Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#81

Post by danbolt »

monksy wrote: post #75
danbolt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly true about traditional roles, but I think they ultimately do a disservice to people that don't feel comfortable with them. It strikes me as an unnecessary restriction, and I'm optimistic that people can be socially and emotionally responsible without having to follow a script they don't like, although I'll admit it might take some more existential grit and communication.

I used to agree with you. However, I don't anymore. I think they're better if they're understood about what is expected on each side, and negotiation is based off of each exception. Completely ignoring them and making up things as you go along leads you to have the same issues before that the roles solved.

Right. If you run on assumptions with what you think is true, or that you just assume you both don't need to communicate, then things will probably be really toxic! That's not really what I hoped to express though. Or, I don't mean to say that we can ignore responsibility and just "do what feels good" until it doesn't.

Would it be possible to discuss or figure out what's expected on each side without using existing gender roles? I don't think it's an excuse to be neglectful, but I feel like putting people into boxes by default so you have to do less emotional legwork seems a bit dogmatic. I can imagine a lot of same-sex couples have to define their relationships without existing guides, and I wish that was more of the norm for the rest of us.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#82

Post by tptacek »

monksy wrote: post #77
tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful. There aren't a lot of longstanding systemic injustices you can't defend with the argument "at least everyone knew what was expected of them." Women choosing to function in their "traditional" marital roles isn't inherently unjust, but women being in any way pressured to give up self-actualization (through career, personal freedom, &c) in the service of those "traditional" roles sure is.

I'm in no way defending anything who requires people to accept particular roles. Have respect for all roles. (Right now the traditional roles, and the people who choose them, are being aggressively being bashed) My point is that traditional gender roles solved a lot of problems and attempting to just cherry pick what you want (just because you want that) or to expect different behavior has lead to many bad/toxic rela…

The change that occurred was a reduction in pressure and coercion for women to accept "traditional" roles. I think we can be confident that reducing that pressure is a positive step.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#83

Post by gnicholas »

creepydata wrote: post #30

I don't get it. The title of the article is "To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line," but there's absolutely nothing in it that supports the title. All it is is about an unmarried woman whose been in a relationship for only 3 years saying a scheduled conversations and paper an pen (or keyboard in this case) helps her have relationship communication. The title should really be "communication is helpful for my new re…

Precisely. I kept waiting for a paragraph beginning: "and now, ten years into our marriage..."

But it never came, since this couple isn't married and hasn't even been dating that long. Clickbait titles like this are common on the internet, but I expect better from the New York Times. This article is bereft of anything remotely newsworthy. Perhaps their new slogan should be "All the news that's fit to print, plus some vapid millennial musings".

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#84

Post by pmarreck »

antisthenes wrote: post #79
pmarreck wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Double that probability if you are ever diagnosed with ADHD. (I was.) You're right, though; there are a LOT of positive and negative correlations you can find on this stuff if you do your homework (which I did). Caucasians seem to have more stable marriages than non-caucasians, for example. And marrying later boosts the probability of success by quite a bit. Also, by the time you reach 45 years of age, you're no long…

> Double that probability if you are ever diagnosed with ADHD. (I was.) What's the story behind this?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/may-i-have-your-attenti...

"The impact of adult ADHD on marriages can be terrible for couples with one or more partners with ADHD. Research suggests that the marital “maladjustment” rate may be close to 60%. Statistics on the divorce rate for those with ADHD vary, seemingly depending upon the age of the respondents in the study. Studies with younger respondents don’t show statistical differences in divorce rates, while studies with older respondents show an almost doubled rate of divorce." (I almost definitely fall under the "older" category.)

I told you guys, I did my homework here.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#85

Post by pmarreck »

creepydata wrote: post #80
pmarreck wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If current trends continue, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never involve a divorce, according to data from Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist (who also contributes to The Upshot). "Nearly two-thirds" is, let's say, 60% success rate. Which means 40% failure rate. Which is exactly in the middle of the 30-50% window I mentioned (the fact that it's a window speaks to the effect that all these other…

Read the second paragraph "That's for the general population. As mentioned above certain populations (college educated, older, high income) are much less likely to get divorced." Like by a lot! I assume if you are on hacker news you are at least two of the three. But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition. (I married so…

> But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition.

And people who don't eschew marriage ostensibly because they are ideal non-eschewing candidates still experience a prreeetty significant failure rate, despite apparently never imagining the possibility at inception.

You know who has a 0% divorce rate? People who eschew marriage. Exactly by definition.

To quote WarGames, "The only winning move is not to play."

You're defending driving a car with a 30% serious-accident rate while I choose to bike... Think about it.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#86

Post by zzalpha »

pmarreck wrote: post #85
creepydata wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the second paragraph "That's for the general population. As mentioned above certain populations (college educated, older, high income) are much less likely to get divorced." Like by a lot! I assume if you are on hacker news you are at least two of the three. But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition. (I married so…

> But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition. And people who don't eschew marriage ostensibly because they are ideal non-eschewing candidates still experience a prreeetty significant failure rate, despite apparently never imagining the possibility at inception. You know who has a 0% divorce rate? People who eschew marri…

Why do you keep persisting in quoting that 30% number when it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be misleading?

You don't need to rationalize your choices with bad statistics, or worse, by deriding those who choose to make a different choice.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#87

Post by louithethrid »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #10

If it works for them, more power to them! And as they say, there's someone out there for everyone. I personally react poorly to the idea that I--along with my relationships--am this computer that must be programmed by my intellectual self. I connect this with the overall trend of lifehacking. That said, I still learn from people who take such an explicit approach, and just try to find more organic ways to apply some…

>There's someone out there for everyone.

Sorry, wrong.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#88

Post by pmarreck »

zzalpha wrote: post #86
pmarreck wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, yes, people who eschew marriage specifically to make breaking up easy are bad candidates for a successful marriage, almost by definition. And people who don't eschew marriage ostensibly because they are ideal non-eschewing candidates still experience a prreeetty significant failure rate, despite apparently never imagining the possibility at inception. You know who has a 0% divorce rate? People who eschew marri…

Why do you keep persisting in quoting that 30% number when it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be misleading? You don't need to rationalize your choices with bad statistics, or worse, by deriding those who choose to make a different choice.

It's not misleading. It's undetailed/undecomposed.

Which is to say, yes, there are some people for which it is on the high end, and other people for which it is on the low end.

But the best evidence I've seen puts the bell-curve window at 30-50%. When you wish to talk about the institution in generalities, you cannot help but describe it according to all its participants. I'm talking about marriage, not white college-educated late marriage or third marriage or single-parent prior to marriage. You would be arguably somewhat correct in attacking generalities (in general). It's debatable. But that is the bound of what we are discussing.

In my case, the stats don't look great. If we take the best possible chance of divorce of 10% (and that is being really optimistic) and double that for an ADHD diagnosis (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/may-i-have-your-attenti...) we get 20%. I would not drive a car with a 20% chance of a serious accident, therefore I opt out of a 20% chance to contribute to a $50 billion dollar divorce industry and losing half (or more) of the net worth I have worked hard to accrue in a legal system that is biased against me.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#89

Post by creepydata »

gnicholas wrote: post #83
creepydata wrote: post #30

I don't get it. The title of the article is "To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line," but there's absolutely nothing in it that supports the title. All it is is about an unmarried woman whose been in a relationship for only 3 years saying a scheduled conversations and paper an pen (or keyboard in this case) helps her have relationship communication. The title should really be "communication is helpful for my new re…

Precisely. I kept waiting for a paragraph beginning: "and now, ten years into our marriage..." But it never came, since this couple isn't married and hasn't even been dating that long. Clickbait titles like this are common on the internet, but I expect better from the New York Times. This article is bereft of anything remotely newsworthy. Perhaps their new slogan should be "All the news that's fit to print, plus some…

Not even are they not married they seem to have a commitment phobia.

Re: To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line

#90

Post by creepydata »

pmarreck wrote: post #71
creepydata wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what jurisdiction is this? How do you enter such a relationship? How does dissolution work in such a relationship? What sort of "cruft" does marriage have that a "domestic partnership" lack? Also does this "legal arrangement" carry over to other jurisdictions? And assuming we are talking about the US isn't "mutual health coverage" decided by the employer or plan administrator? I know Tricare does not allow sponsor…

> In what jurisdiction is this? I live in NY, USA, I don't know about other areas. I did find this while googling the Tricare thing: "The military does not recognize Common Law marriages or domestic partners unless they are legally married." I don't know if this applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex partners, though, but being a US vet of 4 years in the USAF, I'm not terribly surprised if that's true, although…

I'm not sure what the history of marriage has to do with civil marriage today, it's irrelevant.

You can say the same thing about relationships in general, why date someone if there's a very good you'd break up (most relationships are unsuccessful)? Why be friends with anyone when everyone will eventually die? Why get a dog when there's a 99.9% they will die before you? Why start a business when most fail? See how stupid that sounds? If we don't take risks we never get rewards.

What makes you think divorce requires lawyers? It doesn't unless the two parties can't agree. Seriously, my husband didn't have a lawyer for his divorce and neither did his ex wife. His divorce was a fill-in-the-blanks piece of paper. It was just as simple as can be, the only difference was the 7 Month waiting period. Literally, fill out a 2 page paper, judge signs off on it.

If "domestic partner" and you don't agree on your separation lawyers will have to be involved anyways. Happened to a friend of mine. Not being married didn't keep him out of court when him and his ex girlfriend didn't agree on child support and division of property. Buy a house with your girlfriend and you break up and can't agree on what to do with the house? Court. Have kids together and can't agree on custody? Court.

Medical coverage is irrelevant because employees and plan organizers decide on who their plan covers. Medical decisions can be accomplished with a living will and medical directive. Your "domestic partnership" isn't going to work outside of your city and you could get injured while travelling so you're going to need those anyways. You still need a will for inheritance... So I don't see a single benefit.

After gay marriage was legalized in all states there's exactly a -ZERO- percentage probability that the military is going to start enrolling non spouses. Guaranteed. The military is not in the business of providing benefits to people who are not even trustworthy enough to make their relationship legal.

I totally understand why someone would not want to get married. I can't understand why someone would want a fake "marriage."... but whatever.

Windsor vs the United States was based on inheritance taxes

Post reply on HN