Horrific statistics about the mental health of teenage girls in USA \ Globally

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

It’s social media + atheism + absentee parents.



With more and more American kids being raised by social media instead of their parents, it’s no wonder the situation is bad and worsening.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So yes after decades of ideological warfare against the traditional family unit and against Christianity, it’s no surprise the liberal establishment has nothing to replace them with, and the society they’ve defrauded is circling the drain as a result.

1. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...0Prinstein.pdf

This testimony of the APA Senior Official Mr. Prinstein is talking about the dangers of the unrestricted exposure and access of teens to illegal material on social media.

I agree with him: Elons conspiracy myths and the now unrestricted far right hate propaganda on Twitter and other rightwing media are dangerous for Teens and Adulescents.

But he doesn't claim in his testimony that this is caused by atheism or absentee parents.

Thats only LoT by misusing this testimony as proof for his claims.

2. Parental absence predicts suicide ideation through emotional disorders | PLOS ONE

Really LoT?

This study is about participants in China ("Participants of the current study were 4513 children from rural areas in Yancheng, China.").

How can this be representative for the situation of teens in the US?

Or are the US no democracy anymore and now a communistic dictatorship?

I'm really sure, there still are some diffrences in society.

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567518/

This study let me laugh hard.

Data from 74 questionnaires were analyzed (46 females, 3 transgender, 6 genderqueer, and 15 males). The average age was 18.1 years old. We found an inverse correlation between those who are not religious and worsening mental health during COVID-19 (R = –0.2547; p < 0.05). We also found that those who turn to their faith in crisis and those whose religious beliefs help guide them in difficult situations have had their faith strengthened during COVID-19 (R = 0.803, p < 0.00001; and R = 0.7849, p < 0.00001). Other comparisons including assessing for differences in age, ethnicity (White/non-White), and sex (male/female) did not reveal significant associations.

Only 74 participiants. Everyone who has ever visited a basic course in a social science knows that this probe is too small for getting any significant conclusions out of it.

And what has Covid to do with dysfunctional family?

Is this a copy and paste from some right wing media?

4. https://foundations.byu.edu/0000017e...tal-health-pdf

a) Its about COVID-19 Stress, Religious Affiliation, and Mental Health Outcomes among Adolescents.

Beeeep, wrong about Covid again, not about teenage suicides in general. Little relevance.

b) By:

W. Justin Dyer, Ph.D.
Religious Education, Brigham Young University

Brigham Young University is a private university by the Mormons :

Almost all BYU students are members of the LDS Church. Students attending BYU agree to follow an honor code, which mandates behavior in line with teachings of the church, such as academic honesty, adherence to dress and grooming standards, abstinence from extramarital sex, from same-sex romantic behavior, and from the consumption of alcohol and other drugs. Undergraduate students are also required to complete curriculum in LDS religious education for graduation regardless of their course of study.

So i would be surprised if this study would not come to the conclusion, that religion helps against eveerything.

Even more as the "representative sample" were 71,001 Utah adolescents. Utah the mormon state.

5. https://www.lisamillerphd.com/the-spiritual-child

I have a problem with this numbers as Miss Miller wants to sell her book which reveals you "The New Science on Parenting for Health and Lifelong Thriving"

Buý one and you get two bottles of snake oil for free...

6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...48550621994001

This study is examining 4 theories, what is leading to atheism.

Not a single word about teenager suicides or at least, that atheism is coherently bad.

That is only your interpretation, LoT.

Short Summary:

LoT has collected some studies, which are not referencing each other or has something to do with each other to proof his thesis:

Family + Religion good -> less suicides and Single mums bad + less religion-> more sucides.

Not convincing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

1. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...0Prinstein.pdf

This testimony of the APA Senior Official Mr. Prinstein is talking about the dangers of the restricted exposure and access of teens to illegal material on social media.

I agree with him: Elons conspiracy myths and the now unrestricted far right hate propaganda on Twitter and other rightwing media are dangerous for Teens and Adulescents.

But he doesn't claim in his testimony that this is caused by atheism or absentee parents.

Thats only LoT by misusing this testimony as proof for his claims.

I listed three factors contributing to the deterioration of youth mental health in Post #3, unambiguously at the top, first line. I didn’t misuse his testimony. It’s about the connection between social media and deteriorating youth mental health. I never claimed the testimony had anything to do with atheism or divorce. But once again, you’re doing a wonderful job of accidentally making my case for me.

2. Parental absence predicts suicide ideation through emotional disorders | PLOS ONE

Really LoT?

This study is about participants in China ("Participants of the current study were 4513 children from rural areas in Yancheng, China.").

How can this be representative for the situation of teens in the US?

Or are the US no democracy anymore and now a communistic dictatorship?

I'm really sure, there still are some diffrences in society.

Thank you for highlighting the fact the same trends I’ve discussed are so universally salient as to be observable not just in the US, but in other completely different countries/systems that also deliberately destroyed the nuclear family. Once again, accidentally making my case for me.

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567518/

This study let me laugh hard.


Data from 74 questionnaires were analyzed (46 females, 3 transgender, 6 genderqueer, and 15 males). The average age was 18.1 years old. We found an inverse correlation between those who are not religious and worsening mental health during COVID-19 (R = –0.2547; p < 0.05). We also found that those who turn to their faith in crisis and those whose religious beliefs help guide them in difficult situations have had their faith strengthened during COVID-19 (R = 0.803, p < 0.00001; and R = 0.7849, p < 0.00001). Other comparisons including assessing for differences in age, ethnicity (White/non-White), and sex (male/female) did not reveal significant associations.

Only 74 participiants. Everyone who has ever visited a basic course in a social science knows that this probe is too small for getting any significant conclusions out of it.

If you don’t like the sample size, feel free to find superior evidence refuting the conclusions. Given the latter are corroborated by a bunch of other sources, I don’t consider your personal qualms about the sample size in this one to be relevant.

Is this a copy and paste from some right wing media?

4. https://foundations.byu.edu/0000017e...tal-health-pdf

a) Its about COVID-19 Stress, Religious Affiliation, and Mental Health Outcomes among Adolescents.

Beeeep, wrong about Covid again, not about teenage suicides in general. Little relevance.

b) By:

W. Justin Dyer, Ph.D.
Religious Education, Brigham Young University

Brigham Young University is a private university by the Mormons :

Almost all BYU students are members of the LDS Church. Students attending BYU agree to follow an honor code, which mandates behavior in line with teachings of the church, such as academic honesty, adherence to dress and grooming standards, abstinence from extramarital sex, from same-sex romantic behavior, and from the consumption of alcohol and other drugs. Undergraduate students are also required to complete curriculum in LDS religious education for graduation regardless of their course of study.

So i would be surprised if this study would not come to the conclusion, that religion helps against eveerything.

Even more as the "representative sample" were 71,001 Utah adolescents. Utah the mormon state.

Your attempt to discredit a study solely because it was conducted by Christians might have more weight if you didn’t also dismiss a clinical psychologist from Columbia University who made the same observations in the next paragraph, for no other reason than your personal belief she is lying for profit.

5. https://www.lisamillerphd.com/the-spiritual-child

I have a problem with this numbers as Miss Miller wants to sell her book which reveals you "The New Science on Parenting for Health and Lifelong Thriving"

Buý one and you get two bottles of snake oil for free...

This isn’t an argument against anything Dr. Miller has concluded.

6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/194855062199400

This study is examining 4 theories, what is leading to atheism.

Not a single word about teenager suicides or at least, that atheism is coherently bad.

That is only your interpretation, LoT.

As any Total War player already knows, the study confirms that cultural reinforcement, rather than personal reflection or enlightenment, is the primary driver of the growth of atheism in the US. The conclusion is relevant given the previous sources in the same post that do have lots of words about religion and youth mental health. But once again, thank you for highlighting this point for me.

Short Summary:

LoT has collected some studies, which are not referencing each other or has something to do with each other to proof his thesis:

Family + Religion good -> less suicides and Single mums bad + less religion-> more sucides.

Not convincing.

Regardless of whether or not you’re convinced, your every attempt so far to refute the evidence I’ve presented has only strengthened it further. Next.

[chriscase]

Not unless you think the American Left didn’t exist until 2014. The point of including the BLM example was to briefly refute your claims that A) the nuclear family doesn’t exist and B) whatever happened to it is a total mystery lost to ancient history. Furthermore, it was to establish that the eradication of the nuclear family, far from being a reactionary fantasy, is still a top civil rights priority today.

No, actually, it hasn’t been tried. Instead, civil rights leaders backed by national institutions brag about efforts to unite people against the concept of the nuclear family. Even if that on its own hadn’t already addressed most of the indignant rhetoric you’ve substituted for an argument, I’ve also provided a source with an entire section on policy ideas.

So you think that people getting married in the U.S. do so with no expectation, interest or notion that they want to honor their vows and stay together? Have you ever actually been here? And yeah, the only time we seem to hear about "the nuclear family under attack" is from right wingers drumming up fear over their latest boogeyman. It's hard to take your position here as anything beyond that.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So you think that people getting married in the U.S. do so with no expectation, interest or notion that they want to honor their vows and stay together? Have you ever actually been here?

Do you have any intention of actually addressing the posts you respond to? Considering marriage rates are at the lowest point since the Civil War, I have no idea how you intend to connect this “gotcha” to the topic at hand.

And yeah, the only time we seem to hear about "the nuclear family under attack" is from right wingers drumming up fear over their latest boogeyman. It's hard to take your position here as anything beyond that.

Again, this tactic of firing off an irrelevant rhetorical question followed by a generic accusation/deflection doesn’t suggest I’m the one acting in bad faith here.

[mishkin]

As explained by Morticia, the traditional family was for millenia "whomever of the extended family was alive and children". I don't know why you are talking about the traditional family being "mom, dad and their children". That's a less healthy family IMO than "mom, dad, their children, the grandparents visiting 3-4 times per week, cousins, uncles and nephews visiting often too.".

7 pages and Lord Thesaurian still has not answered what he means by nuclear family, what kind of family he is defending. I can only intuit that he defends the nuclear family made up of husband, wife and biological children. Marriage and their progeny is the only thing he has given importance to.

Perhaps he will answer you if you ask him what type of family model he is defending and why he does not include non-biological children in this model and he cannot respect that parents decide that the best thing for their children may be their divorce.

------------------------

summarizing some answers to my descriptions of the traditional family: the fact that it has been in operation for thousands of years does not mean that it is a perfect institution and always the best option to take care of children, I do not think that anyone has the courage to deny the reality of many families in which, due to the absence of options or alternatives, one had to live with alcoholism, with violence, with repression, depression, humiliation, etc. I repeat, I am not saying that all families are chaos, I am saying that their idealization is absurd.

-------------------------

summarizing the thread: What to do for the well-being of adolescents? Do not allow their parents to divorce

[alhoon]

summarizing the thread: What to do for the well-being of adolescents? Do not allow their parents to divorce

And as I answered to Legio: That's impossible and according to some sources (and honestly common sense) it is not always beneficial for adolescents. As some mentioned in earlier posts, and with respect to the notion that this is not always the case, there are some horrible parents out there and in some cases divorce may be the least-bad option.

I am not sure how whether the children are biological or adopted even got to the discussion. We are talking about the well-being of adolescents. Perhaps non-adopted ones are happier (I have no idea if that's true). That doesn't change that we are talking about all adolescents.

[mishkin]

And as I answered to Legio: That's impossible and according to some sources (and honestly common sense) it is not always beneficial for adolescents. As some mentioned in earlier posts, and with respect to the notion that this is not always the case, there are some horrible parents out there and in some cases divorce may be the least-bad option.

totally agree, it seems perfectly reasonable to me, not all participants in this conversation would say the same. (There are very striking silences).

I am not sure how whether the children are biological or adopted even got to the discussion. We are talking about the well-being of adolescents. Perhaps non-adopted ones are happier (I have no idea if that's true). That doesn't change that we are talking about all adolescents.

Ask Lod Thesaurian:

the best thing for a teenager's mental health is to live in an advanced and wealthy society cared for by balanced and loving people with their biological, loving and married parents. Lets close this discussion with this nice agreement.

-----------------------------

Maybe the person using Jesus and books that talk about the spirituality of the child as a source in this discussion has some hidden agenda. Not sure.

[chriscase]

I can believe that divorce rates have risen over the last 70 years in the US.

I can believe that Church attendance has decreased over the last 70 years in the US.

I know for a fact that there is currently an epidemic of mental health distress among our youth, especially girls. There is also an epidemic of gun violence. None of these claims are controversial, indeed they seem to be common knowledge.

To draw causal connections between these trends to claim that "the left" has caused these problems by dismantling "the nuclear family" is simply absurd. I am sure there are lots of correlations - social media as well. Covid era restrictions certainly contributed. The notion that BLM is the cause is laughable.

The suggestion that we simply tell couples not to get divorced? You've got to be joking. The financial and social penalties for divorce are significant. Given how punishing a divorce is on everyone involved, why on earth would so many go through with it? Maybe because they can't ing stand each other? And you think a little talk about getting along for the kids' sake is going to make any difference at that point? Why even offer such a ridiculous suggestion? Perhaps because the point isn't to solve anything, just to plug right wing propaganda.

[fkizz]

I can believe that divorce rates have risen over the last 70 years in the US.

I can believe that Church attendance has decreased over the last 70 years in the US.

I know for a fact that there is currently an epidemic of mental health distress among our youth, especially girls. There is also an epidemic of gun violence. None of these claims are controversial, indeed they seem to be common knowledge.

I mean I try to keep an open mind about this, given openly I do not know why teenager suicide rates are rising, but the fact those things are happening at same time it's not unsurprising people might wonder if there's a link. Not sure what's surprisng that people often try to find connection between things that happen simultaneously.

The doubling down attack on older values instead of adressing what is talked upon the OP is kinda weird aswell, but not sure what to make of it.

Perhaps because the point isn't to solve anything, just to plug right wing propaganda.

In a world where even harry potter is starting to get seen as "right wing" propaganda, it's becoming increasingly weird to make sense of labels.

If one routinely dismiss points just because it comes from a "tribe" that is disliked, then it's obvious discussion of ideas will be silenced and broken.
Instead of saying the idea is bad because it comes from a certain "tribe" (a juvenile name-calling of sorts), adressing the central point would make more sense.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I can believe that divorce rates have risen over the last 70 years in the US.

I can believe that Church attendance has decreased over the last 70 years in the US.

I know for a fact that there is currently an epidemic of mental health distress among our youth, especially girls. There is also an epidemic of gun violence. None of these claims are controversial, indeed they seem to be common knowledge.

To draw causal connections between these trends to claim that "the left" has caused these problems by dismantling "the nuclear family" is simply absurd.

Changes in divorce rates, the rise of social media, and atheism are all causally connected to the deterioration in youth mental health, regardless of whether or not anyone accepts the empirical evidence confirming this. I’d be glad to break down how this outcome was not inevitable, at least as it relates to divorce and atheism, since I gather that’s what has triggered pages and pages of copium. However, if people can’t accept the premise, the trends, or even a clear-cut, current example of an open campaign to eliminate whatever remains of the nuclear family as an institutional norm, there’s no point in hashing it out further.

I am sure there are lots of correlations - The notion that BLM is the cause is laughable.

Good thing no one said this.

The suggestion that we simply tell couples not to get divorced? You've got to be joking. The financial and social penalties for divorce are significant. Given how punishing a divorce is on everyone involved, why on earth would so many go through with it? Maybe because they can't

ing stand each other? And you think a little talk about getting along for the kids' sake is going to make any difference at that point? Why even offer such a ridiculous suggestion? Perhaps because the point isn't to solve anything, just to plug right wing propaganda.

Divorce isn’t a random act of God and I’ve no obligation to craft a way for everyone to solve the problem without burdening anyone, just to prove I’m not “ridiculous.” Even so, I did include several policy proposals, as mentioned and ignored more than once now. Perhaps because the point isn’t to solve anything, just to plug bizarre fantasies concerning Spanish families or burning cats.

States already force divorced parent(s) to pay child support and split custody in a way deemed beneficial to the child according to the court. But only a theocrat would fund and expand vocational schools, restrict no fault divorce, or eliminate marriage penalties from the tax code. If anyone wants to present data that says we can’t do anything about deteriorating youth mental health even though we know what is contributing to it, because that would require too many adults to take a bit of personal responsibility going forward, please do. If that’s the case, we might as well forget about other pressing collective action problems, like climate change, for the same reason. No serious person would suggest it’s easier to give up animal products, fossil fuels and limitless consumption everywhere on Earth than to refrain from having unprotected sex with anyone other than a spouse in the US. Excellent idea for a reality show tbf, but that’s clown world for you. I never suggested banning divorce and everyone complaining about that so far hasn’t mentioned what I did propose. But the bottom line is, all the best policy proposals there could be can only help, not solve, a problem created by fundamental cultural changes.

[Ferdiad]

Rising divorce rates are a bit deceptive I think. Years ago parents would have stayed together purely for the optics but now that's it's become more socially acceptable to divorce; a lot more people are divorcing where otherwise they would have stated in these sham marriages just for appearances.

[alhoon]

But the bottom line is, all the best policy proposals there could be can only help, not solve, a problem created by fundamental cultural changes.

I think that is correct. I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with other parts you say. However as @Chriscase mentioned, there are already penalties involved with divorce and it is still raises. People jump into marriage too early IMO, but good luck convincing anyone that Mrs Perfect he met while on vacations 3 months ago may not be as perfect as he thinks. After all, problems in a relationship (including marriage) have a tendency to show up after 3 or so years (where many long-term relationships break). And many marriages go through the 7-year-slump thing. It is hard to predict how your spouse or yourself would have changed in 7 years so it is hard to predict whether your marriage would be a good one.
As Chris said earlier the vast majority of these couples married because they thought the marriage would work. About 2/3 of them are wrong.

But to come back to your arguments: No, I remain unconvinced that policy proposals made with the purpose to keep unhappy people together would help teenagers. And policy proposals that would make marrying harder? Come on... that is hardly a policy that authoritarian regimes may pass, let alone democracies.
Not to mention that making it harder for people from getting married to the wrong person also makes it harder for them to marry the right person. It may well have the opposite effect, more people getting married along to a list, similar to arranged marriages of previous centuries.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Marriage is hard work of making compromises and working on the relationship. Not for people with too big Ego.

[Ferdiad]

I think that is correct. I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with other parts you say. However as @Chriscase mentioned, there are already penalties involved with divorce and it is still raises. People jump into marriage too early IMO, but good luck convincing anyone that Mrs Perfect he met while on vacations 3 months ago may not be as perfect as he thinks. After all, problems in a relationship (including marriage) have a tendency to show up after 3 or so years (where many long-term relationships break). And many marriages go through the 7-year-slump thing. It is hard to predict how your spouse or yourself would have changed in 7 years so it is hard to predict whether your marriage would be a good one.
As Chris said earlier the vast majority of these couples married because they thought the marriage would work. About 2/3 of them are wrong.

But to come back to your arguments: No, I remain unconvinced that policy proposals made with the purpose to keep unhappy people together would help teenagers. And policy proposals that would make marrying harder? Come on... that is hardly a policy that authoritarian regimes may pass, let alone democracies.
Not to mention that making it harder for people from getting married to the wrong person also makes it harder for them to marry the right person. It may well have the opposite effect, more people getting married along to a list, similar to arranged marriages of previous centuries.

Realistically though, the state shouldn't care if someone is married or just in a long term relationship. All the incentives and tax breaks etc are just holdevers from the influece relegion had on governments.

[Lord Thesaurian]

But to come back to your arguments: No, I remain unconvinced that policy proposals made with the purpose to keep unhappy people together would help teenagers. And policy proposals that would make marrying harder? Come on... that is hardly a policy that authoritarian regimes may pass, let alone democracies.

Not to mention that making it harder for people from getting married to the wrong person also makes it harder for them to marry the right person. It may well have the opposite effect, more people getting married along to a list, similar to arranged marriages of previous centuries.

I don’t know which of the policy proposal(s) discussed in the source material(s) make it harder to get married; you’re welcome to elaborate.

According to the results of a federally endorsed relationship counseling program used by several departments across the government, lack of commitment/infidelity are the top reasons for divorce, with nearly 100% of divorced couples reporting at least one partner who had cheated on them and thus ended the relationship. This is followed by excessive arguing (72%), financial problems (56%) and substance abuse (50%). 25% cited domestic violence. These categories are not mutually exclusive, of course, but it’s worth pointing out that adultery, substance abuse and fighting over money are by far the top reasons for divorce, not domestic violence or “marrying the wrong person.”

This is precisely why the destruction of the nuclear family has been so devastating. Adultery/non-monogamy is normalized, substance abuse is rampant (children of single parents are far more likely to abuse drugs/alcohol during their lifetime) and the rise of single parent and unmarried households has slowed income growth for years.

Contrast this to the recent period in the US when divorce and unwed births were virtually unheard of. Due to cultural factors, a woman was unlikely to sleep with a man who did not at least promise to marry her, as fornication was taboo. A man understood that if he broke that promise, word would get around and other women would be less likely to date him. Worse, if a man got a woman pregnant, he had no socially acceptable choice but to marry her. Forever. A woman understood the same risks from her side.

Social campaigns or policies could help make it easier/more important to get married and stay married if you have kids, and I’ve mentioned a few, but it is not possible to replicate the conditions phased out by decades-long efforts to erode those conditions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All I can really do is say “I knew it” and shake my head sadly.

20
My son, keep your father's commandment,
 and forsake not your mother's teaching.
21
Bind them on your heart always;
 tie them around your neck.
22
When you walk, they will lead you;
 when you lie down, they will watch over you;
 and when you awake, they will talk with you.
23
For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,
 and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,
24
to preserve you from the evil woman,[e]
 from the smooth tongue of the adulteress.[f]
25
Do not desire her beauty in your heart,
 and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;
26
for the price of a prostitute is only a loaf of bread,[g]
 but a married woman[h] hunts down a precious life.
27
Can a man carry fire next to his chest
 and his clothes not be burned?
28
Or can one walk on hot coals
 and his feet not be scorched?
29
So is he who goes in to his neighbor's wife;
 none who touches her will go unpunished.
30
People do not despise a thief if he steals
 to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
31
but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold;
 he will give all the goods of his house.
32
He who commits adultery lacks sense;
 he who does it destroys himself.
33
He will get wounds and dishonor,
 and his disgrace will not be wiped away.
34
For jealousy makes a man furious,
 and he will not spare when he takes revenge.
35
He will accept no compensation;
 he will refuse though you multiply gifts.

[alhoon]

Allow me to lay out the flaws I personally see in your reasoning.

According to the results of a federally endorsed relationship counseling program used by several departments across the government, lack of commitment/infidelity are the top reasons for divorce, with nearly 100% of divorced couples reporting at least one partner who had cheated on them and thus ended the relationship. This is followed by excessive arguing (72%), financial problems (56%) and substance abuse (50%). 25% cited domestic violence. These categories are not mutually exclusive, of course, but it’s worth pointing out that adultery, substance abuse and fighting over money are by far the top reasons for divorce, not domestic violence or “marrying the wrong person.”

This is precisely why the destruction of the nuclear family has been so devastating. Adultery/non-monogamy is normalized, substance abuse is rampant (children of single parents are far more likely to abuse drugs/alcohol during their lifetime) and the rise of single parent and unmarried households has slowed income growth for years.

I will start with: I strongly believe that "Marrying an alcoholic adulterer" is actually marrying the wrong person. Marriage between two people with very different views on frugality and spending to the point that the marriage collapses (I have one such friend, no children) is also marrying the wrong person.

Then I will say that 25% for domestic violence is ... shocking. Divorces are at what, 2/3 of new marriages? And 1/4 of these have domestic violence issues?! That's ONE IN SIX marriages! I have only one aunt that had a violent (and substance abusing) ex-husband and ... I kinda suspect another divorced aunt (drug abusing husband) simply doesn't admit it. Considering how that guy (I will not consider him uncle) beat his dog when he was angry... anyway.
In both of these cases (cousins in their 40s-50s now) the kids grew up much better IMO than they would have if the father was still around. Although there was stress when they were teenagers and the family was dissolving. I would also suspect that is true for current teenagers too; divorce is traumatic but sometimes it is worse to live with a substance abusing (50%) and/or violent (25%) parent.

Contrast this to the recent period in the US when divorce and unwed births were virtually unheard of. Due to cultural factors, a woman was unlikely to sleep with a man who did not at least promise to marry her, as fornication was taboo. A man understood that if he broke that promise, word would get around and other women would be less likely to date him. Worse, if a man got a woman pregnant, he had no socially acceptable choice but to marry her. Forever. A woman understood the same risks from her side.

Social campaigns or policies could help make it easier/more important to get married and stay married if you have kids, and I’ve mentioned a few, but it is not possible to replicate the conditions phased out by decades-long efforts to erode those conditions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All I can really do is say “I knew it” and shake my head sadly.

I also have disagreements with this romanticized view of the past.
For example, while yes, I agree it was much rarer for a woman to sleep with a man for fun and if word got out things would be much worse than today BUT ... things were much worse for the woman. The man? He could deny he ever did a thing and that "the slut is lying!". And many would believe him. Again, it is not hard to find evidence of that. Just ask any 80-years old you know.
As for the woman? I will again turn to my European Country and the honorkillings that happen still in rural areas when a girl becomes pregnant.
Of course such things are not and were not common, I fully admit that. Indeed, family back then was much more stable. But that doesn't necessarily mean that people would not be beating their wives or abusing alcohol or drugs. It was happening (hopefully) in a lesser degree, but a discussion with old people would tell you it was far from unheard of. From what I heard from an American friend of mine, in the 50s a man could be beating his wife and most neighbors and relatives would consider it "his business, not ours" even if they disapproved of the practice. I am not sure to what degree that is true, but I am certain it was much more common than it is now. Simply put, beating your wife was tolerated.


Then let's actually turn towards teenagers of that era of rare divorces. They were teenagers in an time where they fathers went to fight in WW2 or the Korean war. Hardly a stress-free time.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I will start with: I strongly believe that "Marrying an alcoholic adulterer" is actually marrying the wrong person. Marriage between two people with very different views on frugality and spending to the point that the marriage collapses (I have one such friend, no children) is also marrying the wrong person.

No one marries an alcoholic adulterer who bankrupts a family. They marry someone who becomes that person. People make choices in life. In the analysis of what is causing the deterioration of youth mental health, it’s not about whether or not people used to have or still can have relationship or personal problems. It’s about identifying the ways in which a given trend(s) has a causal impact on the other(s).

Then I will say that 25% for domestic violence is ... shocking. Divorces are at what, 2/3 of new marriages? And 1/4 of these have domestic violence issues?! That's ONE IN SIX marriages! I have only one aunt that had a violent (and substance abusing) ex-husband and ... I kinda suspect another divorced aunt (drug abusing husband) simply doesn't admit it. Considering how that guy (I will not consider him uncle) beat his dog when he was angry... anyway.

In both of these cases (cousins in their 40s-50s now) the kids grew up much better IMO than they would have if the father was still around. Although there was stress when they were teenagers and the family was dissolving. I would also suspect that is true for current teenagers too; divorce is traumatic but sometimes it is worse to live with a substance abusing (50%) and/or violent (25%) parent.

It’s actually half of marriages that end in divorce, but the domestic violence stats for marriages overall are almost as bad. But it’s downright scary when you consider that 80% of domestic violence is between unmarried couples. I really don’t mean to be a snob but this just helps my case further. Like I said, if people could stop saying “what about domestic violence” in response to “people who have kids should get married and stay that way,” that would be nice.

According to the work conducted by Susan B. Sorenson, professor of social policy in the School of Social Policy & Practice, the majority of such intimate partner violence — more than 80 percent of incidents in one study population — involve boyfriends and girlfriends. What’s more, these partnerships result in the most physical violence.

“Current boyfriends or girlfriends were more likely than current spouses to injure their victims,” said Sorenson, director of Penn’s Evelyn Jacobs Ortner Center on Family Violence. “They were more likely to push and shove, to grab, to punch. They were more likely to strangle — some pretty awful behaviors toward a partner. They were also more likely to use a knife, a bat or another kind of weapon. We were not expecting to find this.”

For this research, Sorenson and 2017 graduate Devan Spear aimed to move beyond general victimization surveys to learn not just whether someone has ever experienced intimate partner abuse, but also to identify the abuser. Was the person a current or former spouse, or a current or former girlfriend or boyfriend?

“Much of the intimate partner violence research has focused on lifetime experience, and that’s a reasonable place to start,” Sorenson said. “Once we have an overall picture in research, we begin to drill down in order to discern whether there are differences by considerations such as the type of relationship.”

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/dat...olence-spouses

Stats on kids exposed to interpartner violence or substance abuse range from 1:15 to 1:8 from what I’ve seen. Also, married couples are less likely to experience substance abuse, to such an extent that single parenthood is itself a risk factor for substance abuse, as is domestic violence. Marriage has been shown to reduce alcohol and drug use.

Overall, studies have shown that marriage actually accelerates a decrease in alcohol use when compared to those who remain single. One reason that has been suggested is that married couples often drink less or experience a greater length of time between drinks than individuals who are unmarried. In particular, a person who has been an alcoholic prior to marriage will experience fewer incidents of alcohol abuse as time progresses after they have found a husband or wife. This decline is much stronger when compared to those who never marry ……. It has also been shown that marriage has a positive effect on substance abuse.

https://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addict...bstance-abuse/

I also have disagreements with this romanticized view of the past….. From what I heard from an American friend of mine, in the 50s a man could be beating his wife and most neighbors and relatives would consider it "his business, not ours" even if they disapproved of the practice. I am not sure to what degree that is true, but I am certain it was much more common than it is now. Simply put, beating your wife was tolerated.

It has nothing to do with romanticizing the past. I listed a few factors which explained the extremely low rates of unwed births and single parents then compared to now, and why they can’t be replicated directly today. I honestly don’t understand what’s difficult about this. Kids in an unmarried parental environment face much higher odds of exposure to domestic violence, parental separation, and substance abuse, than in married households. How, then, can people repeat “my grandma said her friend was beaten daily by her Christian pastor husband” and “what about child rape” and “should people get divorced if their spouse attempts to murder them” and “bad stuff happened back then too” over and over like it has any relevance whatsoever?

Then let's actually turn towards teenagers of that era of rare divorces. They were teenagers in an time where they fathers went to fight in WW2 or the Korean war. Hardly a stress-free time

And yet kids today report worse anxiety/depression than psych patients in the 1950s. We are now back to post #20.

[mishkin]

Marriage is hard work of making compromises and working on the relationship. Not for people with too big Ego.

It is also not for ultra-rigid people who consider a marriage to be an unbreakable commitment, a quasi-sacred or sacred union that cannot be broken. tremendous red flag, run, baby, run.

[Sir Adrian]

Marriage, even in its most atheistic form imaginable, is a vow. Vows are not meant to be broken by definition.

Rising divorce rates are a bit deceptive I think. Years ago parents would have stayed together purely for the optics but now that's it's become more socially acceptable to divorce; a lot more people are divorcing where otherwise they would have stated in these sham marriages just for appearances.

Years ago parents stayed together purely for the kids, to avoid having the kids grow up in a broken home. Modern parents have no such qualms.

[mishkin]

What comes first:
- a commitment/vow
- your happiness
- the happiness of your partner
- the happiness of your children

Very personal decisions, thank god there is the alternative of divorce, keeping a promise despite the fact that it may harm third parties (and oneself) is madness. Madness level appear on the front page of the local newspaper.