The Real Reason Divorce is So Common

[RickTheToad]

Disagree. I’d argue the reason divorce is common is because marriage is an unnatural arrangement for humans to begin with.

Females are hardwired to mate with top tier (10-20%) guys. The rest of the guys get leftovers. What this means is that most marriages in 2022 are where the wife is settling for her secondary option. Hence, 80% of the time she is initiating divorce.

Law is not the cause of the female tendency to leave, as this statistic likely carries over into non marital relationships as well. Browse this forum long enough, you will see no shortage of guys getting dumped by girlfriends and plates.

Then why are you engaged, with no pre-nup in the works I bet, if you feel this way?

 

[RickTheToad]

It's because women get a really sweet deal, imagine this for a second most divorces end up with the husband getting half of his wifes assets,alimony and custody of the kids?

How common do you think divorce would be? Do you think 90% of women would still initiate divorces if they actually had to face consequences for their actions?

I don't understand why men gave up so much of their power for nothing. It's amazing that we don't have mass rioting because of how biased divorce laws are against men.

It doesn't always have to be this way. First off, as @EyeBRollin suggests, in this day and age, you are not her first choice. The contrapositive of that is that she's probably not yours either. The keyword is compromise. However, as a backup, one needs a pre-nup and a few separate accounts to keep on the side. Gold or Crypto is preferred. Since many females earn more than dudes these days, alimony is not really that big of a deal. However, in the pre-nup, waiver of alimony, legal fees and medical fees/premiums should be included. It's still a very dicey situation.

 

[Blacksheep]

Its sad to see people doing those things. Its such a mess.

Its only one thing on a bunch of other stuffs human do to harm/destroy each other.

Power, status, money, ego... It seems to be path to our dark side as humans if let themselves get blind and ignorants.

 

[SW15]

The marriage contract has become a scam for men.

Yes. There’s not that much incentive to marry now if you think about it. Religion was a big incentive for marriage up until the Sexual Revolution got fully mainstreamed in the West (circa 1990). I could make the point now that marriage makes sense for hardcore Judeo-Christian religion devotees but really no one else. For the man who cares mostly his dicck wet, there’s not that much benefit over this course of his lifetime. His sex frequency will likely be higher over a 45 year period (ages 16-60) if he doesn’t marry because the sex eventually dries up in most LTRs/marriages. Time duration of a relationship is the enemy of sex frequency. In the first 2-5 years of a relationship, the sex frequency is likely higher for most men than solely pursuing one night stands & casual sex, so there’s incentive to have relationships if sex frequency is the variable that matters most and then exit those relationships before it goes south too much.

Too many men in the last 2-3 decades have married because they think they can emulate relatives in their parents’/grandparents’ generation who stayed married 40 or 50+ years. What they never fully comprehend is that their parents & grandparents operated in different mating environments where marriage was more likely to work better than now.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Then why are you engaged, with no pre-nup in the works I bet, if you feel this way?

Yes. There’s not that much incentive to marry now if you think about it.

The incentive is for guys that want to have healthy stable children.

 

[Snag87]

Yes. There’s not that much incentive to marry now if you think about it. Religion was a big incentive for marriage up until the Sexual Revolution got fully mainstreamed in the West (circa 1990). I could make the point now that marriage makes sense for hardcore Judeo-Christian religion devotees but really no one else. For the man who cares mostly his dicck wet, there’s not that much benefit over this course of his lifetime. His sex frequency will likely be higher over a 45 year period (ages 16-60) if he doesn’t marry because the sex eventually dries up in most LTRs/marriages. Time duration of a relationship is the enemy of sex frequency. In the first 2-5 years of a relationship, the sex frequency is likely higher for most men than solely pursuing one night stands & casual sex, so there’s incentive to have relationships if sex frequency is the variable that matters most and then exit those relationships before it goes south too much.

Too many men in the last 2-3 decades have married because they think they can emulate relatives in their parents’/grandparents’ generation who stayed married 40 or 50+ years. What they never fully comprehend is that their parents & grandparents operated in different mating environments where marriage was more likely to work better than now.

Would you rather have sex with 1 women 50 times per year, or 10 women twice a year?

 

[RickTheToad]

The incentive is for guys that want to have healthy stable children.

According to your post she will leave regardless.

 

[EyeBRollin]

According to your post she will leave regardless.

For 80% of guys, yes.

 

[RickTheToad]

For 80% of guys, yes.

I guess. I do not know the exact percentages.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I guess. I do not know the exact percentages.

Women file divorce about 80% of the time. The percentage of non marital dumpings is probably similar. Laws and “love” have little to do with any of this. It’s about leverage. Top tier men are more valuable than women. If you are her best option (and it becomes even more skewed the older she gets), her survival is dependent on making things work with you. If you are her secondary option… good luck to you.

 

[SW15]

Would you rather have sex with 1 women 50 times per year, or 10 women twice a year?

I would rather have sex with 1 woman 50 times in a year than 10 women 2 times in a year. Having sex on 50 days total in a year is better than having sex on 20 days total in a year.

Sex frequency is the most important metric to me.

 

[Snag87]

I would rather have sex with 1 woman 50 times in a year than 10 women 2 times in a year. Having sex on 50 days total in a year is better than having sex on 20 days total in a year.

Sex frequency is the most important metric to me.

Fair enough. Many men desire variety.

 

[SW15]

Fair enough. Many men desire variety.

I’ve always been more motivated by frequency than variety. There was a time when variety was a stronger motivating factor for me.

I’m 38 now & have been participating in the mating environment since ages 15-16 or so. I asked my first woman out on a date at 16. So I have 22-23 years of mating environment experience. 22-23 years of experience has enabled me to put up a notch count higher than most men’s lifetime notch count, including some longer term girlfriends.

When I was 16-24 & had a lower lifetime notch count, variety was more important to me at that point as compared to now but it was always less important than frequency.

 

[RickTheToad]

Women file divorce about 80% of the time. The percentage of non marital dumpings is probably similar. Laws and “love” have little to do with any of this. It’s about leverage. Top tier men are more valuable than women. If you are her best option (and it becomes even more skewed the older she gets), her survival is dependent on making things work with you. If you are her secondary option… good luck to you.

It's not always that cut and dry dude. I filed for my divorce 12 years ago, not vice-versa.

 

[wifehunter]

Marriage is dead. The courts killed it.

 

[EyeBRollin]

It's not always that cut and dry dude. I filed for my divorce 12 years ago, not vice-versa.

Sorry to hear that.

Did you marry before taking the “red pill?”

 

[RickTheToad]

Sorry to hear that.

Did you marry before taking the “red pill?”

I was always pretty much red pill; possibly purple pill. However, I wanted a family and I thought that was the right step.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I was always pretty much red pill; possibly purple pill. However, I wanted a family and I thought that was the right step.

Do you regret having a family?

 

[Zimbabwe]

It doesn't always have to be this way. First off, as @EyeBRollin suggests, in this day and age, you are not her first choice. The contrapositive of that is that she's probably not yours either. The keyword is compromise. However, as a backup, one needs a pre-nup and a few separate accounts to keep on the side. Gold or Crypto is preferred. Since many females earn more than dudes these days, alimony is not really that big of a deal. However, in the pre-nup, waiver of alimony, legal fees and medical fees/premiums should be included. It's still a very dicey situation.

Most people on this Forum (besides our Incel Legion) have the potential to easily be in the top 20% and possibly in the top 5% with enough work. If that isn't her first choice, well her standards are simply unrealistic.

 

[SW15]

in this day and age, you are not her first choice. The contrapositive of that is that she's probably not yours either.

Males are also hardwired to mate with the top tier. None one picks an average, plain-faced, slightly overweight Sally as his top choice. Men settle, just like women do.

This seems like a bad situation for all parties involved. It's a way to go through life without passion. A relationship without passion is bad, especially for women who are emotionally driven.

Marriage also benefits girls because once she loses her looks, very few guys will want her. However, if she married when she is young, she already "locked in her guy". Traditional marriage keeps both men and women in check. Guys are prevented from leaving his wife for a younger model.

There's some merit to this but there's less merit to it now than in the past. Plenty of 45-60 year old women have no problem finding new men. There are plenty of thirsty divorced Baby Boomers and early Gen X'ers out there now.

This also allows average men who aren't married , to date the younger models. People have kids and both wife and husband help raise these kids to become decent adults. Its a fact that kids that only have one parent (especially single mothers) become criminals. Both parents raising kids create a better society.

All research indicates children from 2 parent households achieve better outcomes. Having children is one of the reasons why people still marry. However, for those that have married and had children with women since the 1990s, it's been more likely than not than a man and the mother of his children will no longer be romantically involved by the time the first child turns 18. It's a lousy deal for men and an even worse deal for the children.

Now, because of feminism, loose marriage laws, and Disney marketing; women don't understand why mother nature made her good looking when she is younger (to lock in a mate); her youth is wasted on chasing chad. Society no longer gives women a scarlet A. No longer reins in slutty behavior -- for both men and women. The marriage contract is no longer strong. It's no longer a contract; its more of, when a women gets bored or when the relationship gets hard; she divorces him for cash prizes.

There's not much of an incentive for a woman to stick around if she feels the slightest bit inconvenienced.

Marketing (mentioned above). Societal pressure. Familial pressure. Church brainwashing. Government incentives. Fear of dying alone. Business arrangement/money. Once in a while, because two people love each other and might want to raise kids together.

If it were natural, this thread wouldn't be necessary.

Yes!