This is such a pithy statement, used with such simple compelling force, that I applaud it even while disagreeing. Some points that counter this message:
1) What percentage of partners that end up leaving the marriage do so with another partner lined up?
2) Of the percentage that do not - a sizable set I would assume - how many exited after long-term (years?) relationships?
3) Of the percentage that did - another sizable set I would assume - what caused the reasoning process to take so long? Why didn't they conclude they could do better earlier?
I would argue most people go into marriage with at least some amount of good faith effort to make it last. Why do they make such a good faith effort in the first place if they are operating as you would say?
> 1) What percentage of partners that end up leaving the marriage do so with another partner lined up?
According to [1], surveys show that 55% of people say infidelity is a contributing factor in the divorce. And that's probably just the ones that know (as it is often kept a secret), so we can take this number as a floor of the actual. "Lined up" - implying future relationship - doesn't matter so much as "other partner involved" which is to what this refers, and is my point. Even without infidelity, the exiting partner could have potentials "lined up" that they'd rather date (than stay married).
> 2) Of the percentage that do not - a sizable set I would assume - how many exited after long-term (years?) relationships?
I don't know. I'm sure it's possible to be repulsed by someone you're married to without knowing exactly who you'd go out with next.
> 3) Of the percentage that did - another sizable set I would assume - what caused the reasoning process to take so long? Why didn't they conclude they could do better earlier?
Marriage is (was) a very hard contract to annul. That's the point of it. These people are often fighting these feelings for years: weighing their natural biological impulses against higher-level rational thought. Rational thought that has been crafted from the narratives of a culture, encouraging marriage as a virtue. The impulses come from diminished pair bonding chemicals and more enticing (and realistically accessible) mating opportunities.
> I would argue most people go into marriage with at least some amount of good faith effort to make it last. Why do they make such a good faith effort in the first place if they are operating as you would say?
Of course. The key is that they don't know how they're operating. They don't understand that we've evolved multi-year chemical bonding capabilities to help us raise young children, and that after those fade, shit gets tough, and the lure of bonding with someone new/better (new is a form of better, genetic diversity and all that) becomes more attractive. The bond dies quicker if a better partner is easily accessible, btw. These types of mechanisms are necessary to help women select for better genes.
Ah, but I think this concedes too much! The thrust of your argument is basically that we can boil down this very complex web of variables that make up the decision tree to seek a divorce to a cold calculation of, "Can I do better?" Were you to model this behavior in some simulation you would see people exiting and entering relationships very quickly based upon the speed of calculation.
But the actual calculation of whether to seek a divorce is not so simple. It is a complex web of interacting considerations and "rationalizations" that do battle with the impulse you would boil it all down to.
Does this impulse exist? Absolutely. Does it win out in many circumstances? Absolutely. Is every divorce ultimately a simple case of this impulse winning out over other considerations? I think that goes too far. And what about all those cases where the impulse does not win out? Would you reduce all of those to the calculation returning, "No, I don't think I could do better!?"
Regardless, the story of why people divorce is much more complicated and rich than this simple impulse to look around and see greener grass.
Liquidity, my friend. It's not easy to end and start new contracts in this manner. Well, things like Tinder are making it easier. But remember why we have so much societal pressure not to bounce around from relationship to relationship. It would be chaos. It would create a terrible society where all human energy would be directed towards mate optimization.
That's why certain types of societies thrive and succeed: they stabilize these things, through marriage. Marriage is the ultimate destroyer of relationship liquidity.
Again, I must reference Unwin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
> And what about all those cases where the impulse does not win out? Would you reduce all of those to the calculation returning, "No, I don't think I could do better!?"
Correct.
> Regardless, the story of why people divorce is much more complicated and rich than this simple impulse to look around and see greener grass.
It's about optimization: getting what's best for you, given constraints. We come up with social constructs, like marriage and church and behavior shaming (constraints), to reduce chaos and direct our energies to building a better society.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like the idea of marriage. But let's be clear about what it is, what the trade-offs are, and what happens when such constraints start to erode. Hint: more women start initiating divorces, because constraints are lifted ("no fault divorce"). Then more children start growing up in single-mother families, an excellent predictor of poor academic achievement and crime involvement for the child.
Fascinating topic.
The rate of divorce for men is much higher when they have a job in which they regularly interact with attractive, or even just young, women even if they aren't engaging in romantic relationships with said women.
I don't know if this is true across the board. I don't feel that way entirely, more along the lines of "I'm stuck in this situation; kids, a marriage where I get no real benefit, I just want to be free and do what I want and not have to bow to their whims."
I know several people, right now, that have been divorced for some time (5+ years, and in one case 10+ years) and don't even date or have interest in dating. Their motivations seem aligned more with mine than wanting a better mate - In fact, If I end up getting a divorce (we have agreed to try and work it out, again), I have no interest in dating again, at least not for a while.
FWIW, I'm 38, and the people I'm referencing are older than me, some as much as 12+ years older, so maybe it's an age thing.
> "I'm stuck in this situation; kids, a marriage where I get no real benefit, I just want to be free and do what I want and not have to bow to their whims."
Unless you're celibate, then this is equivalent to wanting to be with another mate, as that is what will happen. Not to discount the rationalizations, by all means freedom beats family for a lot of people. The latter is necessarily a sacrifice of the former.
Pretty much, rough marriage, sex with each other isn't something they want even if you do. Needless to say, more than 12 months go by between 'action.'
Right now we are together for finances and the kiddo. But I still have to deal with all of the negatives. I might hook up with others once everything is normal, but really the primary motivator isn't sex or a better mate, it's just freedom to better my career and myself. Right now it's all about her career and me dealing with the kid.
Suddenly you will become desirable once you do that and get rid of bad habits like needy behavior.
I would suggest focus on health as well and do some lifting and read the book "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover and look for references on the web.
You can't compete against someone else's selfishness. You will lose every time. The only thing to do is to walk away, but in the context of a marriage, it's not easy to do.
My ex is still indescribably selfish five years later. She still wants to appear to be a good mother at the expense of actually being a good mother. She still tries to sacrifice my career and passions so that she can suit her whims. She tries to push our daughter on me during her custody period all the time (after fighting for more custody and costing us both $$$). And she still blames me, through a series of seriously twisted thoughts, for the dissolution of our marriage.
During the marriage, surviving her selfishness was the only thing possible. It wasn't that I wasn't focusing on my health and happiness. It was that those things were being taken from me more quickly than I could generate them. And I had to protect my child's psyche from her as well.
I don't think anyone would describe me as a "nice guy". I have a very low tolerance for bullshit and have no problems saying exactly how I feel or saying no. But I expect a partner in a relationship, not someone who I have to grab by the scruff of the neck in order to get them to not be a shitty person.
I also dated another severely selfish woman. In that relationship it was much like the sibling poster mentions. There were high expectations of me, but even minor expectations of her resulted in her playing the victim or making lame nonsensical excuses. There was no reciprocity, zero respect, and no concern for the relationship as its own entity.
What both these women had in common was a desperation for approval and attention from others. This need was so large that I could not possibly fill it and I was ultimately made to feel that I was only a giver of attention and a tool to aid in the acquisition of more attention from strangers.
This type of thing is very obvious to me now, but when I met my ex-wife I was much younger and pretty clueless about women in general.
Therefore it shouldn't be unexpected that women who didn't get to marry the alpha male, are unhappy and eventually want out.
(And the same thing happens, symmetrically, with the super-desirable girls. And pseudo-symmetrically with gays and lesbians and bisexuals and etc etc etc.)
what happens to the vast majority of prospectless men? mass immigration of females is one solution. but eventually the donor country will bar them from doing so. so imagine a country where 80% of single men will not get a chance to produce offspring. is that a recipe for civil unrest?
without any traditional patriarchy, it is in the female's best interest to get inseminated by multiple alphas. maybe there will be a social movement that that says for every alpha baby, a female must bear a baby with her beta partner?
If it was about access to better mates, you'd expect to see the disparity extend to non-marriage relationships too, but you don't.
85 breakups were reported as mutual. That leaves only 194 breakups which were reported as wanted more by one side.
112 is the total number of breakups reported as wanted more by the woman. 82 is the number of breakups reported as wanted more by the man.
112/194 = 57.7%. Of a very small sample. With the wrong question asked.
Is this the best data we've got? If so, I am not sure we can conclude anything about breakup initiation outside of marriage.
Link to the paper: http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breaku...
Note: It's not clear to me how the author got 56% and 53.4% as the weighted breakup wanted by women rate. It's possible I've made an error. But the Huffington post headline certainly seems unwarranted.
There's too many contented or at least not actively dissatisfied people to support the idea you're discussing in practice, though I agree it's theoretically plausible.
Rather than a question of sexual access relative to resources, I'd reframe it for the 21st century as a mutual understanding of shared needs and shared solutions to those needs. Sure, not everyone can fill every need for every other person, but it's probably better than going without, which is why the pragmatic mate choice also provides genuine positive emotion, even if it's not the "maximum" need fulfillment possible.
The fact of the matter is that women are primarily interested in a top smaller percentage of high value men (this is called hypergamy). This smaller group of desirable men would most like to have multiple mates (this is called polygamy). Marriage, and the accompanying culture and customs, 'corrects' this by trying to create a 1-to-1 mapping. Both extreme strategies described are traditionally shamed and discouraged.
Why? Because marriage (monogamous long-term bonding) is good for society. It incentivizes the largest amount of people to be productive, and reduces civil unrest by distributing sexual access to women across as many men as possible. For more on sex and society, check out J.D. Unwin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
Now, how this relates to the OP. The fact of the matter is that people become unhappy in a relationship of any kind when they think they are getting the short end of the stick, and could be doing better. They'll rationalize it six ways to Sunday, "my partner doesn't understand me", "my partner smothers me", "they don't do enough chores", "we don't understand ourselves", whatever, but at the end of the day they think they ought to have a better mate, and are fed up with their current one!
This is especially true of women, who, by pure numerical inevitability, largely marry below what they would prefer. We know that women initiate most divorces too, at ~70% (fun fact: among college-eduated couples, that number rises to 90%). A smaller amount of men end up locked to one person too, when they know in another world they could have more mates. Such are the sacrifices for the monogamous society (often referred to as patriarchal, because women are more sexually restricted).
So in conclusion, what bothers me about articles like this, who delve deep into rationalizations instead of simple mate value and attractiveness, is the implication of a 1-to-1 mapping between men and women. Is there a right person to marry, for most people? Probably not.