Mixed race divorce and domestic abuse

I’m back. I decided to qualify the end of the last post. For shiggles.
Yes, there is data. I’m cracking down hard on the weebs.

“Marital Dissolution Among Inter-racial Couples”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183451/

“Increases in interracial marriage have been interpreted as reflecting reduced social distance among racial and ethnic groups, but little is known about the stability of interracial marriages. Using six panels of Survey of Income and Program Participation (N = 23,139 married couples), we found that interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, but these findings did not hold up consistently. After controlling for couple characteristics, the risk of divorce or separation among interracial couples was similar to the more-divorce-prone origin group. Although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution.”

This is like saying cars don’t kill people, brakes do.

“As the U.S. population has grown increasingly diverse, it is important to update prior research to include interracial marriages involving Asians and Hispanics, especially given that they are more likely to intermarry (with non-Hispanic Whites) than are Blacks”

so if you’re so concerned about race, screeching at the weebs is your duty. Mudsharks already hate themselves. Asiaphiles are oddly proud of it.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asiaphile
“The term applies to a non-Asian person particularly a white man who has yellow fever. Thinks all Asian chicks are hot, usually can’t tell the difference between a homely and a cute one just as long as she is Asian.”

I’ve posted about that before. Dick-blind.

It’s the baby prostitute of Mean Girls fame!

Thousands of years of evolution down the drain. Bet his WW2-fighting grandparents would be proud.

“In their study of multiracial identification among those with Black, Asian, or Hispanic backgrounds, Lee and Bean (2007) found that those with Black backgrounds more consistently identified as Black and not multiracial (similar to the “one-drop” rule as applied in the past), whereas those with Hispanic and, especially, Asian backgrounds exhibited more flexibility and choice in racial/ethnic identification and were more likely to identify as multiracial. Lee and Bean (2007) concluded that these patterns illustrated the salience of the color line that continues to divide Blacks from non-Blacks in U.S. society.”

So the existential risk to team white is team yellow.
If you’re being scientific.

“The homogamy perspective predicts that interracial marriages will be less stable than same-race marriages. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Black or White endogamous marriages; similarly, Asian-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Asian or White endogamous marriages. The homogamy perspective further leads to the expectation that the stronger the racial boundary of the two groups represented in the couple, the greater the risk of divorce. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be at greater risk of divorce than Hispanic-White or Asian-White marriages.”

Although there is a speculated convergence (I’d guess once you control for class/money) that is similar to mixed race IQ being the mean of both sub-par parents (and so dragged lower).

“For example, he found that Chinese-White couple divorce rates fell somewhere in between divorce rates of Chinese and White endogamous marriages.”
“Similarly, Hispanic-White and Asian-White marriages would be expected to be more likely to dissolve than Hispanic or Asian endogamous marriages but less likely than White endogamous marriages”

But that hypothesis isn’t what actually happens and it’d be a more dramatic shift if you removed the religious couples from consideration, only counting those who could be allowed to divorce.

Atheists are more likely to divorce overall, but it’s hard to find studies.
Are they more likely to race mix? Probably.

OT

“Therefore, according to the ethnic convergence hypothesis, immigrant-native marriages would be expected to have divorce risks that fall between those of immigrant-immigrant marriages and native-native marriages. Also, if Hispanic and Asian interracial marriages are less likely to divorce, this could be because so many of these marriages involve immigrants. After controlling for immigration characteristics, the effects of interracial marriage should diminish for these couples”

Another thing to control, desperation to retain citizenship.

“To assess the homogamy and ethnic convergence hypotheses, it is important to control for correlated factors. Individual-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are associated with interracial marriage and are important predictors of divorce.”

Gold diggers gonna dig.

“Finally, while having young child(ren) has been shown to increase marital stability, this effect often decreased as the child(ren) grew older (Cherlin, 1977).”

Babies won’t protect you (actually they stress a marriage, especially if had too soon).

“In addition to the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals, it is critical to control for couple-level characteristics.”

Dare you to count 10-score sexual attractiveness compared to their in-group.

That would burn.

“The homogamy perspective stresses that partner differences in any socially significant characteristics—not just race—may increase the risk of divorce, and spouses in interracial couples may differ on multiple characteristics. For example, Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1990) found that the age gap was larger for interracially married couples than other couples. Partners in interracial couples may also differ with respect to nativity and citizenship. Interracial marriages between immigrants and U.S.-born natives may be at greater risk of divorce because of partner differences in their reasons for entering the relationship.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Prostitution is a reason.

Kalmijn et al. (2005) found that larger cultural differences between the husband and wife increased the risk of divorce.

Breaking news: water, wet.

In addition, marriage to U.S. citizens may serve as a legal means to immigrate for many foreigners.

For that reason, no, it isn’t legal, and the other spouse has also broken the law by using that to gain power too. Technically the marriage wouldn’t count, since it was conditional as duress to defraud their nation (so also treason).

Such marriages may be motivated by the desire to obtain U.S. citizenship rather than love or companionship, as evidenced in many cases in France (Neyrand & M’Sili, 1998) and the Netherlands (Kalmijn et al., 2005).”

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digger.. but she reaching for that green card n—er.

“Finally, group-level characteristics, such as marriage cohort, region of residence, religion, and women’s changing status, may be associated with divorce or separation (Trent & South, 1989). For example, interracial marriage has been more prevalent in the West than other parts of the country (Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1990), and marital instability has been more common in the West than other regions, although this relationship has varied by race (Sweeney & Phillips, 2004) and has weakened over the years (Castro Martin & Bumpass, 1989).”

Because less get married in the first place!

The majority (93.5%) of the couples in our sample were endogamous, including 77.4% White-White, 6.4% Black-Black, 7% Hispanic-Hispanic, and 2.7% Asian-Asian couples. The remaining 6.5% of couples were interracially married (including 1% White-Black, 3.5% White-Hispanic, and 1.4% White-Asian pairings, as well as 0.6% of all types of minority-minority marriages combined).

There are far more total Asian-White couples than White-Black, if you’re going to criticize anyone.

1% mulatto vs. 4.9% genetic Asian admixture. Who’s the, ahem, “race traitor?”

Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Qian, 1997), there are distinct racial/ethnic differences in being in an interracial marriage (results not shown). Blacks are substantially less likely than Hispanics or Asians to have a White spouse (10.1% vs. 23.5% and 24.6%, respectively).”

Africans aren’t stealing da white wimmin.

Statistically. This isn’t the 19th century. Your assumptions are outdated.

Over one third of interracial couples (34.5%) involved a foreign-born person married to a U.S. native compared with just 4.2% of endogamous couples.”

Yeah. She a gold digger.
Isn’t that slave ownership?

Most slaves are sex slaves.
Made obvious in the final study here. What happens when a slave gets out of line?

“Consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis, interracial marriages are less stable: 13.7% of interracial couples compared with 9.9% of endogamous couples broke up during their SIPP panel.”

Duh.

“The descriptive results also confirm the second homogamy hypothesis in which mixed-race couples involving the most socially distant groups (e.g., Blacks and Whites) were most likely to break up: nearly 20% of Black-White couples divorced or separated compared with 13.5% of Hispanic-White couples and 8.4% of Asian-White couples.”

Hispanics are genetic Asian, that data is rigged.

Total Asian-White divorce should be 10.95%.

They should also break down by sex, so Asian Male, White Female or White Male, Asian Female for specific divorce risk per individual by demo.
If they controlled for IQ distance between the couples, that’d explain most of the divorce. Hard to steer a marriage when one party is pedaling backwards.

“For Asians, however, the results were consistent with the ethnic convergence hypothesis”

No you tortured the statistics into excluding most of the Asian population in America.
Shell games don’t impress me.

“Roughly 8.3% of Asian-White couples separated or divorced, a level that falls between the relatively high rates for White couples and the relatively low rates among Asian couples (1.4%).”

You said 8.4 earlier.

8.4/1.4 = 6x (times) the average intra-racial Asian divorce risk thanks to Asian-European miscegenation?
And they think that’s a good finding. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining Zhang.

So this isn’t even good for the Asians with white fever. Since they’re marrying the dregs. They can’t even say it’s better for waifu.

“This may be a consequence of potential problems facing interracial couples including stress, social disapproval, and cultural differences. Furthermore, interracial couples differ from endogamous couples in important ways that may elevate the risk of divorce (such as greater age and education differences between spouses). To test this idea, we turn next to the multivariate hazards models.”

Nothing about racism and the urge to control, how weird.

Almost like they’re encouraging mixing whatever the cost.

“In general, younger age of first marriage, age and educational differences among the spouses (particularly when the husband is more than two years younger or less educated than the wife); lower levels of education (less than college); lower income; and having no or fewer young children were significantly associated with marital instability.”

So lower quality individuals choose to mix.
Groundbreaking.
Stupidity, poverty, atheist fertility predict their divorce (and decision to have wed in the first place).

“Interracial couples tend to have higher incomes and older ages at marriage (both of which are associated with lower rates of dissolution), so these characteristics cannot explain their higher levels of divorce or separation.”

I smell bullshit.
If they wed, bed and divorce like idiots…
could they be idiots? Why u no publish IQ data?

“Although, mixed marriages are also more likely to involve larger differences in age and education between spouses (consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis), which could partially explain their higher risks of marital dissolution.”

There we go.
Backpedal central.

Almost like marrying a virtual child (age gap) is unpleasant, too.

“Unexpectedly, however, the addition of controls for nativity/citizenship status did not alter the hazard ratio associated with interracial marriage.”

Huh.

“Thus far, the results support the first homogamy hypothesis, though the support was rather weak.”

Despite your best efforts to obscure it? Sure Zhang.

Interracial marriage was positively associated with marital dissolution net of couple characteristics, but this relationship was only marginally significant (p < .10).”

Still science.

“We presented the hazard ratios for race/ethnicity only, although the full models are available to interested readers upon request.”

What cover-up?

For a laugh:


All four hazard models.

“Nevertheless, the results were consistent with the second homogamy hypothesis in that the risk of marital dissolution was highest among Black-White couples, followed by Hispanic-White, minority-minority couples, and finally, Asian-White couples.”

Kek.

“Among Asians, the hazard of divorce or separation for interracial couples fell between that of Asian and White endogamous couples but the difference from White couples was not significant, thus failing to fully support Hypothesis 4. We had also hypothesized that nativity and citizenship between spouses of Hispanic and Asian interracial couples may help explain their higher risks of marital dissolution (Hypothesis 5). This idea was not fully supported because interracial marriages involving Hispanics or Asians did not experience elevated hazards of dissolution (so there were no significant differences to explain). Nevertheless, nativity and citizenship did help explain the relatively low risks of instability among Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples. When we added controls for nativity and citizenship in Model 4, the hazards for Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples increased, thereby narrowing the difference from both White couples and interracial couples. In fact, the difference between Hispanic-White and Hispanic-Hispanic couples became insignificant after controlling for citizenship and nativity in Model 4”

In short, when Trump lets the waifus out and relieves them of their fraudulent green cards, expect a lot of divorce.
MAGA.

Then again… there are other kinks to iron out.

“Among Hispanic-White couples, Hispanic husband-White wife were no more likely to dissolve than White or Hispanic endogamous couples.”

You see why religion must be controlled for.

“The contribution of this study is that it examines the instability of interracial marriage among Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in contemporary American society, an era marked by increasing diversity and increasing prevalence of interracial marriage. Overall, although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage per se is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution. “

No, you failed to provide evidence. You.
Shit methodology, son.

Our results do show that, on the whole, interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, even after controlling for couple characteristics.”

Uhuh.

“When we divided the results by race/ethnicity, the results were only partially consistent with the homogamy perspective.”

Despite your best efforts to minimize, consistent.
They should also study second-generation race-mixing, since the mixed tend only to reproduce with one another.

“Rather, the most consistent result was that the risks of divorce for interracial couples for all combinations (Black-White, Hispanic-White, and Asian-White) were not significantly different from those of the higher-risk origin group.”

That’s still divorce. More divorce. Quit trying to spin it.

“Even after pooling six SIPP panels together, the number of interracial couples was small, which may have contributed to the insignificant findings.”

True.

They are very abnormal, Hollywood lies.

“In our study, the effects of certain racial/ethnic combinations were similar for both men and women once controls were introduced into the models (e.g., among Asians and Hispanics).”

Appealing to “alpha” won’t work on this one.

Now for another paper I’m sure cannot be biased by one “Choi”…

Race mixing and re-marriage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300087/

Plot twist: The modern mudshark is a statistically divorced man remarrying Asian.

I wonder why they never mention this.

“The two most frequently crossed boundaries – those involving White-Asian and White-Hispanic couples – are more permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Boundaries that are crossed with less frequency – those between minority groups and the White-Black boundary-are less permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Collectively, these findings suggest that racial and ethnic sorting processes in remarriage may reify existing social distances between pan-ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic variations in how the relative permeability of boundary changes between first and higher-order marriages underscore the importance of considering a broad array of interracial pairings when assessing the ways in which changes in family structure and marital sorting behavior promote integration.”

Promote integration…

From the male (decision) side:

So white men are the race traitors.
Interesting.

White genocide, blame Yellow Fever.

Statistically.

“Tabular results also reveal that for Hispanic and Asian women, intermarriage rates are higher in remarriages than in first marriages. One-third of Asian women wed non-Asian men in their first marriage, but over half did so in remarriage”

Because they couldn’t get a white woman (again).

Hit that Wall hard, huh? Study adiposity, come on.

And it’s obvious white fever in the Asian’s case, a third!

It isn’t the race-mixing white women.
“Eight percent of White women cross ethno-racial boundaries in first marriage, as compared with 6 percent of White women who remarry.”
They seem to learn their lesson.

Table 4 shows the college brainwashing.
They definitely won’t spy on you.
“better-educated women are more likely than their educationally disadvantaged counterparts to cross racial and ethnic boundaries in marriage”
The women are brainwashed too. But it’s also seeking IQ parity, upper-class women typically went to college to find husbands, so more studies are needed and more white men allowed in the Western universities that are their birthright.

“It is conceivable that White-Hispanic and White-Asian marriages likely become even more common in remarriage when third party controls weaken following the dissolution of a first union

They ignore their family’s wishes, bad sons should be disinherited.

and previously married individuals face experience limited availability of co-ethnic potential partners (Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

LOL

Can’t get a white woman!

Right there! Ouch.

“Other scholarship claims that cultural dissimilarities between spouses increase marital conflict and instability by reducing the basis for spousal consensus and mutual understanding between spouses (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013; Zhang and Van Hook, 2009).

resentment

Presumably, couples that exit minority-only interracial marriages avoid similar unions in remarriage, preferring instead to form remarry endogamously, to wed a White partner the next time around, or forego marriage entirely.”

Using white people, again. So the white people are also getting dregs in the arrangement.
It’s like the marital equivalent of busing kids in to improve test scores.

“Descriptive tabulations show that one-in-three women who remarried wed never-married husbands, but only one-in-ten first time brides wed previously married men.”

Yeah if he failed as a husband once, why bet on a lame horse?
He didn’t keep his vows the first time. What a catch! (Throw it back!)

“These analyses, which indicate whether in couples’ mixed marital experiences biased the estimates of boundary crossing in first and subsequent marriages, reaffirm the reported results.”

So in many mixed re-marriages, the previously married party is the dregs of their group.

“base the analyses on recent unions” K.

“Partly this resulted because many large government surveys, such as the decennial census, stopped collecting information about marital order.”

Because it makes men look bad.

“In the context of rising intermarriage and remarriage rates, our study underscores the importance of disaggregating marriage order to clarify whether, in what ways, and for which groups changes in coupling behavior promote integration. Collecting data that permits these distinctions is necessary to avoid conflating potentially divergent intermarriage trends in first and higher order unions, some of which are driven by racial and ethnic differences in divorce rates.”

Oh, they know.
Most starter marriages are male-led affairs, they think (wrongly, QED) they can always trade up later (not to be entered into lightly….) and abandoning wife #1 has no social consequences.
So re-marrying men are largely to blame for the huge divorce rates. Good to know.

This explains why they rarely make it male-led data.

“This pattern, which is consistent with past findings, suggests that low barriers to social interaction across racial and ethnic groups when coupled with suboptimal marriage market conditions and weakened third party control can facilitate interracial remarriages for these groups (Aguirre et al., 1995; Fu, 2010; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

Random re-marriage should be illegal, it’s like flunking a driving test but serious. A society that lets adults (who should be mature enough to commit) re-marry capriciously like infinite respawns is condemning the culture, religion, spouses and children to the misery of an insecure life. What a betrayal.

They bitch about masculinity, when comes the manning-up? Men were respected when they stuck out their duties. Don’t take it on if you don’t mean it.

“Prior studies suggest that cultural dissimilarities between partners diminish grounds for spousal consensus, leading to conflictive, unstable marriages at high risk of dissolution (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008). In remarriage, previously married men and women from mixed-race unions may revise their mate criteria to avoid similar forms of partner incompatibility (Dean and Gurak, 1978).”

Except stupid white guys with yellow fever.
I wonder if they’re more likely porn addicts. That would be an entertaining study.

“Stated differently, intermarriage studies restricted to White-Black couples render an incomplete portrayal of mate selection behavior in the context of an ever more diverse society.”

They may not be getting married but they’re having more children than the white guys with Yellow Fever. It’s typical atheist sub-fertility so given the standard, limited dating patterns their grand-kids will be a quarter black.

“In similar fashion, although prior work shows that characteristics of spouses interact in shaping mate selection behavior (Fu, 2010), our data do not permit consideration of the joint distribution of spouses’ characteristics. We report analyses based on intermarriage patterns pegged to wives’ characteristics; however, auxiliary analyses based on husbands’ attributes yielded similar conclusions.”

Since the male proposes, it should be male-led data.
Look for r-selection traits and that’ll resolve most of it.

“How the mate selection behavior of widowed and divorced individuals is largely uncharted and certainly warrants investigation.”

Women are more likely to be widowed, men divorced, that’s why they don’t look for it – it makes the men look heartless.

“marriage confers legal rights and obligations, many of which are not extended to cohabiting couples (child support is a notable exception)”

It shouldn’t be, don’t have kids with someone you haven’t married first, or at least don’t expect the authority of a husband over a woman you didn’t yoke yourself to. If a man wants “his” kids so much, he should be taking primary care of them – not fobbing them off on a foreign nanny like some high-powered executive (daycare is abusive). The low IQ nanny normalization may be responsible for divorced children’s lower IQs.

“Specifically, racial and ethnic profile of former cohabiting partners are seldom recorded in US data suitable for analyzing inter-racial coupling behavior (e.g., ACS, Census, NSFG).”

coincidence

“The exclusion of interracial cohabitation will understate the extent to which couples cross ethnic and racial boundaries in forming co-residential interracial unions given that interracial unions are more likely than same-race unions to start and remain as a cohabitation (Kreider, 2000; Rodriguez-Garcia, 2015).”

Study separation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315595/

The variable nobody wants to discuss.

“Despite the growing number of interethnic marriages in the U.S., few studies have examined intimate partner violence (IPV) in interethnic couples. This article examined past-year occurrences of IPV across interethnic and intra-ethnic couples and tested correlates of IPV specifically in interethnic couples. Data were from a national survey of couples 18 years of age and older from the 48 contiguous states. Interethnic couples (n = 116) included partners from different ethnic backgrounds, including black-white, Hispanic-white, and black-Hispanic couples. White (n = 555), black (n = 358), and Hispanic (n = 527) intra-ethnic couples included partners with the same ethnicity. Data analyses were prevalence rates and logistic regressions. The analyses showed that interethnic couples were comparatively younger and had shorter relationships than intra-ethnic white, black, and Hispanic couples.

Male partners in interethnic couples had higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol problems compared to male partners in intra-ethnic couples.

So much for happy mixing. Stock photos lied to me?

Still no mention of racism, so a white male hitting a non-white is okay if you’re married to them? Surely it’s more racist to treat them like breeding sows and sexual concubines.

Past year prevalence rates for any occurrence of IPV and acts of severe IPV were higher for interethnic couples relative to intra-ethnic couples.

Why isn’t this mentioned in Sex Ed?

Most occurrences of IPV for interethnic couples were mutual.

Obedient waifu trope is a myth.

Factors predicting IPV among interethnic couples included marital status, couples’ age, male alcohol problems, and female impulsivity.

Mounting evidence points to interethnic couples as a high risk group for IPV.

Why aren’t there PSAs?

Interethnic couples may be at greater risk for IPV because of their younger age, binge drinking and alcohol problems.

You can’t blame the drink. They drink to have an excuse.

Future research could build on this study by examining cohort effects and regional differences in IPV for interethnic couples, and the risk for IPV across interethnic couples of different ethnic compositions.”

Note: no (non-Hispanic) Asian-White data in this one tested. Hmm.

However, found this:

“Fusco (2010) used county police reports to examine interethnic and intra-ethnic couple differences in IPV for a more diverse community sample of whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Interethnic couples were more likely than intra-ethnic minority and white couples to have a prior history of IPV and to experience mutual IPV in which both partners were determined by police to be equally involved in perpetrating violence.

No world for submissive waifu.

I guess that’s what happens when you marry someone with higher T than yourself (those manjaws).

White women don’t look like such bitches now, huh?

Victims of IPV in interethnic couples were also at greater risk of being injured during the violence when compared to intra-ethnic couples.

Wages of sin?

Logically, you wouldn’t hold back with the out-group. It’s unconscious.

Diversity + Proximity = Domestic violence, in this case.

This may suggest that interethnic couples engage in more severe acts of partner violence relative to intra-ethnic couples, although Fusco (2010) did not specifically examine partner violence severity.

Wonder why.

So the white guys really do hate their waifu, deep down.
And the Asian woman does hit back (unlike whites).
Why don’t the MRAs ever mention this? Their mutual violence trope is racial, not sexual!

“Couples that included Asian partners or partners from ‘other’ ethnicities (n = 43) were also excluded due to their small sample size in the dataset.”

convenient, considering

For example, white-Asian marriages make up a large percentage of interethnic marriages (Hattery, 2009), but we were not able to include them in this study due to the small number of Asians surveyed.”

I smell bullshit. So they abuse one another but they don’t talk. To save face.

Enough for now. I’ve proven my point.

Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5145-mnookin-and-kornhauser—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).

1 https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

The State owns your children

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/mum-jailed-for-abducting-children-189525/

If you don’t quietly let the State hand them over to pedophiles and abusers in the “care system”, for big slavery bucks, you go to a big building full of them. But that’s old news, now they’re coming after all the other parents.

She made the children over the course of nine months, they belong to her. It was an investment of her literal body and some women die doing it. She did her job, including feed them – again, with her body. She gave them life and kept them alive.

If the former husband is unfit for the job, the successor takes over. That’s what divorce means. He’s still trying to have husband’s rights (over where she lives, the caregiver) without the responsibility. That won’t last.

Narcissistic divorcees refuse to let their former relatives be happy.

(That would include where the female happens to be one).

This isn’t a victory for “men”, or deadbeat* “husbands”, either. The State is over-ruling everyone, pay attention. No freedom of movement, like a slaughterhouse. It also rides roughshod over the new husband, whose rights are being denied.

*abandonment is Biblical grounds for divorce

Marriage isn’t a Christian duty

Tradlarpers lie about the Bible.

As in, blatant lying.

https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=46&c=7

Specifically (and atheists shouldn’t marry, that’s repeated* throughout the Bible) on Marriage:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+7&version=NIV
I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. ”
“8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”
“17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”
“But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”
“38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

I don’t criticize MGTOW for being unmarried…. as long as they’re moral.

I do criticize larpers who insist everyone must marry (like vain them) as if that were 1. possible or 2. desirable.

They think they have a right to “give away” these people’s bodies!

*There’s an interesting point in a commentary, since it’s against marrying diversity:

“The Greek word for “unequally yoked together” is not found elsewhere, and was probably coined by St. Paul to give expression to his thoughts. Its meaning is, however, determined by the use of the cognate noun in Leviticus 19:19 (“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind“).”

However, a man can only love as a husband sacrificially

https://www.compellingtruth.org/when-marry.html

Your mother no longer comes first, nor your friends.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

Divorce is acceptable for abuse, adultery, abandonment of either party.

The poorer, innocent party should receive alimony for supporting the richer’s efforts to earn it.

Re-marriages of the sinning party are not Biblical.

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.