Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the xkcd-523 dept.

The most common reasons given for the breakdown of marriages or live-in partnerships in Britain are communication problems and growing apart, according to analysis by UCL researchers of the latest National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3).

[...] Natsal is the largest scientific study of sexual health lifestyles in Britain. It is carried out by UCL, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and NatCen Social Research [sic]

Natsal is run every 10 years, and includes a representative sample of men and women resident in Britain aged between 16 and 74. Natsal-3 was carried out between 2010 and 2012.

The study focused on the responses of 706 men and 1254 women to questions about their reasons for breakdown of a marriage or cohabiting relationship in the past 5 years.

[UCL is, of course, University College London. It has as part of one of its faculties the above-mentioned school.]

I would have guessed footie.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:06PM (3 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:06PM (#485187) Journal

    Natural selection long ago found that it was preferable for the species if children were brought up by both a man and a woman. Argue with Darwin at your own peril.

    While I have nothing necessarily against marriage, your invocation of Darwin seems a bit odd here. There are many possible patterns of raising young in various species, some of which are centered on two primary parents, many where the young are basically just raised by the mother, plenty where other social groups are important in raising young within a community (pack, herd, whatever).

    My understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that humans within the primate group we come from probably tended toward smaller bands consisting of an alpha male with one or more females. Children in prehistory were therefore likely raised by this group, a feature that continued to be part of most human societies (i.e., "it takes a village" kind of stuff) with women communally sharing child-care responsibilities, etc. It's only really in the past century or so that the "nuclear family" of just man-woman-children isolated from larger social groups has been seen as the norm in many societies. And it's this isolation of a nuclear family (with the added issues and tensions it often creates) that's abnormal for humans and perhaps leads to greater stress and frustration.

    Anyhow, are there other primate species that operate under the single lifelong pair-bond scenario you describe? It seems singular marriage (as opposed to polygamy, and generally polygyny, which was common to many human societies in the past) is more of a creation of civilization, something to regulate and distribute the sexes in a way that minimized the conflict common in polygamous societies (which often tend to have a lot of warfare among males seeking to become alpha and take over a clan of women or whatever).

    But I don't claim to be an anthropologist or expert in primate social groups, so maybe somebody else has better info...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)

    I think you're reading what you wanted to argue against rather than what I said. I've made no claims that a nuclear family consisting only of both parents and the children are how humans function best. I did not exclude extended family members or friends in any way.

    The point of my claim was more along the lines of if you do not have both a mother figure and a father figure, you are far more likely to end up with fucked up, antisocial kids. Which utterly fails all success criteria for species survival and prosperity.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:08PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:08PM (#486654) Journal

      I've made no claims that a nuclear family consisting only of both parents and the children are how humans function best.

      I didn't say you did. But our modern conception of marriage often focuses on it.

      I did not exclude extended family members or friends in any way.

      And yet monogamous marriage does precisely that, unless you were also admitting polygamous unions as options (more likely resembling prehistoric structures)? As others have noted, humans are likely inherently promiscuous from an evolutionary standpoint and/or likely to have a structure involving multiple mates. Defending the modern civilized conception of heterosexual marriage doesn't generally admit those sorts of social groupings.

      The point of my claim was more along the lines of if you do not have both a mother figure and a father figure, you are far more likely to end up with fucked up, antisocial kids.

      [Citation needed.] The concept of families with two moms or two dads or whatever is relatively recent in Western cultures (at least as considered acceptable), and most preliminary studies I've seen seem to show no such negative impacts. I'm willing to admit the data may still be limited. But even the impacts of divorce have frequently been overstated (though that at least has some clear negative impacts). If you're talking about the impact of single parents, I agree there's an issue there, but I'm not sure it's mostly caused by the lack of the opposing sex in a parent as the extra difficulties and stresses caused when people don't have the support of another full-time adult in a household to raise kids.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 28 2017, @07:36PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @07:36PM (#485418) Journal

    Take a look at Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee.

    We are best classified as one of the great apes, a subgroup of the primates. Chimps and apes have a wide variety of reproduction strategies. Mountain gorillas do indeed have the alpha male and harem set up. Chimps such as the bonobo are much more freewheeling and promiscuous, mating with each other all the time. Diamond points out that there is a correlation between male testicle size and sexual behavior. Relative to body weight, chimps have very large testes, the better to flood the females with lots of seed, and to shorten recovery time, increasing their odds of becoming fathers. The male gorilla doesn't need large testes because he doesn't mate that often, as he relies on physical force to keep other males away and doesn't have to guess when the female is in heat. Humans fit in at "mildly promiscuous". Monogamy was never entirely our way, though we're close enough to that lifestyle that we can do it.