Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Poor Communication Main Cause of Marriage, Cohabitation Breakdown

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

Phoenix666 writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Poor Communication Main Cause of Marriage, Cohabitation Breakdown | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 112 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by jimtheowl on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:37PM (6 children)

    by jimtheowl (5929) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:37PM (#485324)
    That is your opinion and perhaps a cynical view based on your personal experience. I believe that it depends.

    Without saying much more, you should consider that monogamy is not a human invention - it also exists in the animal world, including birds.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:14PM (#485364)

    Monogomy is not the same thing as mating for life.
    Lots of 'monogamous' bird species just pair up for one breeding season.

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:46PM (4 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:46PM (#485387)

    Prove it. There's very, very few species that mate for life. Usually, they pair up for one season (see Emperor penguins) only, and find someone new the next season. Or, they pair up briefly and one of them kills the other one (see praying mantises).

    Monogamy is just a silly romantic concept that humans invented because of the rise of agriculture and land ownership.

    • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Tuesday March 28 2017, @07:31PM (2 children)

      by jimtheowl (5929) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @07:31PM (#485415)
      I didn't say it was common, I said it existed. You know that but are willfully ignoring it.

      Believe what you want - I coudn't care less.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:04PM (#485438)

        I can ignore it because it's irrelevant. Something that's a statistical aberration is not evidence of anything. The fact is, monogamy is extremely rare in the animal world, and more importantly doesn't exist among the other Great Apes.

        • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:11AM

          by jimtheowl (5929) on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:11AM (#485735)
          Your use of statistics reeks of posturing. By that argument, the Queen in a beehive would be a statistical aberration. No need for excuses; you can ignore it because you choose to.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:16PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:16PM (#485448) Journal

      Prove it. There's very, very few species that mate for life.

      We have the usual adversarial approach. You admit that there are species that mate for life, thus your statement is sufficient proof for your demand.