No, we lose our ability to pair bond. Science is correct. We also assimilate the genetic traits of those whom we have unprotected sex with.
Also, we get stretched out and remember being stretched out so we'll compare you to that and if you don't like being compared to all the strange dick, you're just "insecure."
Science isn't a unified concept that can be assessed as true or false in its entirety. That's like saying "Television is correct", there's too many facets to make a blanket statement like that sensible. I'm not familiar with any claim that people lose the ability to pair bond, please point me to the literature.
As for stretching out, I've never had a partner that I didn't accidentally tear at some point, and I once dated a girl that had 15 prior partners and enjoyed fisting. Given that I'm an inch below average, seems like vaginas are ridiculously elastic. If you don't like being compared to other folks, ya, that's insecurity by definition.
Introducing a concept and then claiming that not being alright with the introduced, completely alien concept than anethema to the original concept, if you then call that "insecurity" you are incredibly intellectually dishonest, which you and all pro-women's sexuality people are.
Where in my statement did I throw science "out the window"? XD Considering I'm a scientist by trade, I'm preeeeeeeeeeeetty sure that's not at all what I said. I'm pointing out that "Science" encompasses a large number of practices including physics and phrenology. Physics is legit, phrenology is not, so to deem the object "Science" as "correct" speaks to a misunderstanding of what science is.
You also seem to be confused about my claim "that's insecurity by definition." A definition of insecurity "is uncertainty or anxiety about oneself; lack of confidence". If you are worried about a comparison between yourself and anyone else, how is that not "uncertainty or anxiety about oneself"?
A google search for the idiom "science goes out the window" only retrieves the idiom "goes out the window". Seems an awful lot like in this case science is the object of that idiom.
No, but if I told you "you just told me veterinarians are wrong", you might want to mention how ridiculous that would sound given that you were a veterinarian.
Well considering that the evidence says that if a woman that has fucked 4 people has a .93% better chance of not being depressed if she fucks a fifth person, but a 1.05% greater chance of being depressed if she fucks 2 more, I'm not 100% sure a sensible conclusion is "More partners means this person will bring me unhappiness." Fucking a lot of different partners shows you're good at breaking up and good at starting again. If they dig it, why would we be surprised they're unhappy in a marriage, or that they'd strive to maintain a marriage?
I doubt those differences are statistically significant. The main two dips are from 0 to 1 partners and from 1 to two, after which an increase doesn't become as significant anymore. The point is not that a woman who has had 4 partners is any worse than a woman who had 4. The point is that they are both worthless marriage material. If you want a stable marriage, then you should get either a virgin or at the very least someone who only had one partner.
If they dig it, why would we be surprised they're unhappy in a marriage, or that they'd strive to maintain a marriage?
Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either.
"Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either." Oh that's a strong empirically verifiable claim. Got any evidence of that? 'cuz this article compiles evidence from peer-reviewed articles and it doesn't seem to come to such a strong conclusion https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201701/is-it-true-single-women-and-married-men-do-best
As for "worthless marriage material", considering that roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce, having 40% chance of not getting divorced doesn't seem like bad odds. Certainly not "worthless", any more than a guy who hasn't established his ability to please a loving partner is "worthless".
Ya, considering that 50% is ceiling, you're 80% as likely to have a happy marriage as someone that married a virgin (assuming a world in which these statistics rather than individual variation and situation are causal).
Oh that's a strong empirically verifiable claim. Got any evidence of that?
It's in the OP...
As for "worthless marriage material", considering that roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce
This is an example of your expectations being so horribly low that you actually think 50% divorce rate is 'normal', when it is actually a sign that marriage itself is in decay. Divorce rates were considerably lower prior to the 60's (when sexual liberation really kicked off), only really spiking due to world war 2. You can't really "share a life" with someone who already shared it with countless others, especially in the knowledge that the chance your marriage will die is greater than the chance it will last.
"It's in the OP": sure, which one of those charts says anything about "Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either". 'cuz that doesn't seem to be the title of any of these charts.
Who said anything about the normalcy? I just said that's what the divorce rates are. Weird un-cited history lesson bro, not sure how people not getting divorced prior to a reform of divorce law in the US
has to do with "normalcy", but I'm like 99% sure we no longer live in a time period prior to the 60's. Considering the spike in divorces post reform, I kind of get the impression that a lot of folks wanted divorces but could not get them. All that aside though I'm like 99% sure we live in the post-60's era with high cancer survival rates, non-digitized reference systems, and easily accessed resources to get out of toxic relationships. So again, not 100% sure where your tangent came from or what it was hoping to show.
Also what do you mean by "share a life"? I'm not familiar with any sense in which "sharing a life" precludes people who have had partners before. I have friends that had friends before, I'm still glad to "share my life" with them and they're happy to share their life with me.
which one of those charts says anything about "Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either"
Is that true? I don't see any chart there titled "Happiness before and after divorce". I do see this study that seems to show that women are sadder after marriage and happier after a divorce tho https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/58972/1/715785044.pdf
Oh I see, that's why he mentioned "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either". Because he wasn't actually talking about people being liberated from marriage through divorce, he was talking about a generalized concept that is somehow entirely different from the actual act of liberating oneself from marriage. Oh wait no, that's an insane disregard for what was actually written.
As for your insistence that what seem to be your delusions are actually meaningful statements, you're gonna need a bit more than a conjecture that I'm not on the right track to establish that. Oh I 'unno, maybe try demonstrating the difference between what I'm talking about, and what you think we're talking about here. Or hell, even any mention of what you think we're talking about would help move this convo along. Asking me to follow you on a vague direction towards a slippery slope about how "these [unspecified by you] acts [operate] on a net and societal level" is kind of meaningless as we clearly have very different ideas of how people operate. And somehow I'd figure that empirical data derived from over a thousand individuals is more guiding to conclusions on the "net and societal level" impacts than what ever anyone just "Think[ing] about these acts" can muster.
being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either
Show me that the advent of no fault divorce has had a positive influence on women's health on a societal level. What I see over time is that the rate at which women use anti-depressants skyrockets. While that isn't conclusive, it throws a wrench in your side of the argument.
As for the second paragraph, please don't complain about my vagueness while writing a paragraph that is entirely fluff.
I'm not the one making the claim that it had an impact on "societal level". You are, so burden of proof is on you pal. I also don't see any mention of "society" or large scale social effects stemming from divorce from either me or the guy I was arguing with. I see he mention how history has effected divorce (without providing evidence), but nothing that has to do with divorce effecting society.
I showed individual women report being happier post marriage and that only happy marriages improve women's health. The first mention of how that effected society was you. If you want to make that claim, you gotta show us some evidence bub.
And while you're at it, show us a study on promiscuity and "strength of a society" (LOL) from anytime in the last 10 years.
"As for the second paragraph, please don't complain about my vagueness while writing a paragraph that is entirely fluff." He said fluffily, without a single citation to his name.
I see he mentioned how history has effected divorce (without providing evidence),
Do you contest that the rate at which women have been taking anti-depressants has skyrocketed in the past few years?
I showed individual women report being happier post marriage
For how long? If it was the case that an increase in divorce and promiscuity had a positive effect, then it wouldn't correlate negatively with the generative capabilities of a society. Clearly, the scope of your study simply isn't large enough.
from anytime in the last 10 years.
Oh christ, you're one of these reddit intellectuals. This conversation is over, unless you can learn to argue honestly.
Well what do you know, you cited a book from 1934, with only roughly 84 years of methodological revision in sociology between us and it's conclusions. Just a bit larger than the difference of 10 years I asked for and from the time that brought us the idea that we'd be living in flying cars on the moon by now. Ah yes, nothing like a Tuskeegee experiments-era sociological analysis to base my worldviews on XD Does it prescribe more vim for my social vigor? XD Maybe there's a reason you can't find this conclusion discussed in any peer reviewed journals as of recent? I mean, you similarly don't see much discussion of "Luminiferous aether" or "the four humours" these days either XD
As for anti-depressants consumption increasing across time? No, I agree the amount consumed has increased, in proportion to the increase in access and availability. If it was associated with the institution of marriage, why was there a 65% increase in the last 15 years? I'm not familiar with changes to marriage during that time. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624
As for your "How long are they happier for" question, misquoting me aside, it's right there in the charts at the end. 5 years was as long as they were tracked after that life event, so they were happier all the way up till the end of the study. Beyond, we don't have data for that. I also don't see anything that says "divorce correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society." Where did you get that one from? If it's in the book, you'll need to point to a page 'cuz Ctrl-F didn't bring that one up.
As for being "one of these reddit intellectuals", do you mean anyone with a decent understanding of methodological evolution in the sciences?
why was there a 65% increase in the last 15 years? I'm not familiar with changes to marriage during that time.
Dunno, hence why I said it's not conclusive for my side, just that it throws a wrench in yours.
I also don't see anything that says "divorce correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society."
Naturally, the degree to which you are allowed to divorce is tied to the restraint a society places on sexuality. You'll have to forgive me for not citing quotations, it's been 3 years since I read it.
do you mean anyone with a decent understanding of methodological evolution in the sciences?
No, I mean people that throw basic logic to the wayside when it contradicts their ideology.
Does it throw a wrench in my side? Antidepressants correlating with factors other than marriage really seems to be inconsequential to my arguments, despite your insistence.
Saying it's "naturally associated" is a great way to say "I don't actually have evidence here, but you'd figure, right?" "Divorce correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society" does not naturally follow from "Promiscuity correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society", as a society that never or rarely marries will attest. You might wanna brush up on your only source of evidence so far. Generally it's a good idea to make sure the thing you're standing on is indeed solid.
It literally doesn't. I'm sorry, but this is the most basic shit. This isn't something you argue about, you're analytically incorrect.
Antidepressants correlating with factors other than marriage really seems to be inconsequential to my arguments
It clearly is relavant, but you do you sweetie.
Saying it's "naturally associated" is a great way to say "I don't actually have evidence here, but you'd figure, right?"
If you don't believing me on me stating that sexual restraint correlates with the cultural condition of a society then we're going to have to sit through a 700 page study. We're not going to do that, so I think this discussion is over.
Oh, do you have a peer reviewed article that explains why old research is likely to be just as valid now as it was then? Because the article I linked explained how without a solid community involving a lot of reproduction and review, as well as an active management of the constructs explored by the field, isn't likely to produce a valid finding. Given that those resources are all developed across time, there's good reason to assume older research is not as valid as new research.
How is "an increase in antidepressant usage is driven by access and availability" consequential to "divorce has been shown to improve women's happiness"? Please, I'm all ears on this one XD
As for "don't believing (sic) [you] on [you] stating that sexual restraint correlates with the cultural condition of a society", that's clearly distinct from what I said in the sentence. I clearly pointed out that your desire to use promiscuity and divorce interchangeably was based on tenuous reasoning that was not likely found in your 700 page non-peer-reviewed tome. Again, you can Ctrl-F for divorce in your pdf and let me know what you find, unless you wanna keep stomping your foot and crying that you must be right XD
"Societies that don't marry are not sexually restrained." Ah perfect, you almost got the analogy! If a society never divorces (0 divorces) and is sexually promiscuous, AND we believe your ridiculous claim that a more promiscuous society is less generative, they would be a perfect example of a case where the number of divorces (0) is not negatively correlated with "generativity".
Oh, do you have a peer reviewed article that explains why old research is likely to be just as valid now as it was then?
Do you understand what I mean by analytically? Are you going to ask me for a source to prove to you that bachelors aren't married?
Please, I'm all ears on this one XD
Because there's no reason to believe it's only a result of access.
promiscuity and divorce interchangeably
Because they obviously are. Holy fuck. I haven't actually laughed in a while, thanks mate.
If a society never divorces (0 divorces) and is sexually promiscuous, AND we believe your ridiculous claim that a more promiscuous society is less generative, they would be a perfect example of a case where the number of divorces (0) is not negatively correlated with "generativity".
Christ. This is hurting me. I hope this will be my last reply on the topic.
The study looks at the fall of cultures in relation to them becoming more promiscuous, and the fact that it notes ABSOLUTE monogamy as necessary. Do I need to explain what that means to you or do you get it? Do you get what that means in relation to divorce?
Oh, your claim that I was "analytically incorrect" was in response to my "Yes it does [ especially if it lacks peer review, replication, or a history of peer reviewed and replicated findings to base it's work on, then the age of a publication is a relevant basis to question it on.]." Not on whether or not bachelors are more promiscuous. You just made that topic up.
As for antidepressant use not being "only a result of access", that's not my claim or the claim of researchers on the subject. As I stated before it's that availability and access appear to account for the majority of variation in antidepressant usage. No one's claiming "only", just that there's empirical evidence for the social-level "availability and access" story, such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=clinician-identified+depression+in+community+settings
I'm not familiar with any empirical evidence for the social-level "increased promiscuity and anti-depressant usage" story. The closest I see is "Depression is associated with anti-depressive use and divorce", and for women it anti-depressant usage goes down after divorce https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-015-1508-9
As for your last question, yes.
1. Divorce is the legal annulment of a monogamous relationship.
2. In the absence of marriage, there can be no legal divorce.
3. If, as you claim, a maximally promiscuous society does not have marriage, then there can be no divorce in a maximally promiscuous society.
4. And if, as you claim, a maximally promiscuous society is the most "non-generative",
then it follows that a society without divorce or the possibility of divorce is the most "non-generative". Really feels like you might not have wanted to introduce the idea of someone being "analytically incorrect" XD
But yeah, go ahead and let me know what some guy in 1934 thought "Absolute monogamy" should be defined as, 'cuz it sure seems like the dictionaries and encyclopedias I frequent don't have a definition for that. Also would love to hear the story of how DJ Unwin verified that a culture had "absolute monogamy" in 1934 XD
Women stating that they are happier after divorce does not necessarily mean that it positively affects them in the long term. To compare, I would probably feel elated after killing a human being thanks to the adrenaline, but after that immediate event it would probably fuck me up real bad.
In order for me to form a more conclusive opinion on divorces effect on happiness (which I do not personally weigh as a particularly valuable tool for judging the worth of an action, but I digress) I'd have to see a study along the lines of
"rates of depression amongst women above the age of 40 who have or have not experienced divorce"
It says that at best they have a covarying relationship, at worst it's a spurious observation, and in the middle that there's a mutual co-variate for all of them. Shark attacks and ice-cream sales correlate after all, with no implication of a direct relationship between them.
It's also funny how you question the causality of the conclusions here, but not the causality of conclusions from a sociological review performed 84 years ago and published in a non-peer reviewed journal. Or a set of correlative charts, like the one shown in the OP.
As for the lasting effects of divorce on happiness, you asked for a long term conclusion, they showed a long term conclusion. Just as anyone who asks "what do you plan to do in 5 years" is asking about your long term plans. Can you find research that covers a longer term with opposite conclusions?
's also funny how you question the causality of the conclusions here, but not the causality of (...)
Of course I consider that they are not necessarily causative, this is fucking statistics 101. Again, I'm trying to be nicer here, but everybody fucking knows this shit, you're not special for throwing out the line "correlation does not equal causation". I know, I considered it, thank you.
they showed a long term conclusion.
Your study shows that they return to ""wellbeing" baseline". For fucks sake, I need something a bit more conclusive than that. And again, consider the fact that the relationship is shit because divorce is accepted and imminent. This is very well possible. Of course we don't know for sure till we force people not to get divorced tbh.
But as I said in the other comment, I don't really know what the fuck we're arguing about.
Oh yeah and obviously in terms of happiness and health, look at OP again. Promiscuous = less happy, more depressed, more diseased, more likely to get divorced.
Sure, if all of health is summed up as "does or does not have an STD ranging from herpes to HIV" with no mention of length of life, lifetime history of chronic illnesses, or number of sired grandchildren. I'll give you the "promiscuity and health as represented only by the things we're exposed to via sex" association.
Still not seeing the divorced and happiness chart, or anything related to "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either" in the OP though.
Apparently rates of depression have nothing to do with health. Holy fuck dude. BYE BYE.
Still not seeing the divorced and happiness chart, or anything related to "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either" in the OP though.
See my other comment. If prevalence of divorce has a long term positive effect on women's mental health, then why is the restraint placed on sex correlated with the generativeness (for lack of a better word) of a society.
You mean the rates of depression that increase by 4% if you go from 0 to 21+ sexual partners? Gee, what a crippling life event being promiscuous is.
As for your other comment, sex and marriage are interchangeable terms? Might want to inform everyone that's having pre-marital sex not to worry then XD
First question, not necessarily by any measure. Extramarital affairs and open relationships attest to this.
As for your second question, you can literally scroll up in the topic and review the conversation so far. Not sure how you get lost in a fully documented conversation, but to summarize: you were under the impression we were arguing about social strength as it relates to divorce, despite you being the first person to introduce the topic of social strength and your reliance on the findings of an 84 year old, non-peer reviewed book that's only been sited 101 times by no one replicating or testing the findings.
Extramarital affairs and open relationships attest to this.
If your society accepts these things, it's not very sexually restrained, now is it? Again, how do you not inherently understand these concepts?
we were arguing about social strength as it relates to divorce
Which is just a meant to point out that divorce doesn't seem to be a net positive, in terms of effect on society, which was just one point of the original discussion, which seems to have already been concluded anyways, so what the fuck are we still talking for?
Their existence demonstrates that you can be married and be promiscuous, or divorced and promiscuous. I showed, and now you've shown, that divorce and promiscuity are not interchangeable concepts. Not sure what you're missing here pal XD
As for your second point: no actually, "divorce doesn't seem to be a net positive, in terms of effect on society" was not a part of the original discussion. It wasn't even a topic until you jumped in and dusted off a forgotten and un-reviewed tome of some sociologist with a hard-on for marriage. A tome you admittedly only have a passing familiarity with. The question, again as can be seen by anyone who scrolls up, was is it true that "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either"?
Among the English, in spite of a consistent outcry by an excited minority,
divorce by mutual consent was not in operation; a semblance of the
Catholic tradition which the Protestant and Nonconformist English had
inherited prevented its legal enactment. If, however, the contracting
parties to an English marriage were rich, they could secure, in the twentieth
century, a divorce as and when they wished, by arranging to break the
letter of the existing law.
With these two exceptions the same changes were made successively
by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and
Protestant English. These societies lived in different geographical environments;
they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of
their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the
same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took
place ; the same sentiments were expressed ; the same changes were made
;
the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to
a minimum and, displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then
it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away.
Is this supposed to be a quote our boy DJ? Online plagiarism checkers say that's not from any source known to them, and you've provided zero context indicating that this isn't your own "just-so story."
Yeah, read it cover to cover and still can't find the page that says what you claim it says. Again, age seems to be a factor here.
Note the study where I show that actually asking the question "does divorce make women happier" shows that they get happier after divorce. Not sure why you think making a conjecture based off of three correlation charts from the same study, none of which breech the topic of "Happiness before and after a divorce", is a better basis for evidence on how the world works XD
Don't feel like making three separate replies. Point is, if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people, then it's clear that divorce is not healthy. Likewise, if you believe that the privileges of civilization are healthier than those of barbarism, divorce is unhealthy. That's why I brought my study up.
Yes, that was a direct quote from Sex and Culture. As I was saying, divorce marks a decrease in sexual restraint. That's the point. Your dishonest argument about how tribal cultures that don't have marriage are worse is simply not relevant.
Oh, has life expectancy and access to new medical treatments gone down after we instituted widespread access to divorce? 'cuz last time I checked it's only increased since 1965. If divorce is that bad for our culture, and the health of a culture is based on the health of the individuals, why are individuals still living longer, healthier lives as a whole?
I'm also familiar with many, many modern cultures that allow divorce, and not many "barbarous" ones that do. In fact, as wikipedia points out, the only places in the modern world where divorce is outright illegal are the Philippines and Vatican city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_by_country
In what ways are these two countries "healthier" than the ones that do allow divorce? I'm not familiar with any assessments that place either of these two countries at the pinnacle of cultural achievement, either. Your entire basis for believing that divorce is a great evil seems to hinge on an adherence to research performed in 1934 that is so obscure even modern plagiarism software can't detect it. Not only that, but it is evidently outdated if it was citing any extant culture without access to divorce as an example of health, given that ALL BUT TWO OF THEM HAVE CEASED TO EXIST.
As for your hilarious mis-attribution and clear misunderstanding of my prior statements , I'll just point out that anyone who wants to Ctrl-F for "tribal" in my prior messages will note that I've never said anything like that, and that the person I'm arguing with is unscrupulous enough to pretend like I did while in the same sentence calling me dishonest XD
If divorce is that bad for our culture, and the health of a culture is based on the health of the individuals, why are individuals still living longer, healthier lives as a whole?
Is this a joke, or is english not your first language?
I'm also familiar with many, many modern cultures that allow divorce
Congrats, these cultures are dead.
In what ways are these two countries "healthier" than the ones that do allow divorce?
Read Fate of Empires as a basic primer. Your worldview is insanely shallow, you can't see a foot in front of your face.
who wants to Ctrl-F for "tribal" in my prior messages will note that I've never said anything like that
Oh buddy, asking about my English skills after you've JUST demonstrated your reading comprehension is questionable? Now that's some grade A comedy right there XD Never a good plan to start throwing bricks after you've moved into your glass house XDD
Here, let me break it down slower for you:
1. "If divorce is that bad for our culture", remember, you've claimed that divorce is a significant problem for the health of a culture.
"and the health of a culture is based on the health of the individuals". Did you forget your conjecture literally ONE POST ABOVE?: "if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people". That's you saying that, in case you were wondering XDDDDD
I assume English isn't your first language because you seem to be under the impression that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition.
...And that's something only English speakers can think about? XD
Also yes I believe that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition. I'm confused as how it could be anything else, as health is "the state of being free from illness or injury." https://www.google.com/search?q=health+definition You may be under the impression that "mental" is somehow divorced from the "physical", but you would be entirely incorrect in the face of all cognitive and neuro- science. After all, all things we know of and can know of are necessarily physical, so not sure what the alternative of believing "that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition."
Are you saying it's a problem with our "spirit"? Ooo, I'd love to hear this one! What's your favorite spirit-o-meter for measuring the decline of individual health in cultures that allow for divorce? How do you correct for having so few existing cultures that don't allow for divorce?
Oh actually, *"Everybody [except dullsite] knows exactly what people mean when they say mental and physical". FTFY, no need to thank me ;D
'cuz clearly not everyone gets that everything's physical. I mean you evidently didn't. That's why you made the mistake of deriding me for believing "that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition." Because unless you were assuming there was another realm to relegate it to, that statement wouldn't make any sense XD
I mean you could propose a non-physical "Spirit realm", which I assume you're doing. So go on! Tell us your sweet "spirit measuring" trick for figuring out "cultural health"! Or really any sort of measure for "cultural health" that isn't on "matters of direct physical condition" you derided me for focusing on XD
Actually I guessed you'd go into this stupid discussion, I was right. And no you're mental state has clearly deteriorated as this discussion has gone on, and this point I have no clue what you're talking about. As I said, if we assume individual health and the health of a society are connected, then it stands to reason that behaviour that verifiably results in degeneration is not healthy. Though one more time, this point was just tangential to our original discussion, which we already concluded in my favour like a fucking week ago at this point. We're done, man.
As I've pointed out, if you assume individual health and the health of a society are connected, then the widespread health we have now compared to yesteryear suggests that our society is healthier off in our post-legalized divorce world. What have you shown?
Oh yeah, you showed that if "cultural health is evolutionary stability", then both you and DJ Unwin know that "absolute monogamy" is culturally unhealthy. Why do we know that? Because as you've both been so kind to point out, there used to be cultures with "absolute monogamy", and now they're effectively extinct. Thanks! XD The part I don't get is you figure any of this is landing in your favor XD
Don't know what leg you think you have left to stand on, but hey, "*your mental state has clearly deteriorated". No worries, I FTFY too! ;D You should also know given the spelling mistake, your mental state has clearly deteriorated XD
if you assume individual health and the health of a society are connected, then the widespread health we have now compared to yesteryear suggests that our society is healthier off in our post-legalized divorce world. What have you shown?
Lifespan increases for the most part linearly with technology, outside of the throes of individual civilizations.
then both you and DJ Unwin know that "absolute monogamy" is culturally unhealthy
Again, are you joking? This isn't the first time monogamy waned, in case you forgot, but it always comes back, because it's beneficial, whereas other practices are less so. So monogamous societies replace those that aren't. Hence, non-monogamous societies are not evolutionarily stable. I don't understand how this simple concept evades you.
Yeah, I'm 100% certain you're the one that said "if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people." I showed that as access to divorce has increased, a metric of health has also increased. You need to show that as access to divorce has increased, some other metric of health that is more important than longevity is going down. Otherwise, divorce and a healthy population clearly go hand in hand.
"Hence, non-monogamous societies are not evolutionarily stable." I'm LOLin' SO hard at this one XDDD. You might want to brush up on "evolutionarily stable", as the near elimination of "no divorce law" from modern society is 100% proof against this claim. Evolutionarily stable requires that competing traits cannot gain significant presence in a trait-pool. Yet the VAST majority of countries have access to divorce. I even included a link for you bub XDDDD
Oh really? Access to divorce hasn't increased across time? Then all the societies that you've pointed to that have divorce currently always had divorce in the past? Or did you just paint yourself into a corner and you're hoping that you luck out and some great "anti-divorce" movement in the future saves your shit poor argument? XDDD
Yeah dude, sexually "unrestrained societies" that allow divorce are evidently not stable, as shown by the near absence of societies that don't allow divorce. Flawless argument brah, you're sure doing JD Unwin a solid here XDDDDDD
Oh lifespan has increased linearly, but divorce hasn't? What peer-reviewed chart are you basing that assumption off of? I've already shown that access to divorce has increased, as all but two countries have divorce law, and as you've pointed out more cultures in the past have denied divorce law than in the modern day. Pretty sure that necessitates an increase bub XD Also not sure what the importance of linear or not is, unless you're somehow convinced that I'm arguing for a causal relationship and you think that causal relationships can only be evidenced by linear relationships. In which case you would be wrong in every way XD
Your actual evidence was that such cultures don't exist in any significant way in the modern world? Wow dude, you really don't have to do all my work for me, but thanks! XDDD
Oh lifespan has increased linearly, but divorce hasn't?
Yes, I've shown you that clearly. I'm assuming the rest of your comment follows this line of ignorance, so I'm not really going to engage with it anymore. Let me know if my assumption was unfounded.
Oh, so now "showing clearly" is the same thing as "I swear some guy found that and hid it somewhere in this book on 'social strength'"? Have you ever passed a single book report? Do you know what it means to "increase linearly", or more importantly the significance of that relationship? 'cuz you're starting to beg A LOT of questions here XD
Pro-tip: linear scaling is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing a causal relationship, and also pro-tip: I'm the one arguing there either isn't a causal relationship between divorce and "cultural health", or it's a positive one. You seem oddly preoccupied with establishing that a measure of individual health isn't tied to access to divorce here. Which is the opposite of what you've been arguing for this whole time you've been saying that "divorce is bad for cultural health". After all, "cultural health" is the aggregate of "individual health", and now you're claiming that in at least this case, divorce is not tied to a measure of individual (and therefore cultural) health. If you're hoping to establish that there isn't a causal link between divorce and length of life by establishing that they don't both "linearly increase", then you seem to have gotten lost and started arguing that divorce ISN'T tied to the only measure of cultural health we've talked about (that wasn't immediately self-defeating to your argument). So thanks? XDDD
As for the rest of your comment: do you think people look smarter, not sad and desperate, when they openly admit to ignoring the content of a counter-argument? 'cuz you seem to be under the impression that me and my friends AREN'T laughing out loud about this. Oh don't worry, we are XD
As for "Western culture is dead" XD Aside from ignoring that divorce is a global phenomenon, so you still haven't accounted for eastern culture (the other half of your false dichotomy), what the fuck do you mean by "dead"? Here's a quick refresher for how the rest of the world considers the term culture https://www.google.com/search?q=culture
Considering countries of the west are still producing, consuming, practicing, and discussing art seems like it's still "alive". Considering countries of the west are still practicing protestant Christianity seems like it's still "alive". Considering countries of the west are still raising armies and practicing rational pursuits such as the sciences and mathematics, it seems like it's still "alive". Hiding away and not experiencing the fruits of a great tree doesn't mean it's dead. It just means you haven't looked out your window recently enough.
Also still that whole "eastern cultures also have divorce and seem as existent as western cultures", soooooo not sure at all how you think your point amounts to a comeback.
Oh, you think that an open global trade network that weathers multiple natural disasters every year yet continues to out-produce itself with regards to more, longer lived lives is on the verge of collapse? Especially given that we produce a greater variety of tools for living in a greater variety of conditions than we have at any other point in human history? Sure, what evidence do you have of that? XDDD
Laughing at your face aside, I have heard that before. From scientists. Talking about carbon emissions from fossil fuels and rare mineral mining. Haven't heard ANYONE somehow attribute that risk to divorce though, and given the impact of industry I'd love to see that argument being made by anyone sane XD I am familiar with proposals for more tools to solve the problems of our old tools, but not anyone doing the research seems to have proposed that the problem is we haven't banned divorce. Maybe because that's insane? XD
Did I forget? No, did you forget? I never claimed to have read it. But sad attempts to avoid the question aside, I wasn't asking what JD Unwin meant by "dead". I'm asking what YOU mean by "dead". If you want to borrow his definition, then borrow it. You're the one insisting that western cultures are dead, and it seems just a touch insane to use a definition of "dead" that includes cultures that are still doing all the things a living culture does XD
I've already noted several pieces of evidence. What do you think is going to happen to countries that amass debt, have aging populations, and no prospects for real growth? You keep trying to shift this discussion to things it isn't about. No thanks.
I'll just bring up my closing point again:
"if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people, then it's clear that divorce is not healthy. Likewise, if you believe that the privileges of civilization are healthier than those of barbarism, divorce is unhealthy."
No, you haven't. Evidence is more than a claim that these things are happening. We know full well that saying "A wolf is eating my sheep" is only a claim, not proof.
Ohhh, so a dead culture is one that is not "Evolutionarily stable", I see. According to wikipedia, "In an evolutionarily stable strategy, if all the members of a population adopt it, no mutant strategy can invade.[4] Once virtually all members of the population use this strategy, there is no 'rational' alternative. ESS is part of classical game theory."
Sorry bub, if we're using evolutionary stability as a measure of "alive" or "dead", then given that the VAST majority of countries allow for divorce and folks don't seem to be trying to undo that in any large way, it really seems like the evidence is that not having divorce is the "dead" trait.
Yeah, see the "state of divorce law all around the modern world, and lack of legislation or even major protests for restrictions" XD
"Divorce is bad for cultural health. Cultural health is about evolutionary stability. Evolutionary stability is evidenced by whether or not a trait sticks around. DJ Unwin showed that ancient cultures went from no divorce to legalizing divorce. By the 21st century, no cultures with illegal divorce have lasted except the Philippines and Vatican City. Therefore, ignoring absolutely everything I've said up until this point: Divorce is bad for cultural health" <-That's all I found above, is that what you were pointing me to? XD
Again, you have no vision. You'd be the Roman in his villa stating it's absurd to think the empire could ever collapse, when you have access to so much wine. Dangerous demographic shifts, political strife, strained economies, none of it matters, because we exist right in this instant, so we will always exist.
No, the current human in me says "Man things sure have improved even after Rome and countless other civilizations have fallen. Also aren't you glad we survived 2000/2012/2015 and the hundreds of other apocalyptic predictions since we started writing these things down? We could probably do more with improving natural resource access though, and we should aim to get off this rock to increase the chances of humanity surviving any planet-wide disaster" XD
Man things sure have improved even after Rome and countless other civilizations have fallen
Yeah, they fell and got replaced by other societies. Did these societies continue the degeneracy of late Rome, or where that any different? Seriously dude, think about this for a second instead of pretending to be retarded to intentionally drag out a discussion that doesn't need to last any longer.
Considering that Rome had divorce laws and we have divorce laws (and we came after Rome), seems like they weren't relevantly different with regards to our discussion on access to divorce. Cute how your argument now hinges on whether or not you're able to see the future XDDD
I don't think this geopolitical climate will exist forever, nor do I think you (as a person who relies on 80+ year old research to guide their decisions) can either see the future with any reasonable clarity, or that there is respectable evidence that divorce is a sign of a dying culture. Especially if the health of a culture is measured by "evolutionary stability", and literally all but two existing cultures allow for divorce XD
Okay, I get it now. The point is that you want less divorce, so the more common it is, the worse the society. I don't think you'll disagree on that. For example, I support divorce in the case of infidelity.
nor do I think you (as a person who relies on 80+ year old research to guide their decisions) can either see the future with any reasonable clarity
Okay, well I've done research into the topic, and you have not. So why keep talking?
Oh, did I say anywhere that I wanted less divorce? No... I clearly haven't said that. Anywhere. Seeing as the entirety of our time arguing I've been arguing that divorce is not a bad thing for society, that seems entirely out of character. Huh, weird. XD It's almost like you're just making shit up in a desperate attempt to look like you have ground to stand on! This is beautiful! XDDD
Love the claim that "I haven't done research into this topic" despite being the only person to include links to modern research in my argument XD Hot dang you just really want to make sure no one misses that you've got neither a valid sense of proof nor solid reading comprehension skills, don't you? XDDD
You're totally going off the deep end, thank you, I am THOROUGHLY entertained. XDDD
If you want more divorce, you're a strange person.
Love the claim that "I haven't done research into this topic"
Are you going to pretend you've ever looked into the topic before?
You're totally going off the deep end, thank you, I am THOROUGHLY entertained. XDDD
Hey, I've been enjoying your posts too. I like practicing against brick walls, but I think honestly you've overstayed your welcome. We've gone over the same point repeatedly, you don't present anything else, so I thin I'm done here.
Are you going to pretend that you've surveyed the field by standing atop two un-celebrated, un-peer reviewed tomes rather than bust open any modern, peer-reviewed journals? LOL XD
Gee, maybe I'm mildly confident about my understanding of anthropology because I spent the last two years doing field work and writing papers with anthropologists, have spent the last 5 years going to talks by the anthropology department, and have one publication that was already reviewed by a team of anthropologists and I'm sitting on another one that's currently in review by the same team. Oh, but do go point to your two favorite books and claim I'm not well versed, I love watching stubborn people flaunt their "education" XDDDD
Are you going to pretend that you've surveyed the field
I have surveyed the field. You have not. Why you keep talking despite this, I'll never know. Well actually, I know it's because you need to get a better hobby.
Gee, maybe I'm mildly confident about my understanding of anthropology because I spent the last two years doing field work and writing papers with anthropologists
Wow, then you'd find it exceptionally easy to post a single shred of evidence refuting me, but for some reason you don't feel like doing that. Oh well.
Oh yeah, your proof of surveying the field is that you can't muster any sources except for two. Clearly you're an anthropology expert here XD
A "single" shred of evidence? Oh you're right that it's too hard. Too hard to pick just one that is! Thanks for the opportunity to rub your face in everything again, you're so kind! XD
Here's a list showing that both you and JD Unwin were wrong to claim that "non-divorce" is an evolutionarily stable state, given its near absence in the modern world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_by_country
And given your claim that the health of a society is measured as the health of it's citizens, and "Western culture is dying" because of access to divorce, here's evidence that you're just blatantly wrong XD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
It's always so great when folks ask you to literally shit all over their arguments again, for anyone who missed it prior XD Can't wait for the mewling "Waaaaa it's from wikipedia" so I can meet it with "Oh, a source touted as more reliable than encyclopedia britannica by mother fucking journal NATURE, with all claims clearly cited so if you have any complaints about any definition or claim you can trace it back to the journal it was initially published in?" It's god damn hilarious how stereotyped arguing with morons on the net can get XD
What an awesome response, just rife with actual examples rather than a blanket claim containing no substance whatsoever! Oh wait, you've provided none of that while I've included actual quotations to demonstrate your position XD
She'll always be sizing you up to both the average men she's slept with, as well as the top men she sees in porn and sports etc.
It's worth noting that some foids can enjoy sex with a meek, pindicked subhuman. But it's usually a twisted sort of pleasure, one where the woman is constantly reminded that she's an insatiable whore stuck with a less than satisfying deal.
Most women tend to sleep with average looking wimps, it's a compromise they make. Chads are sexually attractive but a little too impractical for the whores, so they'll jerk off to them instead.
The claim that more partners --> more likely to have STDs seems fairly obvious and uncontraversial.
The other claims, that your sexual past leads to poor outcomes in future relationships or the life of the woman aren't supported by these graphs. There's a huge causality problem. I've not had to use statistics outside of a statistical mechanics class and even I know this. I would also throw any publication by any group with "Family" in the name straight in the trash, but that's besides the point.
tbh being an idealist and not being a monist probably makes your more susceptible to posting and agreeing with stuff like this. Start reading philosophy with Parmenides and don't stop until you've finished Marx.
inb4 IT, cuck, cope, etc. Sorry I understand how math works lmao.
Wow incredible, thanks for your great contribution. Nobody else knows this, only you know this. Thank you for teaching what only you knew. Great philosophical genius.
First of all, I think the evidence makes it seem like it is directly causative for point 1 and 2. But even with the causality not considered, from the perspective of a man selecting a wife, it is the smarter choice no matter what to select a virgin.
I am right there with you on the fact that inexperienced women are smarter choices for life partners. I have anecdotal evidence (weak as evidence but still convincing as it's personal experience to me) that my sister married while inexperienced and it still wasn't stable.
Back to your point, I think maybe inferring the inverse was in order when switching the antecedent:
Women who don't have extra-marital relations don't have STDs (OBVIOUS - unless the hubby gave them one)
Women that have stable marriages don't have non-marital partners (SUPER OBVIOUS)
I still stand by my previous statement that I do believe it's a vicious cycle rather than just a one-way statistical correlation.
I think there is actual research to show that the more partners a person has, in general, the less able they are to pair bond. Without seeing how these numbers compare to males, it is pretty hard to draw any gender based conclusions.
I doubt those differences are statistically significant. The main two dips are from 0 to 1 partners and from 1 to two, after which an increase doesn't become as significant anymore. The point is not that a woman who has had 4 partners is any worse than a woman who had 4. The point is that they are both worthless marriage material. If you want a stable marriage, then you should get either a virgin or at the very least someone who only had one partner.
If they dig it, why would we be surprised they're unhappy in a marriage, or that they'd strive to maintain a marriage?
Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either.
No, but if I told you "you just told me veterinarians are wrong", you might want to mention how ridiculous that would sound given that you were a veterinarian.
It says that at best they have a covarying relationship, at worst it's a spurious observation, and in the middle that there's a mutual co-variate for all of them. Shark attacks and ice-cream sales correlate after all, with no implication of a direct relationship between them.
It's also funny how you question the causality of the conclusions here, but not the causality of conclusions from a sociological review performed 84 years ago and published in a non-peer reviewed journal. Or a set of correlative charts, like the one shown in the OP.
As for the lasting effects of divorce on happiness, you asked for a long term conclusion, they showed a long term conclusion. Just as anyone who asks "what do you plan to do in 5 years" is asking about your long term plans. Can you find research that covers a longer term with opposite conclusions?
110 comments
1 hh_95 2018-05-26
It is pretty absurd to say anyone’s past ‘doesn’t matter’. It matters immensely for either sex.
1 eyewant 2018-05-26
Same reason why jobs ask for your employment history.
1 Challengerhelpneeded 2018-05-26
Two people say that doesn't matter
Copefags trying to excuse their disgusting girlfriends
The disgusting girlfriend
1 BinoChrist 2018-05-26
I love this shit
1 dumbkidaccount 2018-05-26
In english please
1 dumbkidaccount 2018-05-26
In english please?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
My girlfriend was a virgin. Other girlfriends I had were not. All of them have made me very, very happy. People who say it matters are:
1 LooseVeterinarian 2018-05-26
No, we lose our ability to pair bond. Science is correct. We also assimilate the genetic traits of those whom we have unprotected sex with.
Also, we get stretched out and remember being stretched out so we'll compare you to that and if you don't like being compared to all the strange dick, you're just "insecure."
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Science isn't a unified concept that can be assessed as true or false in its entirety. That's like saying "Television is correct", there's too many facets to make a blanket statement like that sensible. I'm not familiar with any claim that people lose the ability to pair bond, please point me to the literature.
As for stretching out, I've never had a partner that I didn't accidentally tear at some point, and I once dated a girl that had 15 prior partners and enjoyed fisting. Given that I'm an inch below average, seems like vaginas are ridiculously elastic. If you don't like being compared to other folks, ya, that's insecurity by definition.
1 LooseVeterinarian 2018-05-26
Introducing a concept and then claiming that not being alright with the introduced, completely alien concept than anethema to the original concept, if you then call that "insecurity" you are incredibly intellectually dishonest, which you and all pro-women's sexuality people are.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Where in my statement did I throw science "out the window"? XD Considering I'm a scientist by trade, I'm preeeeeeeeeeeetty sure that's not at all what I said. I'm pointing out that "Science" encompasses a large number of practices including physics and phrenology. Physics is legit, phrenology is not, so to deem the object "Science" as "correct" speaks to a misunderstanding of what science is.
You also seem to be confused about my claim "that's insecurity by definition." A definition of insecurity "is uncertainty or anxiety about oneself; lack of confidence". If you are worried about a comparison between yourself and anyone else, how is that not "uncertainty or anxiety about oneself"?
1 YouAreWrongKid 2018-05-26
What does being a scientist have to do with knowing anything about sex?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Being a scientist had to do with whether or not I was dismissing science. Did you get lost somewhere?
1 YouAreWrongKid 2018-05-26
Noone was talking about science, "science goes out the window" is a common expression
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
A google search for the idiom "science goes out the window" only retrieves the idiom "goes out the window". Seems an awful lot like in this case science is the object of that idiom.
1 YouAreWrongKid 2018-05-26
If i say to you "every dog has its day" are we suddenly talking about dogs and I should say how Im a veterinarian?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
No, but if I told you "you just told me veterinarians are wrong", you might want to mention how ridiculous that would sound given that you were a veterinarian.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-05-26
"the evidence clearly says otherwise but here are my personal anecdotes"
Fuck off
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Well considering that the evidence says that if a woman that has fucked 4 people has a .93% better chance of not being depressed if she fucks a fifth person, but a 1.05% greater chance of being depressed if she fucks 2 more, I'm not 100% sure a sensible conclusion is "More partners means this person will bring me unhappiness." Fucking a lot of different partners shows you're good at breaking up and good at starting again. If they dig it, why would we be surprised they're unhappy in a marriage, or that they'd strive to maintain a marriage?
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-05-26
I doubt those differences are statistically significant. The main two dips are from 0 to 1 partners and from 1 to two, after which an increase doesn't become as significant anymore. The point is not that a woman who has had 4 partners is any worse than a woman who had 4. The point is that they are both worthless marriage material. If you want a stable marriage, then you should get either a virgin or at the very least someone who only had one partner.
Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
"Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either." Oh that's a strong empirically verifiable claim. Got any evidence of that? 'cuz this article compiles evidence from peer-reviewed articles and it doesn't seem to come to such a strong conclusion https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201701/is-it-true-single-women-and-married-men-do-best
As for "worthless marriage material", considering that roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce, having 40% chance of not getting divorced doesn't seem like bad odds. Certainly not "worthless", any more than a guy who hasn't established his ability to please a loving partner is "worthless".
1 IgorBogdanoff 2018-05-26
So a 60% chance of having your life ruined, half your shit taken and being forced to slave away to pay alimony? Those are good odds?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Ya, considering that 50% is ceiling, you're 80% as likely to have a happy marriage as someone that married a virgin (assuming a world in which these statistics rather than individual variation and situation are causal).
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-05-26
It's in the OP...
This is an example of your expectations being so horribly low that you actually think 50% divorce rate is 'normal', when it is actually a sign that marriage itself is in decay. Divorce rates were considerably lower prior to the 60's (when sexual liberation really kicked off), only really spiking due to world war 2. You can't really "share a life" with someone who already shared it with countless others, especially in the knowledge that the chance your marriage will die is greater than the chance it will last.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
"It's in the OP": sure, which one of those charts says anything about "Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either". 'cuz that doesn't seem to be the title of any of these charts.
Who said anything about the normalcy? I just said that's what the divorce rates are. Weird un-cited history lesson bro, not sure how people not getting divorced prior to a reform of divorce law in the US has to do with "normalcy", but I'm like 99% sure we no longer live in a time period prior to the 60's. Considering the spike in divorces post reform, I kind of get the impression that a lot of folks wanted divorces but could not get them. All that aside though I'm like 99% sure we live in the post-60's era with high cancer survival rates, non-digitized reference systems, and easily accessed resources to get out of toxic relationships. So again, not 100% sure where your tangent came from or what it was hoping to show.
Also what do you mean by "share a life"? I'm not familiar with any sense in which "sharing a life" precludes people who have had partners before. I have friends that had friends before, I'm still glad to "share my life" with them and they're happy to share their life with me.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
all of them
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Is that true? I don't see any chart there titled "Happiness before and after divorce". I do see this study that seems to show that women are sadder after marriage and happier after a divorce tho https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/58972/1/715785044.pdf
And for women, being married is only healthy if the relationship is healthy. Otherwise their health suffers. Being single is a better strategy for longevity than staying in an unhappy marriage. https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20030915/only-happy-marriage-is-healthy-for-women#1
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Well that's not a problem, because that's not what he was talking about.
Again, you don't understand what's being discussed here. Think about these acts on a net and societal level.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh I see, that's why he mentioned "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either". Because he wasn't actually talking about people being liberated from marriage through divorce, he was talking about a generalized concept that is somehow entirely different from the actual act of liberating oneself from marriage. Oh wait no, that's an insane disregard for what was actually written.
As for your insistence that what seem to be your delusions are actually meaningful statements, you're gonna need a bit more than a conjecture that I'm not on the right track to establish that. Oh I 'unno, maybe try demonstrating the difference between what I'm talking about, and what you think we're talking about here. Or hell, even any mention of what you think we're talking about would help move this convo along. Asking me to follow you on a vague direction towards a slippery slope about how "these [unspecified by you] acts [operate] on a net and societal level" is kind of meaningless as we clearly have very different ideas of how people operate. And somehow I'd figure that empirical data derived from over a thousand individuals is more guiding to conclusions on the "net and societal level" impacts than what ever anyone just "Think[ing] about these acts" can muster.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Show me that the advent of no fault divorce has had a positive influence on women's health on a societal level. What I see over time is that the rate at which women use anti-depressants skyrockets. While that isn't conclusive, it throws a wrench in your side of the argument.
As for the second paragraph, please don't complain about my vagueness while writing a paragraph that is entirely fluff.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
I'm not the one making the claim that it had an impact on "societal level". You are, so burden of proof is on you pal. I also don't see any mention of "society" or large scale social effects stemming from divorce from either me or the guy I was arguing with. I see he mention how history has effected divorce (without providing evidence), but nothing that has to do with divorce effecting society.
I showed individual women report being happier post marriage and that only happy marriages improve women's health. The first mention of how that effected society was you. If you want to make that claim, you gotta show us some evidence bub.
And while you're at it, show us a study on promiscuity and "strength of a society" (LOL) from anytime in the last 10 years.
"As for the second paragraph, please don't complain about my vagueness while writing a paragraph that is entirely fluff." He said fluffily, without a single citation to his name.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15707651-sex-and-culture
Do you contest that the rate at which women have been taking anti-depressants has skyrocketed in the past few years?
For how long? If it was the case that an increase in divorce and promiscuity had a positive effect, then it wouldn't correlate negatively with the generative capabilities of a society. Clearly, the scope of your study simply isn't large enough.
Oh christ, you're one of these reddit intellectuals. This conversation is over, unless you can learn to argue honestly.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Well what do you know, you cited a book from 1934, with only roughly 84 years of methodological revision in sociology between us and it's conclusions. Just a bit larger than the difference of 10 years I asked for and from the time that brought us the idea that we'd be living in flying cars on the moon by now. Ah yes, nothing like a Tuskeegee experiments-era sociological analysis to base my worldviews on XD Does it prescribe more vim for my social vigor? XD Maybe there's a reason you can't find this conclusion discussed in any peer reviewed journals as of recent? I mean, you similarly don't see much discussion of "Luminiferous aether" or "the four humours" these days either XD
As for anti-depressants consumption increasing across time? No, I agree the amount consumed has increased, in proportion to the increase in access and availability. If it was associated with the institution of marriage, why was there a 65% increase in the last 15 years? I'm not familiar with changes to marriage during that time. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624
As for your "How long are they happier for" question, misquoting me aside, it's right there in the charts at the end. 5 years was as long as they were tracked after that life event, so they were happier all the way up till the end of the study. Beyond, we don't have data for that. I also don't see anything that says "divorce correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society." Where did you get that one from? If it's in the book, you'll need to point to a page 'cuz Ctrl-F didn't bring that one up.
As for being "one of these reddit intellectuals", do you mean anyone with a decent understanding of methodological evolution in the sciences?
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
I knew it. I'll keep it clean here:
The age of a study does not decry its veracity.
Dunno, hence why I said it's not conclusive for my side, just that it throws a wrench in yours.
Naturally, the degree to which you are allowed to divorce is tied to the restraint a society places on sexuality. You'll have to forgive me for not citing quotations, it's been 3 years since I read it.
No, I mean people that throw basic logic to the wayside when it contradicts their ideology.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Yes it does, especially if it lacks peer review, replication, or a history of peer reviewed and replicated findings to base it's work on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Does it throw a wrench in my side? Antidepressants correlating with factors other than marriage really seems to be inconsequential to my arguments, despite your insistence.
Saying it's "naturally associated" is a great way to say "I don't actually have evidence here, but you'd figure, right?" "Divorce correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society" does not naturally follow from "Promiscuity correlates negatively with the generative capabilities of a society", as a society that never or rarely marries will attest. You might wanna brush up on your only source of evidence so far. Generally it's a good idea to make sure the thing you're standing on is indeed solid.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
It literally doesn't. I'm sorry, but this is the most basic shit. This isn't something you argue about, you're analytically incorrect.
It clearly is relavant, but you do you sweetie.
If you don't believing me on me stating that sexual restraint correlates with the cultural condition of a society then we're going to have to sit through a 700 page study. We're not going to do that, so I think this discussion is over.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh, do you have a peer reviewed article that explains why old research is likely to be just as valid now as it was then? Because the article I linked explained how without a solid community involving a lot of reproduction and review, as well as an active management of the constructs explored by the field, isn't likely to produce a valid finding. Given that those resources are all developed across time, there's good reason to assume older research is not as valid as new research.
How is "an increase in antidepressant usage is driven by access and availability" consequential to "divorce has been shown to improve women's happiness"? Please, I'm all ears on this one XD
As for "don't believing (sic) [you] on [you] stating that sexual restraint correlates with the cultural condition of a society", that's clearly distinct from what I said in the sentence. I clearly pointed out that your desire to use promiscuity and divorce interchangeably was based on tenuous reasoning that was not likely found in your 700 page non-peer-reviewed tome. Again, you can Ctrl-F for divorce in your pdf and let me know what you find, unless you wanna keep stomping your foot and crying that you must be right XD
"Societies that don't marry are not sexually restrained." Ah perfect, you almost got the analogy! If a society never divorces (0 divorces) and is sexually promiscuous, AND we believe your ridiculous claim that a more promiscuous society is less generative, they would be a perfect example of a case where the number of divorces (0) is not negatively correlated with "generativity".
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Do you understand what I mean by analytically? Are you going to ask me for a source to prove to you that bachelors aren't married?
Because there's no reason to believe it's only a result of access.
Because they obviously are. Holy fuck. I haven't actually laughed in a while, thanks mate.
Christ. This is hurting me. I hope this will be my last reply on the topic.
The study looks at the fall of cultures in relation to them becoming more promiscuous, and the fact that it notes ABSOLUTE monogamy as necessary. Do I need to explain what that means to you or do you get it? Do you get what that means in relation to divorce?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh, your claim that I was "analytically incorrect" was in response to my "Yes it does [ especially if it lacks peer review, replication, or a history of peer reviewed and replicated findings to base it's work on, then the age of a publication is a relevant basis to question it on.]." Not on whether or not bachelors are more promiscuous. You just made that topic up.
As for antidepressant use not being "only a result of access", that's not my claim or the claim of researchers on the subject. As I stated before it's that availability and access appear to account for the majority of variation in antidepressant usage. No one's claiming "only", just that there's empirical evidence for the social-level "availability and access" story, such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=clinician-identified+depression+in+community+settings
I'm not familiar with any empirical evidence for the social-level "increased promiscuity and anti-depressant usage" story. The closest I see is "Depression is associated with anti-depressive use and divorce", and for women it anti-depressant usage goes down after divorce https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-015-1508-9
Oh, it's hurting you to explain something again and again? Like having to explain promiscuity and divorce are not interchangeable terms? XD https://www.google.com/search?q=divorce+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=promiscuous+definition
As for your last question, yes.
1. Divorce is the legal annulment of a monogamous relationship.
2. In the absence of marriage, there can be no legal divorce. 3. If, as you claim, a maximally promiscuous society does not have marriage, then there can be no divorce in a maximally promiscuous society. 4. And if, as you claim, a maximally promiscuous society is the most "non-generative",
then it follows that a society without divorce or the possibility of divorce is the most "non-generative". Really feels like you might not have wanted to introduce the idea of someone being "analytically incorrect" XD
But yeah, go ahead and let me know what some guy in 1934 thought "Absolute monogamy" should be defined as, 'cuz it sure seems like the dictionaries and encyclopedias I frequent don't have a definition for that. Also would love to hear the story of how DJ Unwin verified that a culture had "absolute monogamy" in 1934 XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
lemme just aks you to consider this:
Women stating that they are happier after divorce does not necessarily mean that it positively affects them in the long term. To compare, I would probably feel elated after killing a human being thanks to the adrenaline, but after that immediate event it would probably fuck me up real bad.
In order for me to form a more conclusive opinion on divorces effect on happiness (which I do not personally weigh as a particularly valuable tool for judging the worth of an action, but I digress) I'd have to see a study along the lines of
"rates of depression amongst women above the age of 40 who have or have not experienced divorce"
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
It says that at best they have a covarying relationship, at worst it's a spurious observation, and in the middle that there's a mutual co-variate for all of them. Shark attacks and ice-cream sales correlate after all, with no implication of a direct relationship between them.
It's also funny how you question the causality of the conclusions here, but not the causality of conclusions from a sociological review performed 84 years ago and published in a non-peer reviewed journal. Or a set of correlative charts, like the one shown in the OP.
As for the lasting effects of divorce on happiness, you asked for a long term conclusion, they showed a long term conclusion. Just as anyone who asks "what do you plan to do in 5 years" is asking about your long term plans. Can you find research that covers a longer term with opposite conclusions?
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Of course I consider that they are not necessarily causative, this is fucking statistics 101. Again, I'm trying to be nicer here, but everybody fucking knows this shit, you're not special for throwing out the line "correlation does not equal causation". I know, I considered it, thank you.
Your study shows that they return to ""wellbeing" baseline". For fucks sake, I need something a bit more conclusive than that. And again, consider the fact that the relationship is shit because divorce is accepted and imminent. This is very well possible. Of course we don't know for sure till we force people not to get divorced tbh.
But as I said in the other comment, I don't really know what the fuck we're arguing about.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Oh yeah and obviously in terms of happiness and health, look at OP again. Promiscuous = less happy, more depressed, more diseased, more likely to get divorced.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Sure, if all of health is summed up as "does or does not have an STD ranging from herpes to HIV" with no mention of length of life, lifetime history of chronic illnesses, or number of sired grandchildren. I'll give you the "promiscuity and health as represented only by the things we're exposed to via sex" association.
Still not seeing the divorced and happiness chart, or anything related to "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either" in the OP though.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Apparently rates of depression have nothing to do with health. Holy fuck dude. BYE BYE.
See my other comment. If prevalence of divorce has a long term positive effect on women's mental health, then why is the restraint placed on sex correlated with the generativeness (for lack of a better word) of a society.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
You mean the rates of depression that increase by 4% if you go from 0 to 21+ sexual partners? Gee, what a crippling life event being promiscuous is.
As for your other comment, sex and marriage are interchangeable terms? Might want to inform everyone that's having pre-marital sex not to worry then XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Oh yeah they only triple, no big deal, and the chance of reporting yourself as happy only goes down by 25% who gives a shit lmao
Is your ability to get divorced not tied to the restraint placed on sexuality?
I kind of want to take a step back and ask what it is exactly that we're arguing about here? Because this is tiresome.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
First question, not necessarily by any measure. Extramarital affairs and open relationships attest to this.
As for your second question, you can literally scroll up in the topic and review the conversation so far. Not sure how you get lost in a fully documented conversation, but to summarize: you were under the impression we were arguing about social strength as it relates to divorce, despite you being the first person to introduce the topic of social strength and your reliance on the findings of an 84 year old, non-peer reviewed book that's only been sited 101 times by no one replicating or testing the findings.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
If your society accepts these things, it's not very sexually restrained, now is it? Again, how do you not inherently understand these concepts?
Which is just a meant to point out that divorce doesn't seem to be a net positive, in terms of effect on society, which was just one point of the original discussion, which seems to have already been concluded anyways, so what the fuck are we still talking for?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Their existence demonstrates that you can be married and be promiscuous, or divorced and promiscuous. I showed, and now you've shown, that divorce and promiscuity are not interchangeable concepts. Not sure what you're missing here pal XD
As for your second point: no actually, "divorce doesn't seem to be a net positive, in terms of effect on society" was not a part of the original discussion. It wasn't even a topic until you jumped in and dusted off a forgotten and un-reviewed tome of some sociologist with a hard-on for marriage. A tome you admittedly only have a passing familiarity with. The question, again as can be seen by anyone who scrolls up, was is it true that "being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either"?
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Among the English, in spite of a consistent outcry by an excited minority, divorce by mutual consent was not in operation; a semblance of the Catholic tradition which the Protestant and Nonconformist English had inherited prevented its legal enactment. If, however, the contracting parties to an English marriage were rich, they could secure, in the twentieth century, a divorce as and when they wished, by arranging to break the letter of the existing law. With these two exceptions the same changes were made successively by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and Protestant English. These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place ; the same sentiments were expressed ; the same changes were made ; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and, displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Is this supposed to be a quote our boy DJ? Online plagiarism checkers say that's not from any source known to them, and you've provided zero context indicating that this isn't your own "just-so story."
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Read cover to cover 3 years ago
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Yeah, read it cover to cover and still can't find the page that says what you claim it says. Again, age seems to be a factor here.
Note the study where I show that actually asking the question "does divorce make women happier" shows that they get happier after divorce. Not sure why you think making a conjecture based off of three correlation charts from the same study, none of which breech the topic of "Happiness before and after a divorce", is a better basis for evidence on how the world works XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Don't feel like making three separate replies. Point is, if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people, then it's clear that divorce is not healthy. Likewise, if you believe that the privileges of civilization are healthier than those of barbarism, divorce is unhealthy. That's why I brought my study up.
Yes, that was a direct quote from Sex and Culture. As I was saying, divorce marks a decrease in sexual restraint. That's the point. Your dishonest argument about how tribal cultures that don't have marriage are worse is simply not relevant.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh, has life expectancy and access to new medical treatments gone down after we instituted widespread access to divorce? 'cuz last time I checked it's only increased since 1965. If divorce is that bad for our culture, and the health of a culture is based on the health of the individuals, why are individuals still living longer, healthier lives as a whole?
I'm also familiar with many, many modern cultures that allow divorce, and not many "barbarous" ones that do. In fact, as wikipedia points out, the only places in the modern world where divorce is outright illegal are the Philippines and Vatican city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_by_country
In what ways are these two countries "healthier" than the ones that do allow divorce? I'm not familiar with any assessments that place either of these two countries at the pinnacle of cultural achievement, either. Your entire basis for believing that divorce is a great evil seems to hinge on an adherence to research performed in 1934 that is so obscure even modern plagiarism software can't detect it. Not only that, but it is evidently outdated if it was citing any extant culture without access to divorce as an example of health, given that ALL BUT TWO OF THEM HAVE CEASED TO EXIST.
As for your hilarious mis-attribution and clear misunderstanding of my prior statements , I'll just point out that anyone who wants to Ctrl-F for "tribal" in my prior messages will note that I've never said anything like that, and that the person I'm arguing with is unscrupulous enough to pretend like I did while in the same sentence calling me dishonest XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Is this a joke, or is english not your first language?
Congrats, these cultures are dead.
Read Fate of Empires as a basic primer. Your worldview is insanely shallow, you can't see a foot in front of your face.
Idiot. Only tribes don't have marriage. XDDDDDD
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh buddy, asking about my English skills after you've JUST demonstrated your reading comprehension is questionable? Now that's some grade A comedy right there XD Never a good plan to start throwing bricks after you've moved into your glass house XDD
Here, let me break it down slower for you: 1. "If divorce is that bad for our culture", remember, you've claimed that divorce is a significant problem for the health of a culture.
"and the health of a culture is based on the health of the individuals". Did you forget your conjecture literally ONE POST ABOVE?: "if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people". That's you saying that, in case you were wondering XDDDDD
"why are individuals still living longer, healthier lives as a whole?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time
If divorce is bad for society, why are we living longer, healthier lives? Not sure what at ALL was confusing about that XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
I assume English isn't your first language because you seem to be under the impression that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
...And that's something only English speakers can think about? XD
Also yes I believe that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition. I'm confused as how it could be anything else, as health is "the state of being free from illness or injury." https://www.google.com/search?q=health+definition You may be under the impression that "mental" is somehow divorced from the "physical", but you would be entirely incorrect in the face of all cognitive and neuro- science. After all, all things we know of and can know of are necessarily physical, so not sure what the alternative of believing "that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition."
Are you saying it's a problem with our "spirit"? Ooo, I'd love to hear this one! What's your favorite spirit-o-meter for measuring the decline of individual health in cultures that allow for divorce? How do you correct for having so few existing cultures that don't allow for divorce?
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Everybody knows exactly what people mean when they say mental and physical, even if brains are literally physical. Don't get autistic with me.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh actually, *"Everybody [except dullsite] knows exactly what people mean when they say mental and physical". FTFY, no need to thank me ;D
'cuz clearly not everyone gets that everything's physical. I mean you evidently didn't. That's why you made the mistake of deriding me for believing "that health is relegated to matters of direct physical condition." Because unless you were assuming there was another realm to relegate it to, that statement wouldn't make any sense XD
I mean you could propose a non-physical "Spirit realm", which I assume you're doing. So go on! Tell us your sweet "spirit measuring" trick for figuring out "cultural health"! Or really any sort of measure for "cultural health" that isn't on "matters of direct physical condition" you derided me for focusing on XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Actually I guessed you'd go into this stupid discussion, I was right. And no you're mental state has clearly deteriorated as this discussion has gone on, and this point I have no clue what you're talking about. As I said, if we assume individual health and the health of a society are connected, then it stands to reason that behaviour that verifiably results in degeneration is not healthy. Though one more time, this point was just tangential to our original discussion, which we already concluded in my favour like a fucking week ago at this point. We're done, man.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
As I've pointed out, if you assume individual health and the health of a society are connected, then the widespread health we have now compared to yesteryear suggests that our society is healthier off in our post-legalized divorce world. What have you shown?
Oh yeah, you showed that if "cultural health is evolutionary stability", then both you and DJ Unwin know that "absolute monogamy" is culturally unhealthy. Why do we know that? Because as you've both been so kind to point out, there used to be cultures with "absolute monogamy", and now they're effectively extinct. Thanks! XD The part I don't get is you figure any of this is landing in your favor XD
Don't know what leg you think you have left to stand on, but hey, "*your mental state has clearly deteriorated". No worries, I FTFY too! ;D You should also know given the spelling mistake, your mental state has clearly deteriorated XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Lifespan increases for the most part linearly with technology, outside of the throes of individual civilizations.
Again, are you joking? This isn't the first time monogamy waned, in case you forgot, but it always comes back, because it's beneficial, whereas other practices are less so. So monogamous societies replace those that aren't. Hence, non-monogamous societies are not evolutionarily stable. I don't understand how this simple concept evades you.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Yeah, I'm 100% certain you're the one that said "if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people." I showed that as access to divorce has increased, a metric of health has also increased. You need to show that as access to divorce has increased, some other metric of health that is more important than longevity is going down. Otherwise, divorce and a healthy population clearly go hand in hand.
"Hence, non-monogamous societies are not evolutionarily stable." I'm LOLin' SO hard at this one XDDD. You might want to brush up on "evolutionarily stable", as the near elimination of "no divorce law" from modern society is 100% proof against this claim. Evolutionarily stable requires that competing traits cannot gain significant presence in a trait-pool. Yet the VAST majority of countries have access to divorce. I even included a link for you bub XDDDD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
But it hasn't. Lifespan has increased as countries went through cycles of divorce availability.
Okay, keep laughing, but as I said, a return to a restriction on sexuality is inevitable.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh really? Access to divorce hasn't increased across time? Then all the societies that you've pointed to that have divorce currently always had divorce in the past? Or did you just paint yourself into a corner and you're hoping that you luck out and some great "anti-divorce" movement in the future saves your shit poor argument? XDDD
Yeah dude, sexually "unrestrained societies" that allow divorce are evidently not stable, as shown by the near absence of societies that don't allow divorce. Flawless argument brah, you're sure doing JD Unwin a solid here XDDDDDD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Certainly not linearly, in the way lifespan has.
My actual evidence. Yes, thank you.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh lifespan has increased linearly, but divorce hasn't? What peer-reviewed chart are you basing that assumption off of? I've already shown that access to divorce has increased, as all but two countries have divorce law, and as you've pointed out more cultures in the past have denied divorce law than in the modern day. Pretty sure that necessitates an increase bub XD Also not sure what the importance of linear or not is, unless you're somehow convinced that I'm arguing for a causal relationship and you think that causal relationships can only be evidenced by linear relationships. In which case you would be wrong in every way XD
Your actual evidence was that such cultures don't exist in any significant way in the modern world? Wow dude, you really don't have to do all my work for me, but thanks! XDDD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Yes, I've shown you that clearly. I'm assuming the rest of your comment follows this line of ignorance, so I'm not really going to engage with it anymore. Let me know if my assumption was unfounded.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh, so now "showing clearly" is the same thing as "I swear some guy found that and hid it somewhere in this book on 'social strength'"? Have you ever passed a single book report? Do you know what it means to "increase linearly", or more importantly the significance of that relationship? 'cuz you're starting to beg A LOT of questions here XD
Pro-tip: linear scaling is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing a causal relationship, and also pro-tip: I'm the one arguing there either isn't a causal relationship between divorce and "cultural health", or it's a positive one. You seem oddly preoccupied with establishing that a measure of individual health isn't tied to access to divorce here. Which is the opposite of what you've been arguing for this whole time you've been saying that "divorce is bad for cultural health". After all, "cultural health" is the aggregate of "individual health", and now you're claiming that in at least this case, divorce is not tied to a measure of individual (and therefore cultural) health. If you're hoping to establish that there isn't a causal link between divorce and length of life by establishing that they don't both "linearly increase", then you seem to have gotten lost and started arguing that divorce ISN'T tied to the only measure of cultural health we've talked about (that wasn't immediately self-defeating to your argument). So thanks? XDDD
As for the rest of your comment: do you think people look smarter, not sad and desperate, when they openly admit to ignoring the content of a counter-argument? 'cuz you seem to be under the impression that me and my friends AREN'T laughing out loud about this. Oh don't worry, we are XD
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
As for "Western culture is dead" XD Aside from ignoring that divorce is a global phenomenon, so you still haven't accounted for eastern culture (the other half of your false dichotomy), what the fuck do you mean by "dead"? Here's a quick refresher for how the rest of the world considers the term culture https://www.google.com/search?q=culture
Considering countries of the west are still producing, consuming, practicing, and discussing art seems like it's still "alive". Considering countries of the west are still practicing protestant Christianity seems like it's still "alive". Considering countries of the west are still raising armies and practicing rational pursuits such as the sciences and mathematics, it seems like it's still "alive". Hiding away and not experiencing the fruits of a great tree doesn't mean it's dead. It just means you haven't looked out your window recently enough.
Also still that whole "eastern cultures also have divorce and seem as existent as western cultures", soooooo not sure at all how you think your point amounts to a comeback.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Name a single society you think isn't on the verge of collapse. China? Japan? South Korea? You're a joke dude. Westernized = dead.
Did you forget what Sex and Culture was about? Every post you make is just confusing me more and more. Am I talking to multiple people?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh, you think that an open global trade network that weathers multiple natural disasters every year yet continues to out-produce itself with regards to more, longer lived lives is on the verge of collapse? Especially given that we produce a greater variety of tools for living in a greater variety of conditions than we have at any other point in human history? Sure, what evidence do you have of that? XDDD
Laughing at your face aside, I have heard that before. From scientists. Talking about carbon emissions from fossil fuels and rare mineral mining. Haven't heard ANYONE somehow attribute that risk to divorce though, and given the impact of industry I'd love to see that argument being made by anyone sane XD I am familiar with proposals for more tools to solve the problems of our old tools, but not anyone doing the research seems to have proposed that the problem is we haven't banned divorce. Maybe because that's insane? XD
Did I forget? No, did you forget? I never claimed to have read it. But sad attempts to avoid the question aside, I wasn't asking what JD Unwin meant by "dead". I'm asking what YOU mean by "dead". If you want to borrow his definition, then borrow it. You're the one insisting that western cultures are dead, and it seems just a touch insane to use a definition of "dead" that includes cultures that are still doing all the things a living culture does XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
I've already noted several pieces of evidence. What do you think is going to happen to countries that amass debt, have aging populations, and no prospects for real growth? You keep trying to shift this discussion to things it isn't about. No thanks.
I'll just bring up my closing point again:
"if we assume that the health of a society is reflected by the health of it's people, then it's clear that divorce is not healthy. Likewise, if you believe that the privileges of civilization are healthier than those of barbarism, divorce is unhealthy."
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
No, you haven't. Evidence is more than a claim that these things are happening. We know full well that saying "A wolf is eating my sheep" is only a claim, not proof.
Ohhh, so a dead culture is one that is not "Evolutionarily stable", I see. According to wikipedia, "In an evolutionarily stable strategy, if all the members of a population adopt it, no mutant strategy can invade.[4] Once virtually all members of the population use this strategy, there is no 'rational' alternative. ESS is part of classical game theory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy#Vs._evolutionarily_stable_state
Sorry bub, if we're using evolutionary stability as a measure of "alive" or "dead", then given that the VAST majority of countries allow for divorce and folks don't seem to be trying to undo that in any large way, it really seems like the evidence is that not having divorce is the "dead" trait.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
It's a good thing I brought up both Sex and Culture and Fate of Empires as evidence.
see above
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Yeah, see the "state of divorce law all around the modern world, and lack of legislation or even major protests for restrictions" XD
"Divorce is bad for cultural health. Cultural health is about evolutionary stability. Evolutionary stability is evidenced by whether or not a trait sticks around. DJ Unwin showed that ancient cultures went from no divorce to legalizing divorce. By the 21st century, no cultures with illegal divorce have lasted except the Philippines and Vatican City. Therefore, ignoring absolutely everything I've said up until this point: Divorce is bad for cultural health" <-That's all I found above, is that what you were pointing me to? XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Again, you have no vision. You'd be the Roman in his villa stating it's absurd to think the empire could ever collapse, when you have access to so much wine. Dangerous demographic shifts, political strife, strained economies, none of it matters, because we exist right in this instant, so we will always exist.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
No, the current human in me says "Man things sure have improved even after Rome and countless other civilizations have fallen. Also aren't you glad we survived 2000/2012/2015 and the hundreds of other apocalyptic predictions since we started writing these things down? We could probably do more with improving natural resource access though, and we should aim to get off this rock to increase the chances of humanity surviving any planet-wide disaster" XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Yeah, they fell and got replaced by other societies. Did these societies continue the degeneracy of late Rome, or where that any different? Seriously dude, think about this for a second instead of pretending to be retarded to intentionally drag out a discussion that doesn't need to last any longer.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Considering that Rome had divorce laws and we have divorce laws (and we came after Rome), seems like they weren't relevantly different with regards to our discussion on access to divorce. Cute how your argument now hinges on whether or not you're able to see the future XDDD
I don't think this geopolitical climate will exist forever, nor do I think you (as a person who relies on 80+ year old research to guide their decisions) can either see the future with any reasonable clarity, or that there is respectable evidence that divorce is a sign of a dying culture. Especially if the health of a culture is measured by "evolutionary stability", and literally all but two existing cultures allow for divorce XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Okay, I get it now. The point is that you want less divorce, so the more common it is, the worse the society. I don't think you'll disagree on that. For example, I support divorce in the case of infidelity.
Okay, well I've done research into the topic, and you have not. So why keep talking?
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh, did I say anywhere that I wanted less divorce? No... I clearly haven't said that. Anywhere. Seeing as the entirety of our time arguing I've been arguing that divorce is not a bad thing for society, that seems entirely out of character. Huh, weird. XD It's almost like you're just making shit up in a desperate attempt to look like you have ground to stand on! This is beautiful! XDDD
Love the claim that "I haven't done research into this topic" despite being the only person to include links to modern research in my argument XD Hot dang you just really want to make sure no one misses that you've got neither a valid sense of proof nor solid reading comprehension skills, don't you? XDDD
You're totally going off the deep end, thank you, I am THOROUGHLY entertained. XDDD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
If you want more divorce, you're a strange person.
Are you going to pretend you've ever looked into the topic before?
Hey, I've been enjoying your posts too. I like practicing against brick walls, but I think honestly you've overstayed your welcome. We've gone over the same point repeatedly, you don't present anything else, so I thin I'm done here.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Are you going to pretend that you've surveyed the field by standing atop two un-celebrated, un-peer reviewed tomes rather than bust open any modern, peer-reviewed journals? LOL XD
Gee, maybe I'm mildly confident about my understanding of anthropology because I spent the last two years doing field work and writing papers with anthropologists, have spent the last 5 years going to talks by the anthropology department, and have one publication that was already reviewed by a team of anthropologists and I'm sitting on another one that's currently in review by the same team. Oh, but do go point to your two favorite books and claim I'm not well versed, I love watching stubborn people flaunt their "education" XDDDD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
I have surveyed the field. You have not. Why you keep talking despite this, I'll never know. Well actually, I know it's because you need to get a better hobby.
Wow, then you'd find it exceptionally easy to post a single shred of evidence refuting me, but for some reason you don't feel like doing that. Oh well.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
Oh yeah, your proof of surveying the field is that you can't muster any sources except for two. Clearly you're an anthropology expert here XD
A "single" shred of evidence? Oh you're right that it's too hard. Too hard to pick just one that is! Thanks for the opportunity to rub your face in everything again, you're so kind! XD
Here's a definition of evolutionary stability that shows you know fuck all about the term XD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy#Vs._evolutionarily_stable_state
Here's a list showing that both you and JD Unwin were wrong to claim that "non-divorce" is an evolutionarily stable state, given its near absence in the modern world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_by_country
3.Here's a study that shows that women are happier after divorce, and far more unhappy while they're in a marriage they would want to get a divorce from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/58972/1/715785044.pdf
Here's an expert source reviewing a medical publication showing that women are only healthier in a marriage that is good, and are better off getting divorced if they are not in a good marriage. https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20030915/only-happy-marriage-is-healthy-for-women#1
Here's an article compiling a set of modern research that critiques past reviews of marriage and health, and shows that there isn't strong evidence that marriage is necessarily healthy in-and-of itself https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201701/is-it-true-single-women-and-married-men-do-best
And given your claim that the health of a society is measured as the health of it's citizens, and "Western culture is dying" because of access to divorce, here's evidence that you're just blatantly wrong XD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
It's always so great when folks ask you to literally shit all over their arguments again, for anyone who missed it prior XD Can't wait for the mewling "Waaaaa it's from wikipedia" so I can meet it with "Oh, a source touted as more reliable than encyclopedia britannica by mother fucking journal NATURE, with all claims clearly cited so if you have any complaints about any definition or claim you can trace it back to the journal it was initially published in?" It's god damn hilarious how stereotyped arguing with morons on the net can get XD
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Stay on topic, please.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
What an awesome response, just rife with actual examples rather than a blanket claim containing no substance whatsoever! Oh wait, you've provided none of that while I've included actual quotations to demonstrate your position XD
1 DixonCheese 2018-05-26
She'll always be sizing you up to both the average men she's slept with, as well as the top men she sees in porn and sports etc.
It's worth noting that some foids can enjoy sex with a meek, pindicked subhuman. But it's usually a twisted sort of pleasure, one where the woman is constantly reminded that she's an insatiable whore stuck with a less than satisfying deal.
1 IsThisRealReddit 2018-05-26
First one is cope. She will size you up with the most chad guys she slept with.
1 DixonCheese 2018-05-26
Most women tend to sleep with average looking wimps, it's a compromise they make. Chads are sexually attractive but a little too impractical for the whores, so they'll jerk off to them instead.
1 The_Real_Cannaman 2018-05-26
Cope
1 RPGcel 2018-05-26
Black people were oppressed in the past. The holocaust happened in the past. The past doesn't matter, huh, normies?
1 thr0w123away456 2018-05-26
Abolition of patriarchy was a mistake.
1 CommieCel 2018-05-26
Patriarchy wasn't abolished; it withered away as a natural result of industrial capitalism.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Patriarchy is not separable from property rights. Likewise, communism is not separable from matriarchy.
1 LeKrokodile 2018-05-26
Feminism destroyed patriarchy, not capitalism.
1 CommieCel 2018-05-26
The claim that more partners --> more likely to have STDs seems fairly obvious and uncontraversial.
The other claims, that your sexual past leads to poor outcomes in future relationships or the life of the woman aren't supported by these graphs. There's a huge causality problem. I've not had to use statistics outside of a statistical mechanics class and even I know this. I would also throw any publication by any group with "Family" in the name straight in the trash, but that's besides the point.
tbh being an idealist and not being a monist probably makes your more susceptible to posting and agreeing with stuff like this. Start reading philosophy with Parmenides and don't stop until you've finished Marx.
inb4 IT, cuck, cope, etc. Sorry I understand how math works lmao.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Wow incredible, thanks for your great contribution. Nobody else knows this, only you know this. Thank you for teaching what only you knew. Great philosophical genius.
1 wodie504 2018-05-26
Well I guess this unfounded bullshit data proves it. Pack it up boys
1 IsThisRealReddit 2018-05-26
TO THE TOP
why don‘t blackpills like this get more upvotes??
Very high IQ post OP!
1 Singlestick 2018-05-26
When you said "To the top," it reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOqm_UzL26w
1 IsThisRealReddit 2018-05-26
You want me to watch this whole vid?
1 BarkingSands27 2018-05-26
Statistics can be tricky. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation of course. Do the opposite statements also make sense?
I'm just spit-balling that there is a possibility that those two things feed off of each other, possibly a vicious cycle even.
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
First of all, I think the evidence makes it seem like it is directly causative for point 1 and 2. But even with the causality not considered, from the perspective of a man selecting a wife, it is the smarter choice no matter what to select a virgin.
1 BarkingSands27 2018-05-26
I am right there with you on the fact that inexperienced women are smarter choices for life partners. I have anecdotal evidence (weak as evidence but still convincing as it's personal experience to me) that my sister married while inexperienced and it still wasn't stable.
Back to your point, I think maybe inferring the inverse was in order when switching the antecedent:
I still stand by my previous statement that I do believe it's a vicious cycle rather than just a one-way statistical correlation.
1 Cissnowflake 2018-05-26
Any chance of a higher-res version of this?
1 Nichols789964 2018-05-26
I think there is actual research to show that the more partners a person has, in general, the less able they are to pair bond. Without seeing how these numbers compare to males, it is pretty hard to draw any gender based conclusions.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-05-26
I doubt those differences are statistically significant. The main two dips are from 0 to 1 partners and from 1 to two, after which an increase doesn't become as significant anymore. The point is not that a woman who has had 4 partners is any worse than a woman who had 4. The point is that they are both worthless marriage material. If you want a stable marriage, then you should get either a virgin or at the very least someone who only had one partner.
Endlessly looking for new partners is not really healthy, and being "liberated" from marriage hasn't made women any happier, either.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
No, but if I told you "you just told me veterinarians are wrong", you might want to mention how ridiculous that would sound given that you were a veterinarian.
1 CommieCel 2018-05-26
Patriarchy wasn't abolished; it withered away as a natural result of industrial capitalism.
1 AnEntireBurrito 2018-05-26
It says that at best they have a covarying relationship, at worst it's a spurious observation, and in the middle that there's a mutual co-variate for all of them. Shark attacks and ice-cream sales correlate after all, with no implication of a direct relationship between them.
It's also funny how you question the causality of the conclusions here, but not the causality of conclusions from a sociological review performed 84 years ago and published in a non-peer reviewed journal. Or a set of correlative charts, like the one shown in the OP.
As for the lasting effects of divorce on happiness, you asked for a long term conclusion, they showed a long term conclusion. Just as anyone who asks "what do you plan to do in 5 years" is asking about your long term plans. Can you find research that covers a longer term with opposite conclusions?
1 dullsite 2018-05-26
Everybody knows exactly what people mean when they say mental and physical, even if brains are literally physical. Don't get autistic with me.