, etc., is included in that statistic. Of new marriages, almost all that fail do so within the first 5 years and occur to very young married couples (25 and younger).

Comments?

Well, it's not really surprising to me. I never saw a reliable report stating that divorce rates were 50%. Most reports I have seen tabbed the number around 40%, so your figure of 38% seems right in the ballpark.

However, I think there is a broader point to be made here - I think the problem isn't discussing whether it's 50% or 40% - either way it's really high. While acknowledging that 2 in 5 isn't as bad as 1 in 2 - I think that's still a major problem.

I wonder if divorce isn't something that's more common among the upper class - lots of money always seem to raise conflict. Or maybe I just have friends who are more faithful than the rest of the general population. I know people who are divorced, but of my circle of (mostly middle class) friends, none of them are divorced. And the sample size we're talking about is certainly large enough that some of them should have even if the figure were lower than the currently cited 38%.

I've wondered for quite some time how the people who get married, get divorced, get married and get divorced again affect these statistics. On the whole, there's no effect, but on the other hand, what everyone might like to know is what are the chances of a specific marriage to fail and of this these kind of statistics tell diddley-squat.

And besides, what's the big deal anyhow? I think the bigger deal is that how many couples get separated even after a considerable time of dating or even living together. Those numbers must be huge.

edit: And oh, congrats NOG :banana:

Yeah, this isn't news. I'm going to have to disagree with Aldeth on one point, though. Our divorce rate isn't necessarily a problem. Before divorce lost most of its stigma, marriages that really needed to end stayed together due to societal pressure, and their children suffered for it. Sure, divorce is hard on kids, but hearing your parents fight on a daily basis or, worse yet, engage in physical altercations is far worse.

I'm going to have to disagree with Aldeth on one point, though. Our divorce rate isn't necessarily a problem. Before divorce lost most of its stigma, marriages that really needed to end stayed together due to societal pressure, and their children suffered for it. Sure, divorce is hard on kids, but hearing your parents fight on a daily basis or, worse yet, engage in physical altercations is far worse.

While I agree about your points on sometimes divorce being the best option, I still have to say something is wrong if 40% or so of all marriages are ending in divorce. To me, that speaks of way too many people marrying for the wrong reasons to begin with. Marriage is work, and some people aren't willing to do what is necessary - which is why they shouldn't have married to begin with.

To me, that speaks of way too many people marrying for the wrong reasons to begin with. Marriage is work, and some people aren't willing to do what is necessary - which is why they shouldn't have married to begin with.I can agree with this, but would add that divorce is the symptom, not the problem. While it appears a minor distinction, it is nevertheless an important one.

Half of my marriages has ended in divorce.

Congrats, NOG. I wish you both many years of happiness together. :thumb:

I've wondered for quite some time how the people who get married, get divorced, get married and get divorced again affect these statistics. On the whole, there's no effect, but on the other hand, what everyone might like to know is what are the chances of a specific marriage to fail and of this these kind of statistics tell diddley-squat.

If you're worried that people who marry and divorce multiple times are skewing the statistics, I'm sure there are statistics out there that tell you have many first time marriages end in divorce.

Thanks and thanks again. Considering how long we've been dating, we may count as already having passed that 5-year line.

As for who gets divorced the most, here are some major risk factors:
if your parents got divorced, especially when you were young
if you have been divorced before
if your siblings/close friends have been divorced
if you got married very young (i.e.14-21)
if you lived together before the marriage
if you had sex before the marriage
if you had sex with someone else at any time before the marriage
poor are actually much more likely to get divorced/have affairs than rich, but middle-class are least likely of all

All of these are supported by research, but, again, the two biggest groups, by far, in that 38% are people who have previously been divorced and people who married young (21 and younger) and have been married for less than 5 years.

Actually, one factor that may inflate the divorce rate is the fact that most marriages that end with the death of one spouse last so long, where as couples that divorce are free to remarry and may have multiple divorces. One couple may last 50 plus years, while another couple that marries at a comparable age may divorce within 5 years, as previously suggested, and engage in future marriages, each with increasingly worse odds of success. It's the ones that marry poorly skew the statistics...

I believe that changing societal values have influenced the divorce rate. We focus so much on ourselves now that it's difficult to be loving and giving and self-sacrificing in the long haul. Used to be a commitment meant something. Now, when some people say "forever" they really mean "until I get bored and can come up with some BS reason to ditch my commitment.

I'm on marriage #2 and am constantly on the lookout for a slide in my behaviour -- don't want to stop paying attention to my wife and lose her like I did my last one.

Is it that we aren't so loving and giving as before, or more that, because it's easier to get a devorse (both legally and socailly) that more people rush into marriages which they may not have entered if they knew they couldn't devorse?

The moral here is - Don't get married.

I've never understood marriage and why people do it. Ooh, I'm so modern!

From my understanding, at least here there are certain legal(ish) reasons to do so. For example, if your in a long term relationship and your partner has a serious injury, you're not allowed to sign any forms or anything on his/her behalf. Or with old age pension, the amount changes if you are married.

I am pretty sure people rushed into marriages before as well, it is just that in the "good old days" you were stuck in it no matter what. Hubby wailing on you every Friday night? Tough luck, you promised to love him for richer and poorer. Your wife an evil witch who spends all her waking time telling you how worthless you are? Tough luck you promised to love her for richer and poorer.

Of course it is silly to rush into marriages but at least nowadays there is a way out.

NOG: Interesting list, but you missed "if your partner is no longer your soul mate and you want to pursue love elsewhere..."

No... no... no bitterness there at all.

Hubby wailing on you every Friday night? Tough luck, you promised to love him for richer and poorer.

I'm sorry, but if I had a sister, and she ended up with a jerk like that, "Till death do us part" might come sooner than he planned on...

Marriage is a covenent. When one side violates the deal, the marriage is pretty much doomed. Sure, there is room for growth and forgiveness, but in cases of abuse, divorce is the best course of action...

Me? I'm not getting married, I pop the question and get turned down. Heh. So I really can relate to this

"if your partner is no longer your soul mate and you want to pursue love elsewhere..."

No... no... no bitterness there at all.

:shake:

if you lived together before the marriage
if you had sex before the marriage These two divorce risk factors surprised me; I would have thought at least the former would have helped to figure out or iron out any incompatibilities before the marriage. Perhaps it's just because the more conservative types are less likely to do these and are more likely to honour their vows.

The moral here is - Don't get married.

I've never understood marriage and why people do it. Ooh, I'm so modern!
I had a friend studying med who was a bit like that, he'd say that "the divorce rate for physicians is 70%, why bother" or something to that effect.

if you lived together before the marriage
if you had sex before the marriageBe careful how you interpret these, Stu. People who live together or cohabitate before marriage are more likely to divorce primarily because they are far less conservative about marriage and divorce in the first place. Their greater propensity for divorce doesn't necessarily indicate that their relationships are less healthy or are in some way flawed...merely that they aren't opposed to divorce.

yeah, that's what I was getting at, I was tired though ;)

NOG: Interesting list, but you missed "if your partner is no longer your soul mate and you want to pursue love elsewhere..."

No... no... no bitterness there at all.

It's a great factor, but a pain in the neck to use in an objective statistical analysis. Anyway - congrats, NOG! I wish you and Mrs. NOG a long and happy time together.

Be careful how you interpret these, Stu. People who live together or cohabitate before marriage are more likely to divorce primarily because they are far less conservative about marriage and divorce in the first place. Their greater propensity for divorce doesn't necessarily indicate that their relationships are less healthy or are in some way flawed...merely that they aren't opposed to divorce.

Well, I think it's more that they take the relationship as a whole, and with it marriage, less seriously. I don't doubt that most get married with the intent that this person will be their partner for life, just how carefully they consider that intent beforehand. Of course, that lack of careful concideration may be specifically due to the acceptance of a non-permanent possibility. In other words, we may just be approaching the same point from opposite directions.

On a side note, when my wife and I got married, she quickly decided that women who get divorced for anything more than the most serious of reasons are just nuts. The reason: All the name-change paperwork and tape to go through!

I think that most people get married because they love the person they are marrying and they want to have a ceremony wherein they publicly affirm that commitment and love. Of course there is also the positive societal sanction that goes with that marriage (usually but not often a religious one) but I don't think most people marry for primarily economic reasons.

Of course, sometimes people bail on their marriages because they are no longer convenient. I had that happen to me. She had sucked me dry of all vitality, life and money and it wasn't a rose garden any more, so she ended the marriage. So much for "through thick and thin". I'd like to believe that wasn't what she was planning when she said "I do", but who really knows what goes on in the mind of another human being?

I think it's too easy for people to get a divorce for BS reasons. Obviously if real abuse is occurring, then of course it should be made available.

Regarding people who live together and/or have sex prior to marriage:

Well, I think it's more that they take the relationship as a whole, and with it marriage, less seriously. I don't doubt that most get married with the intent that this person will be their partner for life, just how carefully they consider that intent beforehand. Of course, that lack of careful concideration may be specifically due to the acceptance of a non-permanent possibility.

Um...What? May I ask how this statement can be classified as anything other than wild speculation? How can you KNOW that people who live together and have sex before marriage take their relationship and marriage less seriously? And how does co-habitation and premarital sex cause them to consider the prospect of marriage less carefully, or cause them to accept marriage as a non-permanent possibility?

I'm sorry NOG, but I don't see anything that supports these statements. In fact, most people I am friends with - of which nearly all both lived together and had premarital sex are still happily married. Granted, that's a small sample size. Of all the factors listed the only one that passes the "eyeball test" for lack of a better term is that people who marry young tend to divorce more.

I do not doubt that the statement of "People who cohabitate and have premarital sex have a higher divorce rate that those who do not" is true and can be supported with statistics. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying the way you are interpreting it seems way off. Everyone wants to think their marriage and relationship are healthy and that they did things the "right way". And I have no reason to think that your own marriage is not a happy and healthy one. I'm just saying that because the way you did things worked for you, it does not mean that it works for everyone. To say that people who cohabitate and have premarital sex don't take their relationships and/or marriages as seriously as people who do not seems not only like a sweeping generalization, but is likely not supported by statistics.

Put me in the category of having pre-maritial sex and living with her before marriage. This September we hit the 15 year mark so I'm not convinced it is a prescription for failure.

I think it's too easy for people to get a divorce for BS reasons. Obviously if real abuse is occurring, then of course it should be made available.I think if you made it more difficult to divorce, people would either just stop getting married, lie about why they are divorcing, or simply separate and see other people without bothering to divorce at all. Making divorce more difficult is not going to change anything.

Put me in the category of having pre-maritial sex and living with her before marriage. This September we hit the 15 year mark so I'm not convinced it is a prescription for failure.I just celebrated my 9th in January. Our eldest turns 9 in May.:)

I'm with TGS as well , although I have "only" been married 12 years, not 15.

From my own perspective, there was no way I would marry someone without having sex and living with them ahead of time. There are too many people with weird hangups in bed and with bizarre living habits (see the random roommate babbling/venting thread for that) for me to risk a life-long commitment without having that knowledge.

As for who gets divorced the most, here are some major risk factors:
if you lived together before the marriage
if you had sex before the marriage
if you had sex with someone else at any time before the marriage


Man are you out of touch...

While the factors that NOG points out are likely statistically supported, they are not a condemnatin of a union, as three of our members have pointed out. What matters is the behavious during the marriage. If someone is unfaithful or abusive, of course a divorce is likely. If, however, a couple can do what is required to keep each other happy and see past their flaws or things that make them different, they can, regardless of their past, enjoy a happy and successful marriage.

Further, this is a continual process. It is not a case of find that right one and you're set for life/eternity. Soulmates are an illusion. [Mormon teaching] A former president of the Chruch, Spencer W. Kimball once said "Soulmates are an illusion...Any good man and any good woman can have a happy successful marriage if both are willing to make the required sacrifices.[/Mormon teaching] This Probably applies to common law relationships and gay couples too, but our faith doesn't go there.

Basically, those who have done things that are on the list that NOG rattled off can overcome those statistical harbingers and have a long and happy union...

From my own perspective, there was no way I would marry someone without having sex and living with them ahead of time. There are too many people with weird hangups in bed and with bizarre living habits (see the random roommate babbling/venting thread for that) for me to risk a life-long commitment without having that knowledge.
I agree completely. Oh, and my wife and I have been happily married for five years.

Exactly, Gnarff. These are indicators, maybe contributing factors, not guaranteed causes. My grandfather smoked for 65 years of his life, but never once had any kind of cancer. My father smoked for 20 years, so far cancer free. Does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer? Not at all, just that it isn't a 100% thing. Our biology is far more complex than that. And if you think our biology is complex, our psychology is a doosie.

Regarding people who live together and/or have sex prior to marriage:



Um...What? May I ask how this statement can be classified as anything other than wild speculation? How can you KNOW that people who live together and have sex before marriage take their relationship and marriage less seriously? And how does co-habitation and premarital sex cause them to consider the prospect of marriage less carefully, or cause them to accept marriage as a non-permanent possibility?

I'm sorry NOG, but I don't see anything that supports these statements. In fact, most people I am friends with - of which nearly all both lived together and had premarital sex are still happily married. Granted, that's a small sample size. Of all the factors listed the only one that passes the "eyeball test" for lack of a better term is that people who marry young tend to divorce more.

I do not doubt that the statement of "People who cohabitate and have premarital sex have a higher divorce rate that those who do not" is true and can be supported with statistics. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying the way you are interpreting it seems way off. Everyone wants to think their marriage and relationship are healthy and that they did things the "right way". And I have no reason to think that your own marriage is not a happy and healthy one. I'm just saying that because the way you did things worked for you, it does not mean that it works for everyone. To say that people who cohabitate and have premarital sex don't take their relationships and/or marriages as seriously as people who do not seems not only like a sweeping generalization, but is likely not supported by statistics.

I came to that conclusion from a number of people I have known. Like you, it's a small sample size, but it's my experience. It may well not be 100% accurate, and I will include the experiences of the people on this board into my 'sample set', but the rest remain a reality.

People change over time. It is not suprising that sometimes people change in such a way as become more distant in their attraction for one another. If you or spouse has grown considerably faster in character or maturity than the other, then it is unsurprising that the relationships suffers.

Here is an example - when my wife and I married, we both were smokers and somewhat lazy and slovenly in our housekeeping, etc. As time went on, I gave up smoking and tried to live healthier. I broke the slobbish habit to keep my surroundings in good order, clean and organized.

She, on the other hand continues to smoke and eat "tater chips" on the sofa watching TV while her surrounds go to hell.

This causes me unhappiness. Communication of this unhappiness brings on no changes - even hostility some times.

Should I suffer unhappiness for the rest of my life because I have outgrown her?

Note - we are still married, going on 18 years now but I do feel at times that I should leave her and find somebody that brings to me happiness instead of misery.

So divorce being a legal option if I should chose to exercise it is a good thing in my opinion. Life is too short to suffer misery when we have the power to change it.

Subra - as an aside, have you suggested some kind of counseling to your wife or otherwise explained exactly how miserable you are?

On a related note, I read Dr. Helen (http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/ask_dr_helen_8.php) who has a fascinating piece on why men are no longer getting married.