Comment by telltruth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by telltruth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ok... I'll bite. This feel good article doesn't do justice to relationship issues at all. A lot of relationship issues simply arise from compromises that have been done in past. May be woman is desperate in finding husband and man is realizing he is getting out of options. Both gets married despite knowing incompatibilities here and there. People tell them "opposite attracts". Ummm... no. There is of course honeymoon period and then eventually kids enter in life. Suddenly woman doesn't feel need to make man happy as much and man is realizing his role being transformed to essentially a bank account. Things start falling apart and there is no right thing to fix this. Sure, kindness/generosity etc helps on both sides but the fundamental root cause is folks ending up together due to short term biological reproduction needs that then invariably gets extended as kids enter in their lives. It's not a coincidence that lot of marriages fall apart when kids are between 8 to 12 years old. That's the time kids are becoming independent, women gets more time to do job and run household according to her desires all the while man starts to understand that there is very little left for them to be in. Some better educated couples would hold off until kids go to college and there is spike in divorce rate when kids graduate from high school.

All true and don't forget the sex with other people that everyone secretly wants at all times. Women are ready to "trade up" for another man, men just want to mate with other women. Couples who have only slept with each other don't seem to suffer from this. Couples where one or both had a lot of sex before getting together will suffer and will usually end having affairs.

Do you have any links to evidence for this being the case? Honestly curious.

Evidence? Sure, I know many couples. The bit about differences between couples who have only slept with each other is my own theory based on my observations. But it seems this has been studied more rigorously, for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737... But this talks about marital dissolution, not simply affairs. Affairs are happening way more than you think.

Except that the study cited didn't take into account confounding factors (cohabitation in earlier decades was associated more strongly with lower socioeconomic status, for example). The study has since been replicated with more recent data, and shows a weakening correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000053/

Well, they are still both talking about marriage dissolution. While dissolution surely implies an unhappy marriage, the reverse implication is most certainly not true. Many marriages stay official for reasons other than "love and happiness". Most affairs probably don't even come to light, let alone actually lead to marriage dissolution.

Which begs the question: "Why bring up this study at all?"

Because it is still evidence for what I claimed and the best I could find. I couldn't find anything showing for or against what I claimed. I think that's because it would be really hard to get good data.

If were happy with anecdata my evidence is the exact opposite. The people who've had few partners get curious and are the ones who end up having affairs, the ones who had dozens and dozens keep on the straight and narrow.

But of course that's just people for whom I have the data, very small sample.

There's a big difference between one and "few". There's also a very long tail of partner counts and if you're talking about people who have had dozens of partners those are outliers. The median is somewhere around 5-7 in a lifetime.

I agree, but median where? USA, Europe, Asia? I'm sure your figure is not the real Earth human population median.

There is a huge gaping chasm between the family mentality of the western world and the rest.

Evidence is not needed for something that to me anyway, seems quite logical.

https://i.imgur.com/mPToGid.jpg

The title of that page doesn't give me tons of faith :)

  > Statistics show that feminists with multiple partners have a very high chance of divorce and lifetime alimony paid by a man

lol

This is a valid statement. I think it can only be told by the experienced. Mostly, others live in optimism.

I think that issue there is not solving problem when man is turning into bank account and women is turning into child care provider with relationship between them not being treated as important. It sounds like at that moment, each cares about own unhappiness but does not think much about other.

They are not kind and understanding at each other at that time. They are settling into roles without talking about whether they like roles and without talking about how to change their roles so that they are happier.

Somewhat raw but at the end of the day I'd say mostly true.

I'll add my own conjecture: the root problem is that this hypothetical couple you describe (who is more common than many would like to admit) are both settling.

They are settling because they didn't take marriage seriously earlier in their lives. They didn't take marriage seriously because society stopped forcing them to do so. And nature also didn't force them to either, thanks to birth control.

These aren't individuals at fault here - these are systemic incentives warping previously traditional behavior.

So then this couple got into their 30s, which isn't young, as the decades are not created equal. And they realized - oh shit, better actually try figuring out how to have a family, lest we live alone and with limited meaning for the latter 40 years of life. Seriously - what are people thinking that they'll be happy being single into their 40s and beyond?

Here's a sad truth: most people will get a decent, but not super meaningful job. There can only be so many entrepreneurs and rockstars. So from ages 35 onwards, you better be set up to have a family and create something that will provide you meaning for Act II of life, because it's quite long.

Do you imply that the only way of having a meaningful life when your job is mediocre is by creating a family? What about other recreational activities or hobbies? Somewhat anecdotally, I recall a grade school teacher that was single in her 50s but remained active within a large volunteer community supporting youth. She often discussed how her participation in this circle gave her life purpose.

Maybe the systemic issue is that people who are reaching their 30s often feel pressured by their social group to get married and thus believe their lives are meaningless without that ring or child validating its purpose.

If I divide my adult life up into my relationships, my observations....

Phase 1 - 20s. Graduated from college, moved from my small city to a larger metro area, went through some physical issues while at the same time trying to establish my career. It was a lonely time. I had one or two female friends who I would hang out with occasionally but they were both in the “friend zone” (one by mutual choice and one no shared attraction).

Phase 2: late 20s, early 30s. Got married just because I was lonely and all of the warning signs were there before we got married. It was an equally lonely marriage, with no love and I started spending a lot of time pursuing working side hobbies to ignore the problem.

Phase 3: early to mid 30s. Divorced. I had a more active social life, lots of friends, fun hobbies, no serious relationships. It was better and more fulfilling than the first time around but still there was something missing coming to a big house in the evening and being alone.

Phase 4a - mid 30s to 40. Started dating my now wife. Our marriage was really on the rocks. We were both older, set in our ways and dealing with the financial repercussions of our former marriages and in my case, my failed real estate side business. It wasn’t lonely but it was unstable.

Phase 4b. We both worked out our former issues and as we got through our previous financial issues things are a lot less stressful. We have what I consider a pretty good marriage.

I don’t care what anyone says. Having money solves a lot of issues. There are a lot more “ands” than “ors” - we don’t have to argue about doing this or that - we can do both.

It’s scary, but I can’t imagine having a fulfilling life without being able to come home and having someone to share my life, my victories, my defeats, and just share life with.

"I don’t care what anyone says. Having money solves a lot of issues. There are a lot more “ands” than “ors” - we don’t have to argue about doing this or that - we can do both."

Yes but the essence of a relationship is how problems get solved. You are avoiding the problems! That's cheating, but if you got the cash, all power to you!, just hope you guys don't disagree at some point, because cash doesn't solve EVERYTHING :)

There is more to the story....

I was both trying to dig my way out of the disaster of what was my real estate side business and trying to get my career back on track. I had a five year plan to do it. My wife and I discussed this before we got married. But talking through it in practice and living through it, is entirely different. I never gave her any reason not to trust me, but I didn’t “have a resume.” She trusted me intellectually but not emotionally while we were going through.

5 years, 4 jobs, $45K more in salary and a nice house in the burbs later. I’ve built a resume. This time around with 5 years under our belt, she has a lot more confidence in my leadership (for lack of a better word).

yeah but you sound like she is an investor not a life love. I'm not in a my marble palace b the way, I have my own complications! :)

She’s very much a life love. But a marriage is an investment. You invest your heart, your financial well being and if it goes bust, the other gets half. Marriage is a risky investment. We are both much better off in every way - including financially than we would be separately. Married couples statistically build wealth faster than single people. As an example, my wife working a stable government job with good benefits has allowed me to aggressively change jobs and chase after risky opportunities.

When you are in your mid 30s and you are your second marriage (we both are) no matter how positive you are, you can’t help but to be a little more jaded starting out and you both have a lot to prove. It took a lot more of a leap of faith on her part to believe all of the things I was telling her and a lot more faith on my side that she would be thier through thick and thin.

When you are in your thirties getting married, there is a lot more practicality and lot less looking through rose colored glasses.it took us both almost a decade to recover from our previous divorce. Neither one of us were willing to risk that happening again. We prioritize our marriage before anything else.

Pretty sure I recently read that money is one of the main causes of relationship problems. If you can remove those problems it makes sense that you are more likely to have a better relationship.

> Do you imply that the only way of having a meaningful life when your job is mediocre is by creating a family? What about other recreational activities or hobbies? Somewhat anecdotally, I recall a grade school teacher that was single in her 50s but remained active within a large volunteer community supporting youth. She often discussed how her participation in this circle gave her life purpose.

Yes, for the vast majority of people. There may be exceptions. There may also be a lot of coping behavior necessary to live without what you could have had.

> Maybe the systemic issue is that people who are reaching their 30s often feel pressured by their social group to get married and thus believe their lives are meaningless without that ring or child validating its purpose.

There is less pressure than ever, given the "freedom" and "free love" everyone is expected to have in their teens and 20s. The pressure in the 30s is that real-life realism coming to crash down. And again, I would argue this is even less as there are less marriages and less childbirths to citizens in the developed worlds (to which my comments apply), so therefore even less relative pressure than in the past.

Why is it so unpopular to say that life exists to prolong life? Ie have kids. I'm sorry, but me and you don't matter. And any believe that we do is to satisfy our egos only. Its our kids that matter. And with this mentality humanity will prevail. If we loose sight of this humanity will eventually not. In my opinion. And yes, our kids should have the same mentality. And that is called the folly of life.

I do believe it is our purpose to reproduce and extend the lives of future generations, but it is foolish to believe that humanity can prosper by systemically encouraging everyone to raise children. Some individuals are simply predisposed to be bad caretakers given various environmental and genetic factors. Must we actively inspire people who do not have the ability, patience, or the mental capacity to raise children to do just that?

Aside from that, what is it from that we must be "prevail", exactly? If you are suggesting the continuation of our species, I might remind you that our global population is steadily increasing.

>I'm sorry, but me and you don't matter. And any believe that we do is to satisfy our egos only.

True.

> Its our kids that matter.

If you and I don't matter, neither do the kids.

>And with this mentality humanity will prevail. If we loose sight of this humanity will eventually not.

This also doesn't matter.

Of course life only exists to perpetuate itself. We are just vessels for our genetic code.

That doesn't mean I have to participate if I'd rather live my life in a different way. I have no desire to be a parent, or to produce children to satisfy a biological imperative.

the only thing that is certain in life is the grave, all else is vanity (Ecclesiastes AMP).

It's interesting how hostile most people are to this idea.

We are all too busy trying to accumulate wealth like good citizens, to bother with something as airy-fairy as true happiness. Money = happiness. OK!? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com