DENVER B: Would The Divorce Rate Reduce If Men Didn’t Lose Everything?

If you’re a man browsing the internet today, targeted red pill content isn’t new, particularly ones relating to marriage.

This is why I’ve seen a lot of posts on why men should avoid marriage and why it’s such a bad idea today, particularly for men. 

But while I ignore most of it, I was surprised to find something worth debating. I was randomly scrolling through IG when I stumbled onto a post by Spiritual Word which read: "Less divorce would happen if divorce didn’t rip everything away from men. True or False?"

I loved this question so much that I ended up discussing it here because we’ve been forced to not only think about how bad divorce is for men but also get to question the possibilities if the losses are reduced.

Listen to it below:

But before we start hypothesizing, let’s see what we currently know about divorce:

Divorce Stats

First off, let me give a disclaimer: Most of the statistics given are from the US. This means that the accuracy of the information may vary in terms of your region/location. 

According to early statistics, about 40-50 per cent of marriages ended in divorce, with the chances increasing every time a person remarried (although marriages stand a greater chance of survival today as per recent stats). 

Women dominate the initiation of divorces in both the US and the UK at roughly 70 per cent with 50 per cent of all divorces being attributed to money (this has recently gone down to 22 per cent).

These statistics paint a grim picture for every man looking at marriage and the ever-elusive happily ever after. From there, you link the ever-falling numbers of suitable mates into the mix and the hope for marriage without divorce seems more like a pipe dream than reality. 

So now we ask the question: what if it didn’t look so bleak? What if the possibility of heavy losses for men from divorce were reduced significantly? 

What it would look like 

I decided to contemplate such a reality and honestly, I believe it would likely increase the chances of marriage, as the reduction of losses from the man’s side would reduce the perceived challenges young men would have that would deter them from committing to the bond.

Some would argue about whether women would affect the rate of marriage, but I’d argue that since men carry the keys to the relationship, it’s the men that carry the greater decision-making power in relation to entering a marriage. 

Vindictive women would find less satisfaction in divorce as the thought of “Taking him for all his money” will be a thing of the past for many due to the lowered losses from divorces. This may make some relationships last longer although in thinking again, such women’s husbands may very well be the ones initiating the divorces, albeit for a different reason- being tired of their partner.

Some women will still take the option of divorce (of course) as a weapon against their partner, akin to a double-edged sword due to the desire to see their partner fall. This can also affect the man in other ways due to the reputational damage.

The increased freedom for men opens the possibility for more men to initiate divorce due to unhappiness. This would work well for the typical runner who instead ‘getting the milk’ may instead opt for the ending of the relationship as a more permanent means.

The cases of secret families and/or polygamy could reduce as there would be no need for secrecy. But, are you seeing a can of worms being opened here?

It's worse.

Evidentially, the reduction of losses incurred for men during divorce would probably do the opposite of its intended purpose, as the rate of divorce would probably stay the same if not get worse.

For many, due to the low numbers of men initiating a divorce, this idea seemed to be a good solution as it could reduce the number of women who initiate divorce, especially those who divorce intending to gain from the man or wreck his life. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. 

The rise of re-marriage would occur due to the lowered risks of divorce, because if it’s so easy to get out, why not go in and out at will? Think of it like a tall, barbed-wire fence; if it’s lowered, even children will jump in and out testing out their high jump skills for fun. 

Divorces initiated by women may decrease by a bit, but divorces initiated by men would increase. If there’s less risk for the same, the option will almost always be taken.

It’s already easy enough to get married, so if you make it easier to get divorced, what stops people from breaking the knot just as fast?

Conclusion 

The truth of it is that the benefits of such a reality don’t particularly hold more water than its detriments.

The barriers of entry and exit are what help people determine whether to get into any commitment, be it business or personal. Once you lower both, expect a lot of players both in and out. 

After pondering this, I concluded that the best solution is not to decrease the losses faced but rather to increase the losses faced by the woman.

This would either reduce the number of women getting into commitments for anything besides long-term reasons and would also force more people to be increasingly selective in their options of life partners as the consequences would be direr.

Point is, the solutions sought are two-sided and require a more careful approach to not achieve the same result, just on the opposite end. It’s a lot like weight loss; you can cut out junk food and replace it with healthier options but if you’re not observant of the amounts consumed, you’ll still end up with the same result.

Argue all you want but I’ve never seen a Panda eat a burger yet it’s still fat.

Denver B is a TV personality on the show Men’s Conference and a podcaster on the Break Time on Westside podcast which speaks on love, sex & relationships spanning over 360 episodes. You can reach him through his email [email protected]

Do you have an opinion article to share with us? Reach us on [email protected]