Divorce risk factors

http://emorywheel.com/professors-study-marriage-economics/

Diamonds aren’t the problem, it’s the premium pricing that’s the problem.
People are living longer than ever, we need harder rocks.

It’s easy to find cheap, good quality diamonds and arrange a setting for the stone.

Husband/wife is a status.

Status-obsessed materialists (who want to get married but not be married) tend to divorce more because of the narcissism, and overt narcs tend to pair up with covert ones.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-narcissism/201712/how-the-3-types-narcissists-act-first-date

Once the money is gone, the spark fizzles out.

The study also found a correlation between marriage age and duration, which Francis wrote are positively related, meaning the older the person was when he or she got married, the longer the marriage was likely to last.

Maturity, waiting for the hormones to settle and personality to crystallize, few societies in history married off someone younger than 21-25, outside times of war (Regency, American Independence) but then only for re-population purposes, knowing it was less than ideal.

Another notable finding was that the larger differences in age and education between husbands and wives were associated with a higher risk of divorce,

Assortative mating wins again.

College IQ men marrying high-school IQ women is dysgenic.

 as was reporting that looks were important in marriage.

Vain men, bad husbands. As soon as she gets a little wrinkle, his “love” dies.

Evil people confuse lust with love. When the lust is spent, they claim to fall “out” of love. There is no falling “out” of true love, you can only be betrayed and detach. The love doesn’t go anywhere.

Marriage will get less expensive when it becomes more common.
As it is, only rich people can afford to marry.

That’s right, classism again.

Social media would make it a little gimmicky.

Abolishing no-fault divorce and making it hard (or impossible) to re-marry after a set N times would make people respect the institution again, nothing less will work.

Really, our era has the term “starter marriage” – nothing else will work.

If society didn’t get rid of rites of passage for both sexes, the social value of over-spending on a wedding would plummet. For women, debutante balls were important. Now the expense is carried over into bridal models.

Should it be illegal to re-marry?

After divorce.

How can you be trusted to give a vow until death do you part, if you couldn’t stick to it the first time around? You know, the way adults are held to all other legally-binding commitments involving debt and humans (i.e. children).

http://www.divorcestatistics.org/

After how many times? How many times before we cap it?

The purpose of marriage is the security of monogamy. This spits in the face of security and allows serial monogamy, which is, looking back, a kind of fraud compared to what was promised. False light should come back into enforcement with all the other laws that protected the sexes.

At least end no-fault divorce. EMTs don’t use the term ‘car accident’ because they’re never accidents. There’s always at least one party at fault.

Why are legal bailouts allowed for cases that don’t involve a breach of the vows?
Jesus said it’s fine to divorce an adulterer. JESUS. And if one party won’t try, which is what you get married to do, how are they not at fault? Marriages require cooperation, it isn’t one-sided.

And can I bet on the odds of Markle releasing an engagement chicken recipe soon?
Fact: when they divorce, she still gets a title.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/10/15/body-language/

Education secret factor in divorce rates

I saw this mentioned again here

http://uk.businessinsider.com/type-of-marriage-end-in-divorce-eli-finkel-2017-10

and already knowing but yes, it’s true.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm

Lower class people are marrying less.

They get divorced more when they do get married.

Uneducated people aren’t as happy in marriage.

I don’t think it’s fair to call these r-types because you can find them among the middle class hedonists too.

‘Educated’ people, let’s say middle class, haven’t been affected by recent changes in the MMP.
Their divorce rate is still low and they marry later. As previously mentioned, female education is the best predictor of low divorce risk. Where is your phony appeal to Bible now?

If you can’t afford to keep a wife, as it was called, you should never marry. It is heavily financial, a monetary yoke. Do you want masculine gender roles or not?

The biggest difference here is obviously as a proxy for IQ. College entrance has an IQ requirement.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influences-your-success-at-work-2017-10

  • A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.
  • Social skills, drive, and personality traits such as conscientiousness matter, too.
  • Companies currently place a much greater emphasis on personality traits than on IQ.
  • It could be wise for companies to start measuring job candidates’ intelligence and personality traits, to get a more holistic picture of their potential.

Oh look, everything I’ve been saying.

We need more research including the HBD crowd.

Link: Gaslighting in marriage – why it’s wrong

It isn’t purely men that do this but in a marriage, I’ve never heard of a woman doing it.

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2016/01/20-situations-in-which-men-gaslight-women/

Those ‘redpill husbands’ claiming this is prosocial domination are covering for their antisocial, divorce-causing behaviour.

In a 1998 study of 130 newlywed couples designed to explore predictors of divorce or marital stability, marriage researcher and author Dr. John Gottman and colleagues, labeled this observed behavior of husbands — as “bat-em-back” — due to the force with which husbands automatically acted to cut off any attempts of wives to influence. To the researchers, this intentional behavior was likened to that of a baseball player at the plate, ever ready to “bat” a home run.

This and subsequent studies found that a husband’s “refusal to accept influence from his wife” — in effect, gaslighting — is highly predictive of divorce. On the bright side, findings also showed that a husband’s “acceptance of influence from his wife” is even more predictive of a stable and happy marriage.

Essentially he’s depriving her of her role, refusing to allow her to support him.
Well, if you didn’t want support, why aren’t you single?
If you hate the feminine, why legally and spiritually bind yourself to it?

Are the abusers honest about this fact? No.
Never. They’d lose control. You cannot cooperate with someone who wants to destroy you.
They don’t care about the marriage bond and they certainly don’t care about the other spouse.
In Biblical terms, they are letting the team down on the cherish part of the vow.

Naturally, the problem here is not male partners, rather the social conditioning that trains men to anxiously feel they have to prove masculinity on the basis of how different they are from women — and in general that means avoiding the “soft” stuff their female partners want, such as romance, nonsexual touch, doing things she wants or likes (without feeling emasculated), etc.

Anyone who does that whipped sound, you can tell they’re bad with women.
Love is a verb. Do or do not do.

Culturally speaking, we don’t trust that a baby boy will grow to become a man in the same way that an acorn becomes an oak tree. We expect men to be on guard throughout their lives to prove they are the “real” thing, and not “sissies” or “gay” and the like. And men’s fears are real; everyone is “watching,” male and female, ready to shame them to get back on track. (This shaming has intensified in last two decades.)

As Ali notes, gaslighting is a result of social conditioning rooted in a set of beliefs regarding gender roles and masculinity, such as that:

  • Women’s opinions don’t hold as much weight.

  • Women’s wants should not be treated as legitimate.

  • Men should never express regret when their actions have caused pain.

aka psychopath

Who doesn’t want to live with a psycho?

Geez, no wonder they divorce the bastard.

If they really believed any of those false beliefs, they would never, ever marry.
They’d rather die on the end of a shotgun.

I don’t think the men who do this realize – if we brought back fault-divorce, men would lose because dissolution is normally their fault. It’s a failure of EQ on their part. That’s also why they refuse therapy, they don’t want to change, like a toddler. They’d rather hurt/weaken or lose the spouse.

“Hamstering” explained as bullshit;

Because women are conditioned to collaborate and empathize, this tactic can send a woman’s brain into an exhaustive wheel-spinning mode of explaining, complaining, crying, begging, pleading, etc. (and women’s socialization leaves them more susceptible …),  and deceive a man’s brain into making several false, misleading (and unfortunate) conclusions.

Victim blaming, hilarious. Note that they’re fine around normal people though. It’s mere proximity to the loser who feels the need to throw around diagnoses like a Munchausen by Proxy (Woe is me because of them) that’s the real issue.

For one, they interpret the effectiveness of this thought control tactic to silence their partner’s voice as “proof” of men’s superiority, rightful dominance, strength and intelligence compared women’s, etc., and thus get tricked into relying on a tactic that harms their relationship, and gradually pushes their partner away.

They crave attention, spew bullshit, get what they wanted – but it’s the woman’s fault?
Amazing magic trick.
The dumbass doesn’t know he’s conditioning women not to provide him affection.

That’s a level of retard I’ve never seen.

In truth, gaslighting is a major obstacle to forming a healthy, vibrant couple relationship — emotional intimacy. For most female partners, for example, a failure to build emotional intimacy often means a gradual loss of interest in sex.

Literally the manosphere.

Women don’t want me – how is this their fault?

But while discussing their relationships, you can never, ever talk about them.

Guess the common factor.

Guess the problem.

Actual hatefacts to offend everyone

OR
Nevermind, your fear is completely justified.

Feel free to make your own.

So let’s talk about the Red Pill, shall we?

This little red pill where any group is magically exempt from criticism… almost like a privilege. Offense is “how dare you imply my demographic is morally fallible!”

Shall we?

 

Hatefacts to trigger

I use ‘fact’ with caution. One study doesn’t make a fact, but it’s something.

http://archive.is/LRe05
“Here are about 700 hatefacts (politically incorrect but true statements) on Islam, race, gender relations, ethnocentrism, diversity, and more. These facts and other commentary were originally posted on the @LibrarianofHate twitter account. This is by far the largest listing of politically incorrect facts to date, but it’s only a small sampling of everything out there. After all this research, I don’t believe hatefacts are meaningful or convincing, since they only have value as part of a larger narrative that makes sense of the world, but perhaps someone will find this list worthwhile. If you find an error, typo, or just want to call me an evil nazi KKK member, you’re out of luck.”

e.g. “All available studies find that non-European immigrants to Britain cost about $10 billion/year. Source: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk#kp3

The gender section mostly attacks women but otherwise pretty fair where it covers both (aka the scientific standard).
“40% of women with more than 20 sex partners have an STD. Source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf#page=19
How does that not apply to men unless they’re all lesbians?
Oh wait, I looked up the link and it’s the guy that ONLY studies women (on heterosexual sex?!) and then acts like it’s scientific. Yeah, check the links first before using, guys. Severe quality issue in places. The obvious question would be, which sluts (men) are infecting these sluts? And the sample is at least ten years old.
“All the charts and data in this report refer to sexually active women; girls and women who have never been sexually active are excluded.” ….So it doesn’t even study all women, of that age, in that country. #facepalm
But this other one doesn’t study male happiness in marriage either…
Reassessing the Link between Women’s Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Quality
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/91/2/635/2235785/Reassessing-the-Link-between-Women-s-Premarital

Do they not care about men too? Or is it just hostility with a poor methodology?
It’s men doing the studies…. why aren’t they studying men? What kind of data are they hiding?
Like the promiscuity divorce risk….

Not one has the balls to look at it.

And they call themselves redpill.

Where’s the data, dude?

You can’t just ignore half the dataset. I’m so disappointed. I have nothing to talk about if there’s only half, on a topic predicated on the need to compare BOTH. Still, some of the immigration links are useful. They have decent methods.

Divorce stats for interracial, mixed race and miscegenation marriages

My traffic stats are tingling after I triggered both sides of politics with the latest post about Yellow Fever.
Okay, let’s assume you want a marriage that’s lifelong.

Have a single one of you looked at the stats?

Did you just assume miscegenation with some Thai bride leads to traditional-length marriages, because she irons or something else domestic, like cooking?

You would be wrong.

interracialdivorcerates

http://www.divorcesource.com/blog/interracial-marriage-and-divorce/

Clearly some SMP hatefacts in there somewhere.

It’s so easy to prove you should feel bad.

Divorce rates among interracial couples are slightly higher than divorce rates among same-race couples,

Louder for the cucks at the back.

Divorce rates among interracial couples are slightly higher than divorce rates among same-race couples,

That’s the average, blending many factors.

showed interracial marriages were more likely to end in divorce than same-ethnic marriages — 41 percent versus 31 percent

aka if longevity is your chief concern, you should be the last people to mix
dipshits

if you don’t want to marry  your own race (assuming it’s white) you won’t be better off outside either

Moreover, members of interracial pairings are more likely to have traits correlated with a higher probability of divorce.

aka when you get divorced, it is also your fault

However, these studies failed to account for gender in connection with the race of each individual in interracial marriages.

They didn’t collect the data, it still exists. They don’t wanna get fired.

Let’s go for the White Fever Asian woman version, where she wants semi-white children.

A white husband and Asian wife were 4 percent more likely to end in divorce than marriages involving a white husband and white wife.

If you don’t have the facts, please shut up.
You’re not better than the mudsharks, statistically, you’re still losing. You still fail. Science.

http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2005/12/interracial-divorce-statistics.html

This isn’t a pro-white thing, statistically Asians are less likely to divorce – from cultural pressure, but only when they marry each other.

Whites are more likely to divorce in the first (easiest) decade, so they shouldn’t want you either.
Unless she’s just taking the socially acceptable route to use you for your sperm.
Like those white women you keep bitching about.

50smanangry

That’s an SJW post. Bet you didn’t notice. Go ahead and support their agenda.
You were warned, there is data.

whatsjwsimagine

This isn’t the shitpost you want today, but it’s the shitpost you deserve.

The sexist bias of infidelity stats

I wanted to post this.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-female-infidelity-based-on-number-of-premarital-partners/

Alongside the male counterpart, which would be scientific.

One problem.

The male data doesn’t exist. Making the entire concept worthless for discussion. That isn’t science. That’s a tally chart. Numbers of douchebags in a club. Not science. No wider implication or logical meaning.

SMG understands the pain of women in STEM watching feminists talk about STEM

I wanted to study this. I wanted to compare this. Anyone discussing this subject based on that data isn’t even wrong.

You cannot claim anything about a population when you only study half of it.
Much medical data is based on male-only clinical trials. Also false. You can’t say anything about studying the female body – when you neglect to study the female body. redpills should know people are different (HBD), it would be like saying all men are Jack the Ripper, for an extreme example

Applied to this case, you cannot claim anything about the variables ‘studied’ (infidelity, premarital sex – a thing that requires two people) when the methodology wouldn’t be accepted in a science fair project.

I love this suit and everything about this demeanour

Does ANYONE have this data? 

ANYONE?

I’m not just bellyaching pointlessly, I really wanted the data and it pisses me off there are (((People))) who dare insult women and draw specious conclusions about avoiding us (MGTOW is male feminism, fish meet bicycle), on the basis of something that has been covered up in men, by other men*. They have combined statistics of temptation elsewhere, but NOTHING on the consequences of male, pre-marital sex. 

If the topic is ridiculous, you shouldn’t have studied it in anyone.

Science requires a balanced standard. Balanced = both.
If you studied bee stings, that doesn’t qualify you to say wasps don’t sting or that wasps are somehow better in light of a study that …doesn’t study them. Non sequitur. Deliberate fraud.

Oh what, do you think they just happened not to ask any men? By complete coincidence? But sex was a variable in report of this tally chart? [Literally if you look it’s just a tally chart, but I’ve seen the manosphere treat this one biased data collection with the reverence of scientism**, so I checked it out to learn something… Tally charts are not science. You need to do more calculations with the data e.g. significance, but those cannot be done without a sound method. Numbers don’t make it good math, and they bang on about superior male IQ too, Jesus…. no wonder they’re a laughing stock.]

inb4 triggered at a word feminists also use because they colonized simple English

Sexist because it blames one sex but acts like the other, also complicit in said act, is blameless. Pretty straight definition there.

** behold idiots of reddit and the people beaten by their experience

“A man’s sexual history has no effect on his marital happiness” he claims baselessly. No effect, the title says. No study though, meaning it’s your opinion.

A selection of comments.

I love how it’s always a fault with the women.
There are two people in every relationship, but the men aren’t to blame for any problems? They don’t have to take responsibility for how it turns out? Their sex lives “have no effect” on how happy their marriages are (even though the studies prove otherwise)? Nah… just the women. Those bitches are all the same, and they’re the ones who fuck it up.”
“Also “practice makes perfect” is a fallacy when it comes to sex. You don’t need a ton of partners to be good at sex, in fact some of the sluttiest girls I’ve fucked were the worst. Everyone’s body is different. Knowing what the average person will like because you’ve practiced with many can make you pretty good in bed, but nothing like learning how to fuck one person really well.”
People are different ~ HBD, common sense, reality.
“… No? Cocks don’t leach potential from women like vampires. Sleeping with people does not limit your ability to love.” They claim this about women implicitly, as a sexual purity – moral purity argument, but not about men, because male sexual misdeeds are twisted as ‘experience’ and ‘prowess’.
Ultimate point: “One could ask the exact same question of men.”
“Where is the proof that man’s sexual history has no effect on his martial happiness?”

Nowhere. In fact, the opposite.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

If they ignore Burden of Proof, it goes away!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners
The available data does link marital unhappiness with male pre-marital sex but I was looking for infidelity risk or marital stability data.
It’s all about WOMEN.
family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
Evil demon Liliths! Vagina magic making men propose!
It isn’t even linear! There isn’t even a clear correlation here! In a female-only sample?
“previously, women with two partners prior to marriage had the highest divorce rates.”
Less =/= better. aka redditfags are wrong and cannot read data as well as space memes
It’s really about an extraneous variable, religiosity.
How ironic that atheist men are rubbing this in the nose of Christian women… while claiming Original Sin (which is really Adam’s fault for not warning Eve, as previously covered).

So much category error, very wrong.

Women do this, THEREFORE Men blah blah blah.
Yet they’re also saying men and women are utterly, completely different ,polar really, which you’d think makes a category error impossible…. sure, if you have a brain.

re female promiscuity, as the only one studied:
“Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry. The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners, but otherwise sowing one’s oats seems compatible with having a lasting marriage.”
“This is the result most readers of this brief probably expected: a lot of partners means a lot of baggage, which makes a stable marriage less tenable. It’s also entirely likely that the correlation is spurious, the product of certain personal characteristics. For instance, people who suffered childhood sexual abuse are more likely to have extensive sexual histories. Childhood abuse also increases the odds of a problematic marriage.”
These variables also apply to men. Someone, please study them.
It’s about marital stability, not blaming the women before you’ve even married Ms Imaginary in your head.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-marriage-premarital-sex-divorce-rate-sex-partners-first-comes-loves-then-390269
*Nicholas H. Wolfinger, a professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Family and Consumer Studies and an adjunct professor in the Department of Sociology, in a statement.
Wolfinger looked at the five-year divorce rate for over 10,000 women, and took into consideration how many sexual partners the women reported having prior to the marriage. ”
Sociology, men as nameless (partner???) victim. A man only studying the blame of women. Not biased at all.
As the science publications overtly finger-points;
So, what does this all mean?

Wolfinger’s study has several limitations. It did not take into account the sexual behavior of men in marriages, and its effects on divorce.

Rather [they are being sarcastic there], women’s sexual behaviors were closely observed, and linked to high or low divorce rates. This can portray women’s premarital sexual behaviors as solely responsible for helping or harming a marriage.”
It goes on to connect ‘experience’, as in prowess, with marital unhappiness. That or fear of commitment.

To take another topic, both the unattractive and attractive are studied and COMPARED.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/attractive-people-success-statistics/
lookism has more data than this topic

Academese translation.

limitations – it’s bullshit folks
into account – no science here
men – also involved
effects – causes
rather – to cover his own fuck-ups
closely observed – blamed for everything
portray – lie and gaslight, frame
solely responsible – the problem and let people like him off completely

I’m tired of adults blaming other adults for their mistakes.

If the woman was Satan you shouldn’t have married her.
Nobody is forcing you to marry.
How you behave counts, marriage isn’t the finish line but the starting one.

Age to settle = 26

http://www.techinsider.io/computer-science-says-the-perfect-age-to-get-married-is-26-heres-why-2016-6

Between 26-32.

Prior, 18-25, most prospects aren’t high quality (and presumably, somewhat actualized).

After 32, they’re so comfortable being single (and selfish) they cannot compromise for a spouse.

Sounds about right.

Lowest divorce risk. Nice.

Sure, great characters.

Politics ignore housewives at their peril

http://takimag.com/article/more_from_the_housewives_please_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz41Und5V00
There is an issue with bringing in this standard. The new Muslim family down the road with 5 kids would have the most realistic opinion (it presumes monogamy). And if having children is required to possess a low time preference (correlation yes but what about young people, too poor to afford a family, being responsible?), we must rope men into it too, since they’re usually the most politically tuned in and run for most office.

If a man is a bachelor, his political opinion on the future must be irrelevant. There is some truth to this because, as he says, with no children, the person has no stake and on the contrary, betrays a lack of faith in the system as a whole. This is why there used to be such a thing as a bachelor tax, by no less than the mighty, manly Spartans, because they drain the system without paying back in with future workers/soldiers (and tried to make good wives become adulteresses). Women classically control the purse strings because women buy the food, clothes and other rarely considered aspects, like kitchen appliances, that the family needs. The man fills the purse, he doesn’t control it, and advertisers know this.
If the experience of women is so important, go with the most experienced: wives and mothers.

“That’s why we need to include housewives in the equation. I want them in aprons, too. Feminists will say wearing kitchen clothes and being on a first-name basis is demeaning, and that is because they’ve been brainwashed by Notorious RBG to think the kitchen is a jail cell. It’s not. An apron is a badge of honor. You don’t use it to get men fired or censored as childless women in the workforce (SJWs, some are male) seem so determined to do. You use it to create sustenance for the people you love. It’s a cape that’s on backwards. To be a “kept woman” means a man is keeping you—as opposed to throwing you away when you start looking old so he can go fuck someone else. Modern feminism is perfect for men because it’s all about getting the milk for free as they go from cow to cow.”

A+ and men don’t throw women away, boys do, since they don’t appreciate what they’ve got.

Feminism has handed men all the sex-based chips and they love it. Women are holding nothing, having lost the innate SMP advantage thanks to sluts (see the ‘economics of sex’). Men are responsible for the demise of women, as every generation, every century prior has protected us, yet this lot contribute to the problem of ruining them. And then they complain Where have all the good women gone? They were good prospects… until you Pump and Dumped them, dummies. You can’t make hos and complain about the paucity of housewives. Now players are caving and marrying up/breeding with sluts and frankly, they deserve each other.

There isn’t a study of the sexual partner count of men against divorce risk, they’re scared to gather the data, since most of the repeat divorces pushing the overall figure up are by men (Trump being a prime example) but they assure us as they manwhore around it can’t possibly affect their brain’s ability to pair bond, despite neurological evidence presented in books like Hooked, where the pair bonding ability (or lack thereof) operates the same in men and women (or, for the sluts, doesn’t). Would you want to marry someone who can’t love you? Who cannot physically draw the loyal connection required and stay when it’s tough? Oh, they can lust, but that’s all they can do, that novelty will wear off. And they’ll lust after others too. Does that sound like a good marriage prospect? They’re that playa with a side ho who lies and calls her GF so she can’t cheat too, but apparently cheating is fine? That’s the trashy mindset. R-types are rejected from the social consideration of marriage due to their deserved reputation. Bragging about it only draws in like, leave them to it.

n.b. Not that all housework is automatically Woman’s Work. That is a feminist myth. Men used to do appropriate work we now call DIY. Yeah, still housework. Working on the car? At the house. Fixing the appliances? At the house. Opening the jar? In the kitchen. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, spouses used to divide labour equally, the main difference being the forced required for those tasks. Yes, women tended to cook, but men still made tea as well as carrying things. It wasn’t a case of women being suited to Woman’s Work, but men being suited to the stuff requiring physical strength, Man’s Work.
In the UK at least, as I covered in the universal suffrage post, women swing elections and swing them conservative. If we’re being as obtuse as to pit one half of the family unit against the other (a house divided…), the woman is more right wing. The average working class husband tended to vote Labour/Left because they promised higher wages, every time, higher wages. Sadly, this gambit worked. When you think Social Conservative, a man doesn’t spring to mind, does it?
American women don’t seem to trust Hillary (especially her support of Bill). They voted in the Affirmative Action candidate last time and look what happened. Trump should have Palin as VP, it’d be great.