←back to thread

191 points pabs3 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
aliasxneo ◴[] No.41875858[source]
> Traditional marriage is the ultimate form of this ideal. You're supposed to stick to it until you die, no matter what, come hell or high water, even if it makes you and everybody around you miserable. That is neither sane nor healthy!

An interesting philosophy, but I don’t think marriage is the best place to apply it. Writing a README and then never starting a project has practically no consequences. Same for picking up a book and then ditching it after a few minutes. Marriage? That’s a whole different ball game, especially when children are involved.

replies(5): >>41875980 #>>41875989 #>>41879010 #>>41883859 #>>41884145 #
Swizec ◴[] No.41875980[source]
SOFA works great for marriage, if you tweak the params a little. Most secular people arrive at this by default: You marry your 3rd serious partner sometime in your late 20’s.

Start a lot of long term relationships, finish the one that sticks when both partners are mature and more or less done growing up.

I think there’s another shakeup period (statistically) in your mid to late 40’s. That seems related to when kids start being old enough that they don’t act as a forcing function as much.

replies(5): >>41876064 #>>41877191 #>>41877329 #>>41877358 #>>41878926 #
triyambakam ◴[] No.41876064[source]
And that's when those couples often get divorced.

There's strong value in staying with a first partner, like a high school sweetheart. Growing together through life's challenges creates deep emotional bonds and shared experiences. Long-term stability comes from building trust over time and avoiding the emotional toll of repeated breakups.

Couples who navigate growth together often develop stronger, more resilient partnerships.

replies(8): >>41876120 #>>41876311 #>>41876391 #>>41876837 #>>41876986 #>>41877468 #>>41877842 #>>41878829 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.41877468{3}[source]
> Couples who navigate growth together often develop stronger, more resilient partnerships.

Thinking of someone I used to know who sarcastically referred to her many relationship blowups as "another fucking 'opportunity for growth'".

I see a lot of people talking past each other in this thread. There's several layers at work:

- "marriage is good"

- "people should make an effort to keep their relationship together"

- "people should make an effort to keep their relationship together, even at the cost of their own happiness, regardless of whether their partner is also doing the work"

- "marriage should be socially encouraged"

- "marriage should be socially enforced with censure of the unmarried"

- "marriage and its permanency should be legally enforced, regardless of harm including rape and domestic violence" (the pre-1950ish position)

You can see poster A making one of these statements and another poster B replying as if they'd said another one down the slippery slope.

replies(2): >>41877604 #>>41878061 #
reverius42 ◴[] No.41878061{4}[source]
I think you mean pre-1970ish position. No-fault divorce wasn't introduced anywhere in the US until 1969 in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce
replies(1): >>41884077 #
1. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.41884077{5}[source]
Sheesh
replies(1): >>41884889 #
2. willcipriano ◴[] No.41884889[source]
No-fault divorce would be more aptly described as providers-fault divorce if you look at how the family courts tend to work.
replies(1): >>41898139 #
3. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.41898139[source]
Sure family courts are biased, but the idea of divorce not being allowed unless one demonstrates fault to a court is absolutely and utterly absurd in a country where we allow people to freely associate, so I hope you’re not gonna try and argue against no-fault divorce itself on the basis of court bias.