Hacker News Reader

Sorry that you are going through this, life is full of hardship, and divorce is a facet of death itself.

“ Marriage as a notion itself feels wrong.”

The notion of marriage has fractured into cultural subgroups as it has been redefined over the last century.

One of the more interesting stats to me is that young people today don’t even put children in the top ten reasons for marriage like they did just 40 years ago.

I’m wondering which of the notions of marriage you feel seem wrong.

Per what I know and have read:

The emotional aspects of love last about seven years. After that, pragmatics and mutual understanding need to take over. We have invented the notion of marriage and seem to have overturned what nature may have intended to be.

Marriages predate written history. I cannot be sure what led to the concept, however, I can guess.

I have read that non-monogamy is more common in the world than what most people realize.

It seems to me that when the notion of marriage was brought in, people would have needed brainwashing into it. I see several cultural aspects around marriages, some still being followed, that hint this.

Then, of course, is the welfare of the children which is critically important.

I am chosing not to write more, but have perhaps hinted upon my viewpoints on this topic.

Non-monogamous societies have solved welfare of children in different ways. I am not able to say if any method of taking care of children is better.

On the other hand, monogamy absolutely had a massive impact on STD reduction in a world with absolutely no notion of medicine.

Agreed.

A question I have is if the STD issue mentioned still valid, as a motivation for monogamy?

I am not qualified to answer.

I would tentatively say, decreasingly so. The issue, as I see it, is that although we have preventive measures and prophylactics and treatments (all imperfect), we do not yet have a culture of responsibility and building such a culture is hard.

Theoretically we could compensate for the deficiencies of our medicine, through social responsibility. In reality this does not happen. The clearest proof is the behavior of people during the Covid pandemic. Covid Zero was only achieved in a few countries. Human society is not mature enough to be responsible. Monogamy (with regards to STDs) is like social isolation for Covid and has the same strengths and weaknesses.

In the case of STDs this would mean pervasive use of testing, condoms, dental dams, etc.. Apparently the porn industry gets tested very frequently because for them an STD represents lost income. The general population not so much. When was the last time you heard of someone using a dental dam during a one night stand? It should mean a push for testing from dating apps. It would mean that someone who has an affair should actually warn the cheated partner, instead of waiting for symptoms to appear. These responsible behaviors do not happen, or at least are not as common as they should be.

As long social responsibility is not a viable solution, the only solution left is developing vaccines. On this side progress is being made, but it is slow.

If either solution is achieved, the potential for STDs becomes irrelevant in the choice of preferred *gamy. Note that monogamy is far from foolproof. Cheating happens, a lot. Also you can get infected through means other than sex and then transmit the disease via sex.

Personally I believe humans do not hate disease enough to care. I support a strategy of genocide against harmful microbes. Nothing less than complete extermination will be satisfactory.

Thanks! I am not qualified enough to know a good answer either. Albeit I have alternative thoughts for some points you have made, you seem to know this better than I do.

I'd like to hear your points. I am curious of your viewpoint.

To start with, I'll reiterate that I am not qualified enough here, and you seem to know more than me. :)

Since you asked still, below is my current understanding:

1. Biological evolution itself depends on spreading of genes. So the big picture cannot be an evolutionary path where having more than one partner is less optimal, whether for reasons of STD or otherwise*. Unless it is so bad that had we not picked up on monogamy, the homo sapiens population may have phased out altogether. Most species are continuing to live by nature, do not follow monogamy and are still thriving. May be we have increased our average lifespan by mitigating STD via monogamy practices, while the lifespan of animals continues at the baseline.

* I have read and noted in other comments here that emotional love between men and women lasts for about seven years. I suspect that nature purposely evolved us this way to keep the parents together when the children are very young, and once children are sufficiently grown up, the parents open themselves up to new partners.

2. In the modern times, we are more capable of solving such a challenge than we were in the ancient times. Surely, COVID challenged us, however, we have made it work out overall. (No disrespect intended for the people who have lost loved ones, suffered on health, finances, or otherwise.) If monogamy is to be taken out, more precautions would naturally come in to compensate for a negative impact of STD. We however did not have provisions for such precautions in the ancient times.

3. Likewise, while the progress for vaccines may be slow, that would not have been if we did not have the practice of monogamy. In other words, if we were to redesign things for today, we may have worked the optimal solution to be non-monogamy plus vaccines.

I have more thoughts to write.

I do agree with 1 and I believe the influence was subtle. I also believe it might have depended on a lot of factors. Maybe some tribes were not near any animal reservoir. Maybe some diseases were transmitted due to injuries while hunting or while butchering meat. And maybe in some cases, this lead to disadvantages during inter-tribe wars. Maybe a infected tribe lost a war, their men killed and the women raped, resulting in infection of the victorious tribe and once symptoms appeared, some spiritually inclined member of the tribe blamed it on punishment for the rapes. I think it's hard to say for sure what the influence was. Probably the meme of monogamy developed as a set of superstitions initially. I think STDs would have played a role in this early stage.

According to (1) at least 3 diseases originate form animal reservoir. Once the meme of Judaism and its fork Christianity (which merges Greek values - ancient Greece and Rome were monogamous) was on the scene it was almost certainly the greatest factor in spreading the meme of monogamy. I think by the time of antiquity, STDs were no longer the main factor in spreading the meme of monogamy. Wikipedia has a nice list of historic or current communities where polygamy was the norm.

I also find your speculation about the average duration of emotional love, plausible.

I wholeheartedly agree with 2 with the small note that theoretically we could have had it easier.

I am not sure I agree with 3. Overall medicine is a very recent development. I am not sure what are the circumstances that would have enabled us to develop science and medicine significantly earlier. Also, not sure if lack of monogamy would motivate research today but probably would to a statistically relevant degree. The relationship the public and the state have with scientific research is complicated and changes over time. There is certainly a claim that there is a link between the rise of dating apps and a rise of STDs. I do not know if there are actual studies to prove this. It may be just speculation and moral panic. Theoretically this uptick might lead to more funds being directed towards finding cures. Heteronormative monogamy definitely played a role in delaying research of treatments for HIV.

(1) “Two or three of the major STIs [in humans] have come from animals. We know, for example, that gonorrhoea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually”. The most recent and deadliest STI to have crossed the barrier separating humans and animals has been HIV, which humans got from the simian version of the virus in chimpanzees. https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/news/staff-bl...

> I am not sure I agree with 3. Overall medicine is a very recent development. I am not sure what are the circumstances that would have enabled us to develop science and medicine significantly earlier.

I'm not suggesting that had monogamy not been there, science and medicine (for STD et al) would have developed earlier. What I am saying is that now that the means are there, monogamy and marriage have a 'legacy' element to it. That legacy is currently too deep into people's minds, culture and the law.

> Also, not sure if lack of monogamy would motivate research today but probably would to a statistically relevant degree.

Consider for minute that non-monogamy were to come to the world today suddenly like COVID did, leading to severe spread of STDs. (Note that this is not putting COVID and non-monogany on an equal front, it is putting the situation around them as equal.) My expectations would be that the needed medical developments for STD would also come by soon like the developments against COVID, though with the unwarranted transitory losses. If we are in agreement on that, we can consider a slower version where non-monogamy gains grounds over the next few decades. I think that will happen.

I want to ask you about this, in hindsight do you think it would work better for your mental health if you didn't care as much?

Like, I can read this and see that alimony is a persistent threat and reality that comes as a byproduct of being successful in my aspirations. I can just assume that it is in my future if I pursue certain kinds of relationships. 30-50% of marriages fail (the lower bound being more applicable when removing teenagers and military), and marriage contracts have shitty conditions to them. It would be a shitty contract with shitty probabilities even if only 5-10% of them failed, thats a high risk for anything with any financial component.

So I can just assume that I'll periodically file some stuff that lawyers ask for, just as a routine matter with no expectation of benefit from the legal system.

But it doesn't have to cause me any mental consternation or stress, because it isn't unexpected.

Would that approach have helped you?

Continuing in a separate comment:

Advise for you and others:

* Use social and legal provisions towards your own favor as much as possible whatever those are -- live-in relationships, friends with benefits, getting to know each other well upfront, pre-nuptial agreements, etc.

* Keep an escape route. E.g., keep finances strictly separate.

* Read 'good' books on how all this works, like on psychology of love relationships, parenting, divorce, etc.

* Need timely action as and when it is becoming bad and timely quitting. Don't go by the common guidance received which rests on inexperience and biases. Look at the statsistics and make good judgment calls. I have come across books on this too. Books sometimes give better advise than professional help (whether psychologists or lawyers) as the book author has no more ongoing vested interest once the book is sold.

In a nutshell, love yourself more than your life partner, and don't let your judgment be clouded. Read good books to build your judgment from the experiences of others.

Any particular recommendations in the books you've read?

I had found some good ones in a local library and had read them there itself while taking off from work without telling my spouse. There was no opportunity for me take these home for reading and nor create any electronic record. Life was just too tough, as you can see.

Here are some recommendations. Only the first one qualifies as a 'particular' one.

1. Human Relationships, Steve Duck. I had read the first edition and found it very insightful.

2. Another one that was very helpful was focussed on when it is the time to quit. I have linked a few similar ones below. The one I had read had a quiz after each chapter. I recall that for the first one, it said that a score of 3 out of 10 indicates your the situation is nearing borderline. (My score was 8, i.e. well past.)

3. There were several on the topic of divorce. These often include advice on the above as well.

4. There was one on how children react to such situations.

I had also read some that talked about how to save the marriage, etc.

For item 2 above:

Stay or Go: Dr. Ruth's Rules for Real Relationships https://www.amazon.com/Stay-Go-Ruths-Rules-Relationships-ebo...

Should I Stay or Should I Go: Surviving A Relationship with a Narcissist https://www.amazon.com/Should-Stay-Surviving-Relationship-Na...

Should I Stay Or Go? https://www.amazon.com/Should-Stay-Go-Controlled-Separation/...

I am (trying) doing that all along, and there is no other option anyway. So the question you have is not really applicable.

Notes on why one can't just 'not care' for mental health:

* Prior to separation, it could not be ignored as it used to happen nearly daily, which for me involved her beating herself up badly, shouting at the max of her voice, with my child also seeing all that and feeling helpless. Those around and the lawyers told me that if the wife makes any false allegation against me, I'll be doomed for a long time. And it has ultimately gone that route. (One should not ideally let it get this bad, exit timely, etc., however it is not that straightforward in practice.)

* With the lawsuits going on, there is a lot of work involved. It's more than a fulltime job in itself along with the usual fulltime job. This is because the wife just makes random false claims, which does not even require them to think. It's the defendent who has to research and file documents to show that she is making lies. Even with no expectation of benefit from the legal system, it needs to be done anyways as the situation would only be worse if not done. While in theory it's 'innocent until proven guilty', that does not mean in practice that the hard work is before the wife. The hard work is still before the husband. So even if you try to, you cannot ignore the legal work that continues and brings functional stress.

* There is a moral responsibility towards the welfare of the child. So just letting go does not fit.

* I see many men give up. They yield to the unjust and frivolous demands of the wife to avoid the above stresses. Giving up encourages more women and their unscrupolous lawyers to do the same, which would go on to make lives of other people worse. Hence, there is a moral responsibility to keep trying hard for justice for sake of others as well.

* Even if one is able to mentally let go of what is happening, there are things missing from life, which I sorely miss. Psychology research only says that it's very tough and leads to depression, etc. I have myself read a lot besides having professional help. If someone were to ask me "If you know and understand so much, are wise, how come you are still in so much pain?", my answer, because even the theory says so. Not easy to circumvent the theory!

* And so on.

> Wife abusive from the beginning

People who get into these relationships always paint themselves as victims when everyone around them knew it was a disaster from the beginning. I just don't understand how they get there unless they willingly ignore signs of bad behavior or they think they can fix or change people. That or they're just stupid.

I have a coworker in a bad relationship that seems to be headed towards marriage. He even jokes about how he cant stand her manipulation, control and social gatekeeping yet he's still with her. I don't get it. He is good looking, educated, and living independent with a career. He can easily find someone better. But no. He has to stand in the back of the venue with her pouting about how much his favorite band sucks while they play because he invited a single girl friend along for me to meet.

You reap what you sew.

> ... as victims when everyone around them knew it was a disaster from the beginning. I just don't understand how they get there unless they willingly ignore signs of bad behavior

It may also be the other way around where they saw the disaster from the beginning whereas the others around failed to but kept on applying peer pressure, where the system fails to provide a functional exit path, or when the welfare of the children points in another direction during the transition phase.

Also, things can become worse gradually whereas the decision to walk out is discrete which makes the decision hard. At what point in time does one find themselves justified to flip. I see several other areas where the same conundrum applies.

I have already written more in other comments.

> You reap what you sew

Never hold this against yourself or others without knowing the specifics and considering the entire picture. I tell this to everyone. People are genuinely victims at times for no fault of theirs. Of course, the other side is more common where people incorrectly keep blaming others.

It might be, but not always.

Family member’s wife started experiencing gradually pronounced schizophrenia over a few years and she became abusive to her husband until it ended with a short stay in a mental institute and then medication. She still wonders who she was at that time…

Some people suffer diabetes as they age, and more than you would guess start experiencing mental breakdown that can manifest as abuse to a partner.

Those situations are certainly understandable and forgivable.

But there are terrible people out there who for one reason or another desire to control and manipulate their partner. They may be sick but it does not excuse or justify continuous abusive behavior.

Hindsight. I couldn’t see it until the relationship was severed. I’m not stupid, but I tried to save it up until the final day while those around us were taking bets on when it would end.

19 years of life are… poof. I missed out on doing things I think I would have liked to because of “love”.

And I still care/worry for her.

He's in love, man. It makes you insane.

What is the alimony/ child support amount?

I am not sure if I have understood the question.

I cannot disclose the detailed specifics of my case.