Are young marriages doomed to divorce?

In part one of this series I proposed a model for women to skip the carousel and marry young, provided they can find a husband they are head over heels in love with and trust to lead them in life.  In this post I’ll address the statistics around the common argument that young marriage leads to higher divorce rates because young women “don’t yet know who they are”.

As you can see from the NCHS/CDC chart above, there is reason for concern here.  Young marriages, especially very young marriages in that data set certainly do show a higher risk of divorce.  However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the higher divorce rate observed is due to women “not knowing themselves” yet.  There are a number of plausible explanations, with that hypothesis being only one of them:

  1. Young marriage increases divorce risk because young women “don’t know who they are” yet.
  2. Women with higher IQs tend to go to college, and women who go to college tend to marry later.  Given that IQ tends to negatively correlate with divorce, this could be what is actually being observed.  See chapter 8 in Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve for a discussion of IQ, education, and divorce.
    Edit:  I quote from that chapter in this post.
  3. Some percentage of young marriage (especially very young marriage) may be associated with impulsiveness, which itself would increase divorce rates.
  4. Divorce rates are highest when women are youngest and have the best chance of remarriage.  Couples who marry when the wife is young are exposed to higher risk of divorce due to the wife being more attractive to other men.

My own sense is that all of these explanations are in play here to some degree.  I’ll focus on the last hypothesis in this post and share the data I was able to find which may help shed some light on it.  Before I share more data however, I think we need to consider some counter theories.  These suggest that delayed marriage may in fact increase the risk of divorce:

  1. Women who delay marriage will generally end up with higher partner counts, which leads to lower marital satisfaction and greater risk of divorce.  See The Social Pathologist’s Sexual History Divorce Risk II as well as his well known previous post on the topic.
  2. Marriage is a big change from single life.  Women who marry younger have had less time to get used to being single and are more adaptable to the new lifestyle.
  3. Women who have become established and independent find it harder to accept their husband as the leader of the family.  If they don’t see him as leading them, they are very likely to experience lessened sexual attraction and romantic love for him and become unhappy with their marriage.

Interestingly these counter theories aren’t actually disproved by the chart above.  While the chart is dated 1995, this is the year the data source was compiled.  To determine the 10 year divorce rate they must be looking at marriages which occurred in 1985 or earlier.  In fact, this appears to be the same 1995 data set which I found looked at divorces going back to 1965 when looking at remarriage rates.  This is important when considering what the 25 or over category looks like.  The median age of marriage has been increasing over time, and if we are looking at marriages in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s we are looking at a time when the median age of marriage for women ranged from 20.5 to 23.  So the 25 or over category in that study looks very different than first marriages in that category occuring today;  it is skewed much more to marriages occurring in the woman’s late 20s.

Now lets return to the question of what causes marriages before age 25 to have higher divorce rates than marriages where the woman was just over 25.  As I said, the standard explanation of women who marry young changing their priorities after marriage strikes me as having some merit.  Under the current feminized model this would seem to pose a real risk, but my proposal in the previous post addresses that risk.  I also think reasons two and three are fairly straightforward, and must be at least part of the explanation for what we are seeing.  This leaves the final alternate explanation:

Young marriages are exposed to higher risk of divorce in the first 10 years because the wife’s chances of remarriage are highest when she is young.   

(Chart Source)

All else being equal, being married to a woman in her 20s is more risky than being married to her in her 30s, which is more risky than being married to her in her 40s, etc.  The longer you move out the date of first marriage, the lower risk you will be exposed to (again, all else being equal).

However, this raises the question if all else really is equal.  What if divorce risk in general is highest just after the wedding, and tapers off from there?  This kind of trend might even explain the declining divorce risk as women age.  Perhaps women aren’t motivated to divorce by their opportunity to remarry after all, despite common academic acceptance of the idea.  Perhaps the chart above is just an artifact of divorce risk declining steadily the older the marriage gets.  This question had me looking for more data to try to better understand what is going on.  While I haven’t found any smoking gun one way or another, I have some charts which will shed some more light on the question.

The chart above uses data from the 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States, specifically from Table 131.  They separate it out by men and women;  the above chart is for men, and here is the same chart for women:

While the two charts are similar there is some difference.  My best guess on the reason for this is deaths must be a portion of the reason marriages aren’t reaching the stated anniversary.  Since husbands are more likely to pass away before their wives, more men who were interviewed had experienced long marriages than women.  For this same reason, the results for men are likely a better fit when considering divorce risk since death of their spouse is less of a factor.

While these charts are the standard way I’ve seen this data displayed, they suffer from an important problem when trying to understand how divorce risk changes as the marriage progresses.  The percentages are expressed in terms of the original group of marriages in the cohort, and therefore don’t account for the fact that fewer marriages exist in the later periods than in the former ones.  Because of this, even if the divorce rate per 1,000 marriages was remaining steady throughout the duration of the marriage we would expect to see the slope of the curves decrease over time.  To account for this I’ve reworked the same data to measure the number of marriages which disappeared during each period divided by the number of marriages the period started out with.  I then took this number and divided it by 5 (the number of years in each period) and multiplied it by 1,000 to come up with a rough annual rate of marriage endings (death + divorce) per 1,000 couples.  Here is what this looks like for men:

The pattern across marriage cohorts is strikingly similar.  The risk of divorce jumps dramatically in years 5-9, and begins declining from there.  There is a similar pattern for women, although you can see what appears to be the higher incidence of spousal death influencing the results:

Overall the shape of these curves doesn’t fit with the hypothesis that the declining divorce rate as wives age is largely an artifact of risk changes due to longer marriages, at least in the US.  However, it does seem to explain the peculiar shape of the UK curve:

Either way there is still the general question of which is the underlying cause of these trends.  Does divorce risk decrease over time because only the strongest marriages survive?  Or does divorce risk decrease over time because the wife’s temptation to divorce is lessened by her reduced opportunity to remarry?  Given the way these are correlated I don’t think we will ever be able to prove exactly what is driving what.  It makes sense to me that both of these are in play to some degree, but I do think that declining remarriage opportunities as wives age are a much larger driver of this trend than most people consider.  Either way, what the data does prove is that the common bromides that divorce rates are up because lifetime marriage just lasts too long with our longer life expectancies and that divorce is driven by husbands trading their aging wives in for a younger model are pure nonsense.

While no smoking gun is likely to be found, I was still interested in better understanding how these things have changed over time.  What has happened to divorce risk by wife’s age as women have continued to delay marriage?  Has this increased the divorce risk for women in their late 20s and 30s?  While I’m not aware of this kind of historical data for the US, the UK’s ONS does publish annual data going back to the late 1950s.  I took the data from table 3b here and created averages for the last five decades:

While the general shapes of these curves have remained fairly consistent over the decades, there are some noteworthy changes between the 1990s and 2000s.  Divorce rates in the UK for wives in their 20s dropped during this period.  At the same time, divorce rates for wives in their early 30s remained the same while divorce rates for older wives increased.  This can be interpreted as evidence that women delaying marriage while riding the carousel is starting to show up in divorce rates.

I don’t claim to have all of the answers here;  hopefully someone will do a formal study on all of these questions.  If you are aware of better data on this, I would appreciate you sharing what you have.  Either way, the idea that young marriages inherently have uncompensated risk for divorce seems to be very much in question.  If you understand the risk factors of impulsiveness and the benefits of higher IQ, and the woman is following the model I propose in part 1 I think you have an opportunity to significantly better your odds. Additionally, waiting to marry a woman who is older, more set in her ways, and has a higher partner count comes with its own set of risks, and this seems consistent with the last chart I shared for the UK.  Much of the additional risk of marrying a young woman appears to come specifically from the fact that she is more beautiful and fertile and therefore has greater opportunity to remarry.  With this in mind, waiting until your prospective wife isn’t as desirable isn’t a choice I think most men are likely to want to make.  In that case, the risk itself comes with important compensation.

Note:  I’ve put all of the related spreadsheet tabs I used to create these charts into one spreadsheet which you can now download.  Please let me know if you find any errors in my work.

This entry was posted in Data, Divorce, Finding a Spouse. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Are young marriages doomed to divorce?

  1. ballista74 says:

    Something I’ve observed, especially in Churchian circles but all over is that successful marriage takes a certain degree of piety and a whole lot of maturity on the part of both. This is something I’ve always believed Churchian speakers and writers, like Albert Mohler and others, are remiss about when they push their pronuptualist teaching. In saying that “you are a child if you don’t marry”, and “you grow up when you marry” (*), they lose sight that it takes one to be “grown up” in order to marry.

    In that sense with most women (especially young ones), you get an petulant and selfish little child. Given the way most children are raised in this day and age, this has been par for the course for young men, too. Now given the way young men are treated, they either have to mature fast or face grievous consequences. Not so the young women. Unfortunately, society has created an environment where it’s acceptable and even right in their eyes for a woman to remain as an immature child, especially in dealing with family, a husband, and marriage.

    (*) – when these same people cry about men not “manning up” and marrying the sluts, it’s this same pronuptualism coming out. They are saying in essence, “you are not a man, but a child”. Men should be as offended at hearing this as any race is of a racial slur or any other generally accepted disparaging remark.

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    The simple explanation for the UK data is this: there are fewer divorces in the first 5 years of marriage because there are fewer marriages and more cohabitation, thus those who marry now are more likely to be committed to staying married than in previous years. I believe the same pattern can be seen in some parts of the US, such as the the Northeast.

    As marriage becomes something common only to the upper income (UC, UMC) groups in the US, it is likely that divorce rates will fall. No sensible person will celebrate this

  3. gdgm+ says:

    Some summary comments were made on the NCHS/CDC link referenced by Dalrock:

    “The study suggests that both cohabitations and marriages tend to last longer under certain conditions, such as: a woman’s age at the time cohabitation or marriage began; whether she was raised throughout childhood in an intact 2-parent family; whether religion plays an important role in her life; and whether she had a higher family income or lived in a community with high median family income, low male unemployment, and low poverty.

    The report also shows that marriages that end do not always end in divorce; many end in separation and do not go through the divorce process. Separated white women are much more likely (91 percent) to divorce after 3 years, compared with separated Hispanic women (77 percent) and separated black women (67 percent).

    Meanwhile, the probability of remarriage among divorced women was 54 percent in 5 years–58 percent for white women, 44 percent for Hispanic women, and 32 percent for black women. However, there was also a strong probability that 2nd marriages will end in separation or divorce (23 percent after 5 years and 39 percent after 10 years).”

    None of this disproves any of Dalrock’s commentary, just puts some interesting, additional spins on it.

  4. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    The simple explanation for the UK data is this: there are fewer divorces in the first 5 years of marriage because there are fewer marriages and more cohabitation, thus those who marry now are more likely to be committed to staying married than in previous years. I believe the same pattern can be seen in some parts of the US, such as the the Northeast.

    I don’t think this explains it. The last chart is divorces per 1,000 married couples. Cohabitating couples aren’t included. The lower divorce rate for the women in their twenties reflects women who married fairly young. The higher divorce rates observed are for women over 35. If anything, this would seem to be where longer cohabitation would show up in the data.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I guess I did not make my point clear.
    Cohabiting people won’t show up in the statistics at all. People who are more prone to cohabit than marry are less likely to remain together over the course of 10 years than those who marry, but since the cohabiting people never married, their breakup doesn’t affect the statistics.

    Assume for the sake of argument that people who are less committed to long term relationship are more prone to cohabit, while those more committed to an LTR are more prone to marry. Call the cohabitation group Group C and the marriage group Group M. Assume equal couple formation in each group (this may be totally unreasonable). So 100 men and women in C move in with each other, 100 men and women in M marry. 10 years later 50% of the C’s have broken up, while only 10% of the M’s have divorced, just to pull some numbers out of the air. So of the 50 C couples, 25 have broken up, of the 50 M couples only 5 have divorced.

    In previous years, the C’s would also have married, and thus their breakups would have added to the number of divorces per decade & therefore the divorce rate. But now, the C’s don’t marry, because they are less inclined to commit. Only the committed M’s marry, and so the divorce rate is down. But in previous times, there would have been 200 couples marrying instead of 100.

    Previous years: 100 marriages, 35 divorces, 35% divorce rate.
    Recent years: 50 marriages, 5 divorces, 10% divorce rate.

    I believe this demonstrates that it is possible for the divorce rate to decline due to a decline in marriage formation. No idea if this is true, although anecdotal evidence suggests it could be at least partly true. And again, if marriage becomes a luxury item that only is practiced by dedicated religious minorities and the upper income groups, that will definitely lead to a lower divorce rate, but it won’t be cause for celebration.

    Hope this is clearer.

  6. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Anon Reader. I get your point now. I think the likely mechanism for that is men being more reluctant to marry riskier women, since the burden is placed on men if the marriage fails. I think we already see this on the margins.

  7. Brendan says:

    nd again, if marriage becomes a luxury item that only is practiced by dedicated religious minorities and the upper income groups, that will definitely lead to a lower divorce rate, but it won’t be cause for celebration.

    I suspect that it would be celebrated nevertheless as evidence of the growing diversity in relationship formation and greater freedom for people, while at the same time citing that the actual divorce rate, for people who are “interested in marriage” is low historically.

    We aren’t there yet, not even close. But I can imagine it getting there over time as the younger generations choose to live differently. In Europe marriage is already largely dead in many countries, outside the upper classes, and cohabitation as a normal method of family formation is widely accepted. The US isn’t close to that, yet, but it isn’t beyond imagination that it will drift in that direction.

  8. Cynical, Me? says:

    The Carousel beckons to many a young lass. Her options overflowing, often she changes her mind.

    No worries. A momentary one-time increase in income followed by a monthly check after he gets done paying her attorneys, and soon she is free to straddle Her Next Victim.

    Unh. Unh. Unh.

  9. an observer says:

    Whilst christians marry to remain consistent with their beliefs, regular heathen shack up and cohabit to experience marriage-lite.

    Problem is, some time period living the same roof endows the couple with defacto legal
    characteristics. When they separate, they get to ‘enjoy’ the hassles of who owns what, which can end up in court. This results from government intervening in contract law, which is what marriage is.

    I tend to think the stats reflect this trend, with fewer young marriages and more younger couples cohabiting. This can drag on for years. When couples marry, they are older, and usually jump straight to childbearing.

    This creates multiple issues for christians because staying chaste is difficult, but cohabiting can be frowned on. So a succesion of sexual ltrs without cohabiting can be used until the women finally consent to marry, after their carousel tokens indicate ‘game over’.

    So, for christians with the moral imperative it has become harder to find a suitable spouse early on, for all the reasons discussed. But those outside such a belief system has no investment in it, and will likely cohabit with a series of liveins through their 20s.

    This will eventually show up as a spike in divorce rates in the early thirties, as women usually wait until junior is past teething before initiating divorce.

    Maudlin to contemplate, i know.

  10. Joe Sheehy says:

    A woman who marries young who uses contraception is not going to be in the same position to divorce as a young woman who follows traditional morality and refuses to use contraception. That could have a lot to do with divorce in early marriages: the disconnection of marriage from procreation.

  11. Twenty says:

    Isn’t most of the data handily accounted for by Roissy’s “options=instability” equation? The more re-marriagable the wife, the more likely the marriage is to be disrupted.

    Those Hispanic data are very, very, very interesting though. Basically flat. Wonder what’s behind that. Dalrock’s assignment desk: Find equivalent re-marriage data for women broken down by age/race, compare and contrast.

    [D: There are some charts on remarriage broken down by race in this post.]

  12. tweell says:

    For Hispanics, the old Catholic culture still is holding out. I’m not so sure it’s doing as well now, but it’s better off than the mainstream USA culture. My brother and his wife have a dance hall that gets engaged for wedding receptions, they see a lot of Hispanics. They say the Hispanics are better behaved as well, there’s usually a patriarch taking charge.

  13. Pirran says:

    Interesting analysis. I think the problem we face is trying to tease out an analysis from data that wasn’t designed for the purpose. I doubt governments will be in a hurry to collect and collate data that reflects poorly on women anytime soon, either.

    I suppose, over time, a lot of this will become clearer, but I think we’re still in the conjecture phase. One thing remains obvious; it still behooves men not to commit to marriage to the higher risk groups whatever happens. The data doesn’t seem to contradict that.

  14. Oh yea, well not everyone is like that.
    (being facetious , so fed up I am with ignorance of even the basics of statistics, like if 6 or 10 balls are red “most of those balls are red” is a true statement, today the mendacity of the clever would retort, “not all of those balls are red”……as if.

    Sorry, I’m in a bad mood and home sick.

  15. Hermit says:

    When I met my wife when she was 19, she was very immature. It took about a year out of her parents house and having a moderate amount of responsibility for me to consider her mature enough for marriage. It doesn’t take much to force a person to grow up. There’s no shortage of outliers, but there always will be. I doubt very much that it’s mostly that women “don’t yet know who they are”, and much more about their options.

  16. freemeofindoctrination says:

    The cause and effect of this are detrimental an over estimated SMP value/ why they hold out for the “ideal man” while the years slip by and suddenly its 29 and she wants to marry only to realise that she must put in a minimum of two/three years commitment before even attempting to talk about marriage. Then its 31/32 and panic at the disco.

  17. Opus says:

    I believe that Anonymous Reader, has it exactly right at 4.24pm and 6.43pm. I seem to recall some English figures from the C of E to the fact that Marriages are more stable than Cohabitations. I for one (putting my legal-hat on) regard the attempt by her Majesty’s Government to treat Cohabitiations as if they were marriage as very wrong – an equality too far. Every woman intuitively knows that a Cohabitation is not a Marriage. What does not follow (and AR does not suggest that it does) is, that one would avoid cohabitation break-up by forcing oneself into marriage rather than merely cohabitating, as if the act of marriage, in itself, was protection against Divorce. I would say, it clearly isn’t.

    I digressed however because I wanted to say that I thought the title of this essay was going to be ‘How young should a woman divorce?’ I think the answer to that must be: As soon and as young as possible – as soon as she realises she is with the wrong man – and thus hopefully before she has any of the following: Inoperable STDs, Children, or a lower SMV i.e. by the age of twenty four at the latest. Generally speaking, after that age, things only get (slowly) worse for women, post-divorce.

  18. feministhater says:

    I think the answer to that must be: As soon and as young as possible – as soon as she realises she is with the wrong man…

    Basically anytime cupcake isn’t happy then…? I’ll maintain a simple piece of advise for those looking to marry. If you don’t intend to stick to your marriage vows, don’t get married. Unless you suffer constant physical abuse, adultery, neglect or you have a partner who likes to murder others, you really have no reason to divorce from the person YOU decided to marry. Furthermore, list the reasons that you or your future spouse agree should lead to divorce in your prenup, so that both marriage partners are fully aware of the circumstances upon which the marriage can be dissolved. If you want to get divorced at a future date and none of the above listed has happened, you can’t divorce.

    That combined with a ‘fault’ divorce system and just maybe I would consider getting married.

  19. Dalrock says:


    Furthermore, list the reasons that you or your future spouse agree should lead to divorce in your prenup, so that both marriage partners are fully aware of the circumstances upon which the marriage can be dissolved.

    I like the idea, but the problem is the family courts are designed to side with the wife. Maybe prenups are better than their rep though.

    Another way to do the same thing would be a “Letter to our unborn children”, promising them they won’t face the terrible experience of having their parents divorce. Include the list of reasons there, along with a promise by each to their future children not to divorce for other than those reasons and not to give cause. Maybe even add to that a promise that whichever parent assumes custody following the loss of the other parent by the child (due to death or divorce) won’t date or remarry until the children are 18. Sign it in the presence of a notary with the agreement that a copy of the letter will be provided to the children once they are say six or seven years old.

  20. feministhater says:

    I like the idea Dalrock but as we all know, there needs to be consequences. Most here know that even though women say they love their children more than anything, it all too often comes down to, “if she ain’t happy, no ones’ happy!”. That obviously includes the children.

    For women to understand the implications of what they sign, whether it’s a prenup or a ‘promise’ letter, they need to understand that there will be dramatic consequences for breaching their promise.

    The problem is that inherently humans are fickle. We are all about making promises in the moment but when those promises are being tested, we all too easily fold. Divorce is probably a woman’s greatest ‘promise keeping’ test she will ever face. That’s why I’m always so harsh on divorces. You either intend to keep your vows or you don’t enter into marriage under ANY circumstance. I also understand that there are certain exceptions to keeping your vows, and if these exceptions are listed in the prenup, so both spouses understand the exceptions; and if these exceptions happen down the road, that they be proven, i.e. fault divorce, before the divorce is granted.

    In light of the fact that we live in ‘no fault’ divorce countries though and that courts can, if they so want, discard prenups at the behest of the judge, you are back to having to pick your spouse with such rigour that it makes a person cold.

  21. feministhater says:

    Should say, “Marriage is probably a woman’s greatest ‘promise keeping’ test…”

  22. feministhater says:

    Should also add that an official list in a prenup acts as a darn good final ‘vetting’ process of your spouse before you tie the knot. It allows both spouses to air their ideals, their intentions and what they feel they are entitled to in the marriage. And if one or the other spouse cannot agree with items on that list, there is still time adjust expectations or to call the wedding off before they make a mistake.

  23. SC says:

    In my opinion, a woman’s idea of security, primarily economic, is the impetus behind the data and some of the other oddities that they do. For example:

    1) Its been said that some women tend to find a new man before they divorce. They wouldn’t have to sacrifice their economic security this way.

    2) The black community is less economically secure in general and this could explain the overall higher divorce rates and low marriage rates in general.

    3) It is when women began working out of the house en masse that the divorce rates began to skyrocket, precisely when they began making their own money.

    4) I often hear women say “I’ve established my career and make good money, why can’t I find a man?” I think that, because women think in terms of economic security, they assume that men do so as well. When a man isn’t impressed by their money then they are baffled.

    5) I think that the lower rates in young hispanics reflect the fact that, along with (in my opinion) a higher influence by religion, a language barrier may restrict hispanic women from entering higher paying careers. I think that, as their age increases, their english improves and their ability to make more money thereby slightly increasing their divorce rates.

  24. Opus says:

    @Feminist Hater

    I wish it was as straightforward as you suggest at 9.36a.m. where you set out proposed grounds for Divorce as:

    1. Adultery
    2. Constant Physical Abuse
    3. Neglect
    4. Murder

    Compare your grounds with the five possible grounds where I live:

    1. Adultery
    2. Unreasonable Behaviour
    3. Desertion
    4. Two years apart (with consent to the divorce)
    5. Five years apart (irrespective of consent)

    Your proposed 1 and our 1 are identical
    Your 2 is contained within our 2
    Your 3 is contained within our 2
    Your 4 is contained within our 2

    Our 3 is never used
    Our 4 is fairly common
    Our 5 less common

    Our 1 is not often used that much either.

    It is always our 2 that gets used, yet your 2, 3 and 4 are the same as our 2 – the one that causes the high divorce rate. Even if our 1, 3 and 5 were abolished we would still have something approaching a 40% divorce rate. Would you really be so heartless as to force (as in our 4), two people whose lives are long separate to remain tied together in a paper marriage, forcing them (should they wish be together) to commit adultery if they found a new partner? One would then have people who had been apart for thirty or forty years still legally married, yet with one or both of them in new stable relationships for the same number of decades yet unable to be married – and caused probably by youthful impetuousity.

  25. feministhater says:

    Opus, that’s more my moral list. I don’t consider two people separating as a means to divorce, no matter if it’s three years or five. I don’t think it’s got to do with being heartless or not, I just think marriage is that serious.

    Any man or woman should not have the right to simply divorce, destroy their children, their family, take custody and 50 % of the estate just because they don’t love the person they decided to marry, unless that person did something that they both agreed would be wrong (hence the idea about the list). However, if the one partner really does require the divorce so badly that if they didn’t get the divorce they would literally die the next day. Then they can divorce but without cash and prizes and without the children. Custody goes to the parent who was willing to stay and do what needed to be done to keep the marriage going. To me those are sufficient consequences to prevent people from deciding to divorce for frivolous reasons but still allows them to divorce should they so wish.

    I’m also quite ‘heartless’ because I firmly believe that even if you get your divorce, you shouldn’t be allowed to marry again. Now that would really stop women from divorcing frivolously.

    Here we really only have two ‘grounds’ for divorce.

    All of the above spoken about and all the other reasons we speak about on this blog is condensed literally into one phrase: Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The other ground for divorce is an incurable mental illness or a continuous unconsciousness. Both are Legal Jargon for basically “I’m noooooott haaaaaaapppppy anymore!” or “your spouse is a veggie or looney”.

  26. Opus says:

    @Feminst Hater

    I had my tongue somewhat in my cheek as to your heartlessness.

    The problem with the Unreasonable Behaviour ground is, simply, that anything the Husband does can be and is regarded as unreasonable, which equates to Divorce on demand; and the only people who use that ground are women. I cannot think that I ever settled a Petition for Divorce for a man on the grounds of a wife’s Unreasonable Behaviour – men never complain.

    I suspect Divorce (as well as female slutdom) is driven less by lax Divorce Laws than by female Economic Independence, Abortion and The Pill.

  27. ray says:

    Dalrock — I don’t claim to have all of the answers here; hopefully someone will do a formal study on all of these questions

    havent we had enough Formal Studies on endless relational issues over the past fifty years? are more Formal Studies going to do the job? change the west from a matriarchy to a patriarchy? put our Father into the hearts of the incredibly proud and stubborn people of our times? bring our rebellious nations into obedience with Father and masculine leadership?

    Figure 19 is a good example — looks impressive, data is valid, but the chart is useless, b/c without contextual cultural understanding

    young females divorce more b/c their re-sale value is still high, plus look at the date sampling: by the mid-eighties in amerika, feminism had largely conquered the institutioinal US — females, esp young females, were OVERWHELMED by the culture offering them free college educations (supremacist scholarships) and guaranteed employment placement and advancement with across-the-board preference over males

    the past 30 years, the US — the most feminist nation ever extant on earth — did EVERYTHING in its power to lure young women (married or not) away from husbands/traditionalism, and (under constant favored conditions) into “academia” and the workplaces (where they now administer our gyno government)

    that — and not subtle statistical abstractions — is why the spike-skew in sub-25 dissolutions

    it has NOTHING to do with the pore grlls “not knowing who they are” (i.e., their trusting innocence being taken advantage of by Those Evil Men, i.e. females = not responsible)

    whether theyre fifteen or fifty, females acting under a system they control (marriage, family, church, law, education, and government in the modern west) will seek New Thrills after about three years of serial monogamy — regardless of the quality of the husband/male partner

    protected (by servile males) from all responsibilies and from all negative consequences from her actions — and with no biblical structure to restrain her will — even a sixteen-year-old bride will start shopping in a few years, as the Romance/Sex Thrill wears off, and her desire for excitement and personal/sexual validation waxes, and must be affirmed and sated (with overt interst from other men, if not actual infidelity)

    studies and stats and endless detailed discussions solve nothing, and are what women want . . . it’s part of the Thrill Ride, its part of Irresponsibility . . . 725 comments about Nothing at hook-up-smart etc

    simple biblical (i.e. MASCULINE) precepts are the only solution — no provision, allowance, nor excuse is made for female hypergamy and selfish female demands, and the entire Cosmo Relationship FemKulture, with its sham ego-weddings, its casual and profitable divorces, its fatherless and mama-controlled (non)familiies, its vast family-law Money Machine, gets flushed down the crapper, where it belongs

  28. SC says:


    +1. The ongoing speculation and analysis reminds me a lot of the Buddhist Parable of the Arrow (

  29. Hermit says:

    That is why even if they aren’t ready to marry at 18, or 19, or 25. They should at least be preparing for it. As has been said many times before: women aren’t preparing for marriage, they’re preparing for the workforce while paying lipservice to marriage.

  30. P Ray says:

    ^ I wonder how the young will react to that though.
    After all … the pensions are paying some of their parents.
    And one of the causes of the Global Financial Crisis was shareholder lust for ROI … the shareholders being private citizens holding stakes in companies – some made out very well, and most lost money.

  31. freemeofindoctrination says:

    That is why even if they aren’t ready to marry at 18, or 19, or 25. They should at least be preparing for it. As has been said many times before: women aren’t preparing for marriage, they’re preparing for the workforce while paying lipservice to marriage

    Nail square on the head my friend,(lipservice being there day out) something ive noticed with the 25-29 year old women is they dont in fact want a husband, just there day out in white with all the trimmings included. To quote my ex-girlfriend “ive been looking forward to my day out since im sixteen” nothing even remotely related too speding the rest of her life with a good man,(did the man even matter just some dude along for an expensice day out) just other thing to tick of the list i guess.

  32. Prof. Woland says:


    It would be interesting to layover a graph which shows the age at which these women have their children. A lot of women probably plan on having a child or children, which are forever, even if they don’t plan on being married for very long. Many women still might be hesitant to risk having children out of wedlock due to the social stigma / financial consequences, particularly the higher up the socio-economic scale they are. I am sure that for many women it is just better to just get the business of having children out of the way early and then change to a self-centered lifestyle where everything then orbits around her including her child. At this point comes the premeditated separation which at best is ugly and at worst messy or even criminal.

    This also dovetails with some of your other postings about why women place so much emphasis on blaming the breakup on the man. Once she is through with her first marriage she then needs to reconstruct her social environment to maximize her comfort and control. This can only be done if she is seen as the “victim” and not some financial predator or callous parent who pushed the father out for her own solipsistic purposes. Many women systematically eliminate people from their social circle after the divorce. One by one, all the people who knew her when are purged like some Stalinist nightmare. Often this means sacrificing family or even close or best friends who are a threat and so must be destroyed.

  33. Gold says:

    This data needs to be broken down far more than age. What else might effect divorce rates? Income obviously, education, family background. Without other variables, this data won’t tell you much.

    [D: It certainly would be better. Welcome.]

  34. Chaz345 says:

    One thing that the higher incidence of divorce for those married very young doesn’t take into account is why said people are getting married. For far too many they are getting married mainly because they got pregnant which will skew the divorce rate for people who get married young. If that factor is corrected for and we look at those who get married young simply because they’ve decided that they have found the right person, I bet we’d find that those married very young have a much lower divorce rate.

    On the “don’t know who they are” point, it makes sense that someone discovering and growing into who they are while married, would be more likely to become who/what their spouse wants/needs, than someone who has been living life their own way for 2 1/2 three decades who then has to learn how to live taking another person’s wants and needs into account.

    [D: Great points. Welcome.]

  35. On female solipsism, I remember chatting to the young, very pretty sister of one of my girlfriends. She told me the names she had picked out for her children. Remember, this was a nice young lady from a solid Catholic family. I suggested that her future imaginary husband might want some say in the naming of their children. Her response, exact words? “Screw him.”

  36. Female Solipsism…..Redundant?

  37. an observer says:


    Superannuation is simply a state-backed ponzi scheme. Australian defined benefit plans for public servants are an unfunded liability on the balance sheet, meaning each retiree that skulks off must be funded out of incoming revenue.

    With western governments heavily indebted, the inflation linked payments to retirees can only be dealt with in a limited number of ways. Either outright default (unlikely) or default by manipulated cpi figures, increasing public debt and an eventual currency crisis. Ben Bernanke is the poster child of the ‘inflate or die’ crowd, and he is on record as saying that the helicopters will go into the to dump cash to avoid deflation. Why? He is acutely aware that deflation would push the already insolvent banking system the edge into a derivative-lined hell. Whereas inflation is typically misunderstood, and can be readily used to impoverish any not aware of its onsidious effects.

    Australian monetary policy is little different. The social engineering experiment of women into the workforce has meant men’s wages have languished – mining boom not withstanding. It is no coincidence that households must have multiple wage earners, reinforcing women’s beliefs that getting a career is important.

    As more people entered the labour market, there needed to be some way to differentiate candidates. Increased specialisation and lengthy training periods fitted this need. This had two distinct effects. As the monetary base expanded and purchasing power eroded, younger people were clearly effected. Combined with unnecessarily longer training for white collar jobs in particular, this means younger men have little hope of marrying, risking their wives fall pregnant and being able to support them financially. Young women know this but will not admit it, believing that dating an older established man is somehow creepy, and preferring to focus on working, spending, and chasing alpha.

    Austerity economics is simply a con that keeps the balls in the air that little bit longer. I have no idea how this will all end. But it will not be pretty. And young women are seriously deluded if they somehow think that their careers are all they will need to make ends meet.

  38. Feminist Hater says:

    It’s quite simple how it will end. Hyperinflation and increased taxes, as governments print more money to stave off the debt monster and keep people calm, this followed by run ins on the banks and the selling off of huge amounts of shares, bonds and other assorted financial holdings, as citizens and the hugely wealthy try to turn the cash they have left into assets that hold value. Hence, the entire financial sector, banking sector and state government fails. This followed by drastic cut backs on any social spending, including medical care, schooling, university research and welfare. No more free lunches and no more social experiments, so that’s at least positive.

    The global economy will grind to a halt. Border wars will ensue as each country, that has a powerful military, try to gain control of resource rich areas. Welfare will overnight be changed from free money, food stamps or cards to little rations of food baskets dished out on a local level to ease suffering. Those with land and power will use it ruthlessly to keep those without, without. There will be wide range rioting, looting and a heavy, almost ruthless, enforcement by government agencies in the aftermath. Think giant camps to house people and keep them from rioting, looting or seeking to overthrow the governments. However, without the wealth, taxes and incentives, enforcement agencies will lose their funding and literally won’t have the teeth to clamp down anymore. The people employed by these agencies will likely join other groups and sell their skills to the highest bidder. These skills will be in HIGH demand.

    People will starve and die in their millions. The tally of warfare victims will also build up as there is no longer any international ‘peace’ keeping force but simply big armies fighting for dominance. Those with the know how and those with the land and resources and military might will group together to form communities, that will later become new states as these communities join up with those like themselves, that can feed, educate their young and sustain themselves over the long-term. These communities will attract those who still have some wealth and a good work ethic to join them. It will also attract those who are looking to pillage for loot.

    In the end, those who keep to their guns, have big families and act in a diligent manner, i.e. marrying young and working hard and fighting to the death for what is theirs, will inherit the post world. From there starts the rebuilding. Anyway, the above should be made into a movie, it sounds thrilling!

    The entire world economy is a giant ponzi scheme, borrowing money from tomorrow to fund today; without having anything left to pay back what is owed. Wealth is created by production, not consumerism. Consumerism is great while you have the previous wealth created by previous generations but you soon run out of other people’s money and then…Massive societal failure across the globe.

    The above is an apocalyptic scale, perhaps it won’t be so bad but somehow I don’t feel it will be easy. In my understanding, there will be far more pain and suffering than the great depression. Far more.

  39. @David Collard

    “I suggested that her future imaginary husband might want some say in the naming of their children. Her response, exact words? “Screw him.””

    To which I would have said, “Well that’s how you’re going to get the kids in the first place……”

  40. Rico says:

    I’m sure if the roles were reversed there would be a lynch mob out for the guy.

  41. I Art Laughing.

    Good point. But I don’t like that habit people now have of saying that women “fuck” and “screw”. How can they? They lack the apparatus. It is just feminist moonshine. No need to use their language. Women get screwed or are fucked. They don’t fuck. Does the anvil strike the hammer?

  42. ray says:

    “The ongoing speculation and analysis reminds me a lot of the Buddhist Parable of the Arrow”

    yeah exactly SC, thanks

    we’re not in the tweek-the-system stage, the nibble-round-the-edges stage, where we stand back in comfy lives and suggest small theoretical adjustments to something essentially healthy and good

    the Body Politic, like the Body Religious, is already long poisoned . . . and here we are offering the dying man cologne

    shit in another twenty years, males wont even be allowed to have jobs, go to college, speak negatively to a female, receive social services, or be a father to his sons — and as now, we’ll be told how the “laws” and policies backing that up are there for Protection and Safety . . . to combat the terrible War on Women . . . to catch and punish “criminals” . . . to provide fairness and equality, and to protect our delicate womenfolk from the oppression of (other) males — you know, the Bad Guys

    our right foot’s already been cut off, and here we are, painting the toenails on the other one . . . instead of trampling down our adversaries

    ps obviously i’m not a buddha-backer tho — i like that jesus guy

    when guatama had his first son, he took it as a sign to travel the planet seeking (giggle) his Enlightenment

    now, a man going in exactly the Rong direction will eventually get back where he should be — but its a long walk around! :O)

    eastern philosophies and (false) religions are notoriouisly over-complicated, amorphous, open-interpretive, and crammed with fake “deities” … they should take their own advice about poisoned arrows

  43. “Does the anvil strike the hammer”

    Not unless the blacksmith is a lot bigger dude than I am.

  44. an observer says:


    I presume you are familiar with the usual litany of writers, then? Schiff, Casey, Bonner, Rockwell, etc. All helpful insight. Doug Casey refers to what is coming as the Greater Depression. Days’s book “The return of the great depression” is also an easy, though dismally compelling read.

    I am under no illusions it will be bad. Here’s the thing: It is women who benedit most from wealth transfer systems, whether it be overt payments like child support, or covert support like the illusory white collar jobs that produce nothing but pride and false outcomes (hr, media etc). There are many women with busy government jobs that add nothing to the productive economy. When governments default, or hyperinflate, many of those jobs are going to disappear.

    The newly unemployed heroic single mother whose child support payments have mysteriously stopped will not be a pretty sight. But, as modern nation states descend into civil war, food shortages, curfews and fema camps, there will be countries that rise to take their place, as formerly great superpowers decline and fade into irrelevancy.

    Perhaps, one day too soon, we will be invited to sponsor a struggling single mommie in what remains of Amerika. . .

  45. deti says:

    Observer: Great observation (heh).

    This is why many people are recommending to women that they return to the days of hitching their wagons to good men when both are young. Under circumstances like the one you’ve described it’s in a woman’s best interest to tether herself to a man.

    And those circumstances give a man leverage: “Do what I tell you, when and where I tell you, and how I tell you to do it. It’s for your own good, for our good and for the good of the kids. If you don’t, you’ll be kicked to the curb because you’re a threat, a danger to all of us and you’re not pulling your own weight.”

  46. Feminist Hater says:

    Observer, I was actually thinking about this the other day. The people living during the great depression did have one thing going for them. There was little to no welfare, there were not huge amounts of people living off the taxes of others and thus when the depression hit there wasn’t the huge risk of riots and protests that would probably happen today if the economy collapsed. There was also a greater sense of pride in their nation and communities and people often worked to help each other. Sad to say but that just isn’t there anymore. The added problem of far too many dependent on the average tax payer to receive their food stamps, welfare and free medical care, will largely cause a worse scenario than the great depression, even if the economic collapse was identical in scale.

    And yes, I’m well aware of the ‘men produce, women consume’ culture of today. I would hope for a far smaller economic collapse, perhaps one that can be contained if governments acted today by cutting all welfare and starting to focus on the creation of wealth, i.e. smaller immigration from other countries, more focus on educating the youth in real work degrees, i.e. STEM subjects, and paying back that dept that has accumulated over the years. A huge undertaking and it would probably be better in the long run to simply default. That’s a tough decision but in 10 to 20 years the economies of the world would be in a far better position if they took the plunge now. There would actually be money for scientific research and exploration into space. However, as we all know, hard decisions like this that 70 % of the population wouldn’t like often leads politicians to make those decisions on what would get them the most votes. Go Team women!

    I’ve always maintained one constant when talking government economic strategy. If the economy is slowing down and the government has decided to borrow in order to inject funds into the economy, don’t ever spend money to keep jobs, don’t spend money to make ‘temporary’ work and certainly don’t spend money to pay for welfare and other ‘service’ only work. Rather put that money into wealth creation. Real jobs, like manufacturing, technology, resource extraction and infrastructure projects that will last at least for 20 years or more. That is the only way to bring an economy out of either a recession or a deep depression.

    What Obama did by spending all that borrowed money on stimulus packages was wasted because it went to saving jobs and saving companies that were no longer productive or competitive. It also went to creating ‘green’ jobs and ‘green’ companies, which is just a pet peeve of mine. Maybe someone can correct me here but I think the figure stands that for every 1 green job created another 3 jobs in the normal sector are lost. Doesn’t sound very helpful to me.

  47. an observer says:


    During the last depression, personal debt was lower, many households had chickens, vege gardens and even goats. Personal taxes were also lower.

    With one in six now on food stamp and shadow stats reporting unemployment and cpi a lot higher than official figures, it’s not looking positive.

    As you suggest, defaulting would actually be a better option. Iceland did this. The Us probably will not, and the economic pain may well last much longer than the last depression.

    However, i would suggest that any spending by government will be counter productive. Why? Government intervention in any market artificially influences prices, which are the market clearing mechanisms. When prices are influenced by government spending, entire industries grow up to feed off that money. This is not healthy and contributes to malinvestment.

    An economy can only grow healthily when production is not influenced by falsely generated demand. This represents the green industries. Their products are premature because they are still overpriced. Stimulating demand for an inefficient product not bring the technological breakthroughs any faster. What will bring newand better products are entrepreneurs that can supply something that people want, and at a price they can afford.

    By contrast, the industries that government supports today lines the pockets of tomorrows party supporters. Hans Herman Hoppe put it best in his book: Democracy is a god that has failed. Alas, whilst itcan redistribute wealth from some groups to others, it will persist. This is cultural Marxism in practice.

    And women are big supporters. They identify as victim groups; benefit by laws thay favour them transfer payments that support their princess fantasies and vote big time for any liar that promises security, prosperity an peace through policy.

    Western civilisation is being systematically dismantled. Women vote for it whilst men subsidise their own cultural, financial, emotional and spiritual demise.


  48. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of May 6, 2012

  49. Joy Felix says:

    I grew up in a good solid, conservative church community. One that taught lifetime marriage at a younger age. I bucked the trend and got married older anyway. I took issue with some of the things you said however – they are rather biased and make a lot of assumptions.

    “If you understand the risk factors of impulsiveness and the benefits of higher IQ, and the woman is following the model I propose in part 1 I think you have an opportunity to significantly better your odds.” This is quite probably true – women with higher IQ’s are likely pickier – but not necessarily – I have many very intelligent friends who suffered from the lie the church told them, and are now working on their second marriage if anything, I would say that I higher IQ makes a woman more likely to get divorced if they married to young. They are smart enough to get out of it.

    “Additionally, waiting to marry a woman who is older, more set in her ways, and has a higher partner count comes with its own set of risks, and this seems consistent with the last chart I shared for the UK.” This is straight up offensive and wrong. Older age only means greater opportunity for more partners – it assumes people don’t have control over their own bodies. Give Christians a bit more credit. Many women who a devout Christians and marry later have had few to no partners at all. If they did it is usually in the younger years which wouldn’t have been affected one way or another. If not, it by choice. There are a lot who chose nothing. People control their own bodies. It would be nice if the church emphasized that now and then rather than assuming we are all animals in heat.

    “Set in their ways” is a sexist bias – its usually used toward women. Men I would say are the harder ones to break of their habits. Set in their ways however can be a very, very good thing – they have had time to develop good habits. Younger people fight a lot about housework and finances because they do not yet have the habits formed to take care of them. Marriage after several years of singleness and learning can be much easier in many aspects because of this.

    ” Much of the additional risk of marrying a young woman appears to come specifically from the fact that she is more beautiful and fertile and therefore has greater opportunity to remarry.  With this in mind, waiting until your prospective wife isn’t as desirable isn’t a choice I think most men are likely to want to make.” Again, very biased, assuming beautiful women are the dumb ones who will get married right away, so you had better catch one quickly. Women’s beauty actually peaks in their early thirties. It’s when their confidence and fertility match up the most. (Actual studies have been done on this)

    As I said before, I grew up in a good solid church community that preached early marriage. After seeing the devastation this theology caused because of an onslet of divorces, I realized this teaching is very very dangerous. It is also too trivializing of women. It tells young people they are nothing without a spouse and that to be an adult they need one. This is wrong. What about Jesus and Paul? We’re they never full people?

  50. Pingback: There is no baby boomer (or silent) generation divorce spike at retirement. | Dalrock

  51. Alshia says:

    @Joy Felix:

    “…Older age only means greater opportunity for more partners…”

    But the statistics (presented somewhere on this site) show that age is correlated with partner count. So there is always the risk of meeting a prospect with higher partner count the older they are. Another problem is that the information can be coverted, as sluts and whores are still looked down upon to some extent. We can’t tell whether the woman is speaking the truth when she claims to have X partner count since she has motive to lie if she has a high partner count.

    “…People control their own bodies…”

    I wonder about that. While it’s true that people CAN control their own bodies to some extent, I think that a considerable number will fail to when sexual urge is high (e.g. during the most fertile days or when surrounded by hot men), and opportunity is available. Besides that, I am sure that many people would agree that most women are now freed from most restraints from when they were young, which is likely to lead to a lack of willpower to control urges.

    “…“Set in their ways” is a sexist bias…”

    If you mean it’s a double standard, let’s make this clear: men and women are not equal, and are judged according to different standards. Men aren’t judged by this standard probably because a traditional Christian marriage would have the man lead the woman, and many of his “ways” will still remain after he is married. Of course, this isn’t to say that a man’s habit is definitely conducive. His habits would ideally have to be evaluated rationally before being finalized.

    “…they have had time to develop good habits…”

    It depends on what you mean by “good”. Dalrock’s argument was that marriage life and single life are very different creatures; what may be good for singles may not be good for married couples. He probably implied that single women are set in their ways because they are used to spending their money however and whenever they want, so if a husband comes along and tries to tell her what she would be paying and what he would be paying etc, she may feel ‘controlled’ and the relationship might fall through consequently.

    There are other possibilities for “set in their ways”; arranging furniture in a certain way, sleeping hours, laundry days, cleaning hours, etc.

    “…assuming beautiful women are the dumb ones who will get married right away, so you had better catch one quickly…”

    How did you infer this? Dalrock is saying that trading fertility and beauty to minimize the greater-opportunity risk is not a worthy transaction for many men.

    “…Women’s beauty actually peaks in their early thirties. It’s when their confidence and fertility match up the most…”

    How is confidence related to fertility? Even without doing ANY research, the claim itself seems preposterous. Confidence is largely a psychological trait, and fertility a biological trait. It’s quite hard to draw a relationship betwen them.

    There is NO mention about fertility in that webpage. Besides that, the research method was a self-report measure. People often say what they think others would like to hear. Also, some may simply be projecting their own insecurities. Thus, this is not a reliable measure.

    But the biggest problem I see is the definition that people give to beauty. If 70% of the respondents define beauty as being confident, it is not surprising that they would select older ages because yes, confidence can and does increase with age and experience.

    But then we wouldn’t be able to measure physical beauty (which is what creates erections most of the time) if multiple definitions are being applied concurrently. That would be like making juice out of apples, oranges and bananas and then trying to determine which fruit made you sick.

  52. Alshia says:

    @Joy Felix:

    Continuation from previous point: Physical beauty is also more directly related to fertility than anything else (dare I say most?). Hence, this property should be measured accurately to determine fertility.

  53. Strawberry Fields Forever says:

    “eastern philosophies and (false) religions are notoriouisly over-complicated”

    They are not complicated at all, just abstract. For those who’s minds cannot easily comprehend abstractions, there are myths and allegories that explain the abstractions in a way they too can understand. But whether your mind works in an abstract or more literal way, Eastern philosophies are predicated on daily practices that result in experiences for any type of practicioner. They are more experiential rather than theoretical.

  54. Pingback: Female Solipsism | Dalrock

  55. Pingback: The Slut Problem (or How My Vagina Ruined the 2012 Election for the GOP)

  56. Pingback: Refuting the Refutations | The Karamazov Idea

  57. BeetR says:

    The reason older people have lower divorce rates is because they are uglier and arent as marketable. This is so much common sense to me. Thats the ONLY reason. “dont marry young. Marry older when you are uglier and cant attract other people as easily”

  58. Pingback: - In support of early marriage: why I hope our daughters will be teen-aged brides. | Sunshine Mary

  59. Pingback: The Thought Process of A Woman Approaching the Wall | The Karamazov Idea

  60. Pingback: All the single cat ladies. | Sunshine Mary

  61. Pingback: Ring by Spring: fun trend or unnecessary pressure? | Kelsey Farrell

  62. Pingback: Dalrock on why men should avoid women who’ve wasted “a lot of courtship” and “used up their most attractive/fertile years.” | man boobz

  63. Logic says:

    Younger marriages are indeed doomed, but not necessarily to divorce. In fact, I’ve found that they stay together – they are just doomed to unhappiness. I know many couples who have married in their twenties. All of those marriages are in trouble in some way. None of them are happy at all. (This in spite of all the posts I read online coming from a “happily married” man or woman – if you are so happy, then why are you wasting time reading about this stuff on the Internet? I call your bluff.)

    If I had to take a position, it’s not about anyone “finding themselves.” If that were true, then no one would get married in their twenties, or it would be uncommon. Rather, it’s a combination of parents not teaching children responsibility, or how to grow up and make proper choices, combined with the bizarre gender roles that men and women take on today (the spawn of the so-called sexual revolution). The fact is, most men and women in their twenties are very immature. They have that disposable mentality – where everything from their iPhone to their relationships can be thrown away once they’ve stopped working. They have a narcissistic mentality; they spend so much time on Facebook, thinking other people exist only to react to what they say and do. They are not other humans that are out there; they are merely an audience.

    How can a marriage work, given those attitudes?

    The few single people I know are the happiest people I know.

    Religious communities seem to produce the most happiest, longest lasting and youngest marriages – something atheists would do well to note. So much for secular society! Those of us, like myself, who were raised outside a strongly religious community have the odds stacked against us. Maybe then, the solution for marriageable people is to join such a community?

    They say there is always hope. But when I look online and see the vitriol that men and women hold towards each other, that hope declines quite quickly. The last thing our Great Teacher told us was to love one another. Maybe that’s the real lesson we all need to learn.

  64. Emily Fenn says:

    I couldn’t finish it. I’m sorry, this was drooling with sexism.

    First of all, it seems to assume that women are the only problems in marriages. Which is bullshit, seeing as how oppression BY MEN is often the problem.

    Of course, you seem to support male-caused oppression because women can’t “accept” men are the leaders. Why should women be expected to give up their freedom and submit to men? They shouldn’t be. A man should not be considered the leading figure in a relationship anymore. That’s sexist and outdated. A marriage should be equal, and both should walk side by side and hand in hand, not one being led by the other. Oh god that ticks me off to hear, and you brought that up TWICE! Maybe less marriages would end if men would quit thinking they’re superior and as a man are automatically the leader.

    I would rather be single than to be “leaded”/controlled by a man. K. Thanks.

  65. zodak says:

    @Emily Fenn, enjoy being single until you hit the wall. “It happend to me, I was warned about finding a husband & ignored it.”

    btw dalrock, you were linked in this “open letter”

  66. Liz96 says:

    I came across this site while googling about young marriages and divorce.
    I’m 18 and I just recently found out my boyfriend had been cheating on me with my best friend.
    I feel like the air was knocked out of me, how can I trust a guy again ? I do want to get married, but guys my age are immature. I would be open to dating older men, but are older men interested in dating a teen ? i feel like they may think i’m immature, but I’m not. All I want is to be a housewife, and do household chores, be with my husband. i’m traditional and just want to be a stay at home wife. Are guys open for that ?
    My parents divorced when I was ten and my two sisters were older, and I don’t want to end up like my mom who is bitter and alone. I live with my dad currently, while I’m finishing high school, but I want to find a decent guy to marry. Advise ?

  67. Pingback: Marrying Young or Old Makes You Happier? | Economics 411: Monetary and Financial Theory

  68. Pingback: (Revised) Marrying Young or Old Makes You Happier? | Economics 411: Monetary and Financial Theory

  69. zahra says:

    I am absolutely disgusted with this article. I know I’m late in my comment, but I couldn’t just read this and not comment. This entire struggle objectifies women and most of the commentors seem to be bitter from being rejected by a woman, but are spinning it to make the woman look like a charlatan. I’m not against marriage, but I’m very much against this patriarchal, outdated thinking of blaming the women and men will be men and women need to adapt accordingly. Um, no. How about we’re equal. Everyone-as an individual-has strengths and weaknesses and those are exclusive to each relationship. A woman’s sexuality, or career, or attractiveness… Or and the most pathetic–need for materialistic items, therefore the best economic fit for a spouse are not specific gender reasons fur a divorce. Incompatibility can plague anyone, male or female, and are resolved sure to individual needs of the couple. I seriously don’t think I’ve ever been so angry at an article. I grew up in a conservative, religious community with similar views and there’s a reason from a young age I felt the garage I was being told was nothing more than brainwashing of a males ‘egotistical need to protect females cause Jesus knows we can’t think between twirling our hair and our monthly blessings and shopping sprees’. Give me a break. Makes me sick that people like this still exist. Fuck you for making our society that much worse off.

  70. zahra says:

    A lot of what I wrote contains typos, so I apologize for that. I was typing on my phone quite hastily and didn’t proofread.

  71. Luke says:

    Zahra, you’re basically a 5th-grader telling first-year grad students how they don’t know their field of study Your lame attempts at shaming and reframing won’t work on men here. Neither will threats not to sleep with us. I suggest you try reading at least two of these before you post anything here except questions:
    1) Roger Devlin’s “Home Economics”
    2) Daniel Amneus’ “The Garbage Generation”
    3) Stephen Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody”
    4) any 50 pages on Roissy’s forum

    You’re not in the make-believe world you’re used to, where women are all smart, right, virtuous, honest, self-aware, and have the best interests of anyone (even themselves, let alone men/children/civilization). THE LIES YOU LIKE AND RELY ON ARE KNOWN FOR THE BULLS**t THEY ARE, HERE IN THE MANOSPHERE. FYI, this is a manosphere site, where feminists show up only to either be humiliated (for being in gross lack of facts, logic, virtue, sense, and smarts), or to learn something of the truth. Pick one choice; there aren’t any others.

  72. TMJ says:

    Luke, your comments stand alone in explaining why men are divorced by women. “this is a manosphere site, where feminists show up only to either be humiliated (for being in gross lack of facts, logic, virtue, sense, and smarts)” If men really want things to change, these types of attitudes are not helpful.
    Not sure if you claim to be a christian but if you are I suggest you and many other men go back and study our Savior and his treatment of women. You will quickly see you are not in alignment with his words. Christ was all about love, humility, meekness, sacrifice and serving others. If husbands truly modeled His selfless behavior few women would leave their marriages.
    Many men want all of the perceived privileges of marriage but don’t want to make the sacrifices that come with it.
    Do you understand what leading like Christ did truly means? It isn’t about privilege or receiving it is about serving and giving. Christ gave even when he did not receive. He gave even when reviled and spat upon. Many husbands are quick to claim their right to lead but forget about their obligation to sacrifice. They don’t actually understanding what biblical leadership means. Biblical servant leaders are to put the needs and best interest of those(especially their wife) who they are leading ahead of their own needs and interest. They are to die to self interest. If more husbands understood this there would be fewer divorces. Most husbands who truly understand the type of leadership God calls them to have long lasting lifelong marriages.The problem is many are selfish and see leadership as a means to get what they want out of it and not an opportunity to serve.

  73. faxevaxhiz says:

    interesting article! And I was married at 18 and 5 years later I must say I’m a lot happier than pretty much every married person I know… regardless of their age. BUT marriage is HARD WORK. We are constantly talking and growing together the most important thing about marriage is staying in contact with each other and not losing yourself!!! And to whoever said that if someone was happily married they wouldn’t be reading this… that makes absolutely no sense… why would someone not be READING cuz they are happily married.. I don’t even see the correlation. anyway, in this day and age, I agree that most young marriages are doomed… but so are older marriages. people are selfish and bullheaded and down right retarded. they are unwilling to care for another person, therefore their marriage ends up in the dump. You cant expect individuals that are unable to be compassionate and humble to commit to another individual for a lifetime… its just not going to happen.. Our culture, especially in America, often makes a huge deal about the importance of working on yourself and doing things for YOURSELF instead of reaching out to others and being a GOOD person so yes every marriage can be awful and it really does require two grown ups to be the participants or it will never ever be a happy or long lived marriage!

  74. Dissapointed says:

    I support anyone who stands up for what they believe, however, I specifically dislike the following quote.
    “Women who have become established and independent find it harder to accept their husband as the leader of the family. If they don’t see him as leading them, they are very likely to experience lessened sexual attraction and romantic love for him and become unhappy with their marriage.”
    Not all men are necessarily leaders, and to assume that a relationship between a man and a woman can only succeed if the woman accepts the man as her ‘leader’ is completely unjustified. The power in a family should be shared between the couple. If two people cannot manage this, they need to rethink marriage.

  75. Pingback: 5 Things Us Young Parents Would Like To Stop Hearing About Not Being Married |

  76. Laura says:


    I’m surprised that your list of possible risk factors for young marriages didn’t include the likelihood that the two youngest categories, especially the under 18s, are likely to be shotgun weddings.

    The two youngest age groups would also include a lot of young women who are being pushed out of an unhappy home situation, but lack the “moxie” or life skills to become self-supporting, and don’t have the drive or brains to go to college full time (and find a “home” in a dormitory.). The unhappy home situations would include foster children aging out of foster care, teens who don’t get along with their mother’s paramour/husband, teens being supported by a grandparent who dies or becomes incapacitated, etc. A huge percentage of kids are illegitimate or are being raised by a single parent. These families are VERY fragile, and when they crumble, the teenage girls may try to find security by marrying very young to a husband of convenience.

  77. Pingback: Stats The best age to get married if… | Honor Dads

  78. TellingTheTruth says:

    Most women that cause divorce are the biggest cheaters of them all, especially the ones that are now very independent with their very high salaries.

  79. Sam Cru says:

    Divorce should be illegal.

Comments are closed.