Dr. Doom posted a new blog entry!

[zolotiyeruki]

I think the poster meant to say hypergamy. Regardless, it is a tired, sexist cliche.

Unbelievable.

Doom specifically indicated untreated mental health issues, and that she exhibited a number of callous, unreasonable expectations, and said cruel and hurtful things about his health.

And apparently that's because genetically women are awful? Not because this particular person struggled with emotional problems?

/me puts on flameproof suit

I don't agree with the "genetic" portion of the argument, but an ingrained cultural aspiration to "marry up" has been an aspect of many cultures for centuries, and an accompanytendency to base one's self esteem on the perceived success of one's partner is quite common as well.  I can imagine that if this was the case for the ex-Mrs. Doom, his retirement (and thus "lack of success [in the workforce]") could impact her self-worth, and that could manifest itself via hurtful comments, unreasonable expectations, etc.

Is is possible for a cultural tradition to become so ingrained that it affects genetics?

[Kris]

I think what is at major play here is genetic.

Hypogamy is where a woman has a need to be with someone with a certain status above them. FIRE changes peoples status in society and unless she is totally onboard with this, it is going to cause some major disturbances in the force. Probably better to wait when you a FIRE before marrying or make sure you have 100% buy-in. People can say they know what they would be cool with, but experiencing it is a different story.

Imagine actually believing this. 🙄

[Metalcat]

I think the poster meant to say hypergamy. Regardless, it is a tired, sexist cliche.

Unbelievable.

Doom specifically indicated untreated mental health issues, and that she exhibited a number of callous, unreasonable expectations, and said cruel and hurtful things about his health.

And apparently that's because genetically women are awful? Not because this particular person struggled with emotional problems?

/me puts on flameproof suit

I don't agree with the "genetic" portion of the argument, but an ingrained cultural aspiration to "marry up" has been an aspect of many cultures for centuries, and an accompanytendency to base one's self esteem on the perceived success of one's partner is quite common as well.  I can imagine that if this was the case for the ex-Mrs. Doom, his retirement (and thus "lack of success [in the workforce]") could impact her self-worth, and that could manifest itself via hurtful comments, unreasonable expectations, etc.

Is is possible for a cultural tradition to become so ingrained that it affects genetics?

I believe I already covered it in this very thread already.

I will simply say that basically everyone wants a spouse that they can be proud of, and yes, social expectations will colour what factors make people feel proud. Those factors change over time, and are highly individual.

For one woman it might be a high earning spouse, for another it might be a doting stay at home fathers, for another it might be someone with athletic ability, and for yet another it might be someone with incredible artistic talent, etc, etc.

Also, genetics 101, there are NO SPECIFIC FEMALE GENES.

[maizefolk]

Is is possible for a cultural tradition to become so ingrained that it affects genetics?

In principle yes. In practice, you would need much MUCH stronger selection (e.g. an awful lot of children or young adults dying before they have the opportunity to reproduce, and/or really big differences in the number of children couples are ABLE to have) for culture to produce detectable changes in allele frequency.

And that assumes there is standing genetic variation for the trait is question AND the trait is controlled by genetic factors in the first place (eye color: major genetic effects. height: lots of genetics and lots of environmental effects, taste in music: essentially all environmental).

The problem evolutionary psych all too often has is assuming that every just-so story for how trait X could be adaptive is 1) actually adaptive 2) has a strong enough effect to actually produce detectable selection 3) is a trait which is actually controlled by genetics in the first place 4) not only is the trait genetic but there's a genetic mechanism to produce DIFFERENT outcomes in men and women.*

*Assume women with blue eyes tend to have more children who survive to adulthood than women with brown eyes. But men with brown eyes have more children who survive to adulthood than men with blue eyes. Since eye color isn't a sex linked trait, alleles that produce blue eyes will provide an advantage to a woman but a disadvantage to her sons and alleles that produce brown eyes will provide an advantage to a man but a disadvantage for his daughters and selection won't produce a society of blue eyed women and brown eyed men.

[Metalcat]

Is is possible for a cultural tradition to become so ingrained that it affects genetics?

In principle yes. In practice, you would need much MUCH stronger selection (e.g. an awful lot of children or young adults dying before they have the opportunity to reproduce, and/or really big differences in the number of children couples are ABLE to have) for culture to produce detectable changes in allele frequency.

And that assumes there is standing genetic variation for the trait is question AND the trait is controlled by genetic factors in the first place (eye color: major genetic effects. height: lots of genetics and lots of environmental effects, taste in music: essentially all environmental).

The problem evolutionary psych all too often has is assuming that every just-so story for how trait X could be adaptive is 1) actually adaptive 2) has a strong enough effect to actually produce detectable selection 3) is a trait which is actually controlled by genetics in the first place 4) not only is the trait genetic but there's a genetic mechanism to produce DIFFERENT outcomes in men and women.*

*Assume women with blue eyes tend to have more children who survive to adulthood than women with brown eyes. But men with brown eyes have more children who survive to adulthood than men with blue eyes. Since eye color isn't a sex linked trait, alleles that produce blue eyes will provide an advantage to a woman but a disadvantage to her sons and alleles that produce brown eyes will provide an advantage to a man but a disadvantage for his daughters and selection won't produce a society of blue eyed women and brown eyed men.

I think a lot of people don't realize that the differences between men and women aren't primarily genetic, they're hormonal.

There are no specifically female genes to pass down. NONE. They do not exist.

All genes get passed down to both males and females, except for the Y chromosome, which has very, very few genes on it.

So almost no features that differentiate females and males are genetic. The Y chromosome just triggers that the genes get expressed differently.

All embryos will develop female by default. So technically, we all inherit all female genes. The Y chromosome just interrupts that default female development and floods the system with enough testosterone to develop male instead. (This is obviously simplified, but makes the basic point).

[Psychstache]

Is is possible for a cultural tradition to become so ingrained that it affects genetics?

In principle yes. In practice, you would need much MUCH stronger selection (e.g. an awful lot of children or young adults dying before they have the opportunity to reproduce, and/or really big differences in the number of children couples are ABLE to have) for culture to produce detectable changes in allele frequency.

And that assumes there is standing genetic variation for the trait is question AND the trait is controlled by genetic factors in the first place (eye color: major genetic effects. height: lots of genetics and lots of environmental effects, taste in music: essentially all environmental).

The problem evolutionary psych all too often has is assuming that every just-so story for how trait X could be adaptive is 1) actually adaptive 2) has a strong enough effect to actually produce detectable selection 3) is a trait which is actually controlled by genetics in the first place 4) not only is the trait genetic but there's a genetic mechanism to produce DIFFERENT outcomes in men and women.*

*Assume women with blue eyes tend to have more children who survive to adulthood than women with brown eyes. But men with brown eyes have more children who survive to adulthood than men with blue eyes. Since eye color isn't a sex linked trait, alleles that produce blue eyes will provide an advantage to a woman but a disadvantage to her sons and alleles that produce brown eyes will provide an advantage to a man but a disadvantage for his daughters and selection won't produce a society of blue eyed women and brown eyed men.

I think a lot of people don't realize that the differences between men and women aren't primarily genetic, they're hormonal.

There are no specifically female genes to pass down. NONE. They do not exist.

All genes get passed down to both males and females, except for the Y chromosome, which has very, very few genes on it.

So almost no features that differentiate females and males are genetic. The Y chromosome just triggers that the genes get expressed differently.

All embryos will develop female by default. So technically, we all inherit all female genes. The Y chromosome just interrupts that default female development and floods the system with enough testosterone to develop male instead. (This is obviously simplified, but makes the basic point).

Also, it should be noted that there have been several meta-analyses that show that when we look at a wide variety of behavioral and personality traits and dispositions, there is much greater intrasex variance (ie., comparing males to other males) than there is intersex variance (ie. comparing males to females).

[partgypsy]

people who think that there are genetic differences between men and women have failed, biology 101.

Bottom line people marry people whom they enjoy spending time with, that they are good friends, companions, partners.

I imagine if you looked at actual marriages for most of history most marriages were with relative peers, in the sense the two "families" were in the same social, cultural sphere. You have to understand a woman "choosing" her partner is relatively recent. The women's family had a large say. As far as hypergamy marrying "up" was the only way a female could aspire to a higher social status as most women were effectively barred from work and their only sphere was the home. Who know where the women would be financially, etc if they could work? Maybe they were simply choosing someone they saw as a peer to them.

Now that women can and do work, I have been hearing both the hypergamy argument. AND the fact that women don't "need" men financially and can choose their own sexual partners and this is somehow a problem. Well which one is it? Are women naturally gold diggers? If so why would guys be upset that women can earn money and don't need to depend on a man for living? You would think they would welcome this but they don't. Bottom line what seems to be threatening is the fact of women having choice. Females choosing their own mates, or choosing a female mate, or choosing maybe no mate, than hypergamy.   

[robartsd]

Now that women can and do workearn money full time

Women have always done work.

[NumberJohnny5]

So much to unpack here! And I definitely have some opinions on the whole "men vs women" thing, but that'll have to wait until I can figure out a way to properly articulate what I mean without it coming off in a way I don't mean for it to.

*glances nervously at #Cancel FinCon thread*

To the topic of the alarming number of divorces happening to those who are retiring early. I think many are focusing too hard on the "retiring" part than they are the "early" part. How old are those who are retiring early? What is the average divorce rate among that age group? Is there really that big a difference? If a lot of people in the 35-45 age range get divorced, then why are we so surprised that a lot of people in the 35-45 age range are getting divorced? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just not that surprised that a lot of people are getting divorced. I'm sure some are getting divorced BECAUSE their spouse retired, and I'm sure some are actually NOT getting divorced because of the non-existent work related stress. Does it balance out perfectly? Doubtful, but I haven't seen evidence that points to retiring early being a huge detriment to a long lasting marriage (and with the stories posted here, I also see no evidence that points to it virtually guaranteeing a rock-solid marriage).

[maizefolk]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just not that surprised that a lot of people are getting divorced. I'm sure some are getting divorced BECAUSE their spouse retired, and I'm sure some are actually NOT getting divorced because of the non-existent work related stress. Does it balance out perfectly? Doubtful, but I haven't seen evidence that points to retiring early being a huge detriment to a long lasting marriage (and with the stories posted here, I also see no evidence that points to it virtually guaranteeing a rock-solid marriage).

And as Malcat (I think) points out, even modestly higher divorce numbers for people who FIRE vs age matched cohorts can be a good thing if that difference is the result of couples that make each other miserable but who couldn't afford to get divorced in the non-FIREd control group.

[NumberJohnny5]

And as Malcat (I think) points out, even modestly higher divorce numbers for people who FIRE vs age matched cohorts can be a good thing if that difference is the result of couples that make each other miserable but who couldn't afford to get divorced in the non-FIREd control group.

Personally, I'd love to see an actual study on this. Though, I'm the weirdo that likes to read studies just because. Until then I'm assuming the numbers roughly (but not exactly) balance out. About as many people get divorced specifically due to the other spouse retiring early as those who don't get divorced for the exact same reason. The majority get divorced because they were going to anyway, it just seems to be a thing that happens.

I'll never admit to it on Facebook, but it's interesting to watch this play out among your friends group (who are mostly grouped in the same age range). Hrm, so-and-so is suddenly posting a lot of lovey-dovey stuff about their significant other...won't be long until the...yup there's the split. Then some bouncing around, multiple relationship status changes, then slowly they all start settling down again. Luckily my wife doesn't post lovey-dovey stuff about me that often (maybe once or twice total), so I'm not too worried.

[slappy]

And as Malcat (I think) points out, even modestly higher divorce numbers for people who FIRE vs age matched cohorts can be a good thing if that difference is the result of couples that make each other miserable but who couldn't afford to get divorced in the non-FIREd control group.

Personally, I'd love to see an actual study on this. Though, I'm the weirdo that likes to read studies just because. Until then I'm assuming the numbers roughly (but not exactly) balance out. About as many people get divorced specifically due to the other spouse retiring early as those who don't get divorced for the exact same reason. The majority get divorced because they were going to anyway, it just seems to be a thing that happens.

I'll never admit to it on Facebook, but it's interesting to watch this play out among your friends group (who are mostly grouped in the same age range). Hrm, so-and-so is suddenly posting a lot of lovey-dovey stuff about their significant other...won't be long until the...yup there's the split. Then some bouncing around, multiple relationship status changes, then slowly they all start settling down again. Luckily my wife doesn't post lovey-dovey stuff about me that often (maybe once or twice total), so I'm not too worried.

This is part of the reason I got rid of facebook.

[maizefolk]

Huh, I'm not particularly active on facebook and haven't been for years. Fascinating that you've been able to spot such a pattern.

In terms of doing an actual study, I just don't thin there are nearly enough FIREd couples out there in the world to generate a sufficiently statistically powered dataset (particularly once you control for the small fraction of folks who are interested in participating in research).

[NumberJohnny5]

Huh, I'm not particularly active on facebook and haven't been for years. Fascinating that you've been able to spot such a pattern.

To be clear, the flood of "she's the best most awesome mother to our kids" posts on mother's day don't count. But if you see a long anti-rant about how awesome someone's partner is, completely out of left field...keep an eye out. Especially if they've been together a long time (if it's a new relationship, you can pretty much ignore the lovey dovey stuff being posted, that's going to happen regardless; I'm talking the couple who's been married for over a decade and all of a sudden the wife is posting pages about how great a person their husband is, how awesome of a father to his children he is...shit's about to go down). I mean, it doesn't always start with the positivity rants, sometimes it goes straight to the very public shouting match. And sometimes they manage to keep all evidence of marital issues hidden from facebook. Regardless, those in my friends group are still very much in the breaking-up-and-hooking-up stage.

If only there were a term that we could throw around for people of the age, around the mid-point of their lives, to serve as a catch-all for such behavior. I nominate "mid-life flux". Has a nice ring to it.

[zolotiyeruki]

Is there a correlation between which partner posts the gushing expression of undying love, and which partner is the one that breaks off the relationship?  I.e. is the gushing partner trying to fool themselves (or the rest of the world), or is the gushing partner trying to salvage the relationship?  Or is there even any correlation at all?

[NumberJohnny5]

No idea. I'm generally only friends with one half of a couple. I wouldn't see what the other half posts unless the one on my friends list commented on it.

As for shouting matches...well, you gotta be quick to catch those, they seem to be deleted shortly after the blowup. I've only seen a couple, but I'm guessing there's quite a few more that I haven't seen (I don't stalk Facebook all day, I lurk here too you know). I have caught bits and pieces of sniping that seems to follow a big blowup.

Sometimes you feel like you should step in and help out in some way. Then you realize that would help absolutely nothing, so you decide to just stay out of it. I don't want anyone to have to go through all that drama, but if they're going to anyway...might as well enjoy a tub of freshly popped popcorn while watching it from a distance.

[Caoineag]

Is there a correlation between which partner posts the gushing expression of undying love, and which partner is the one that breaks off the relationship?  I.e. is the gushing partner trying to fool themselves (or the rest of the world), or is the gushing partner trying to salvage the relationship?  Or is there even any correlation at all?

My personal experience says 50/50. The one I say uh oh to is "my marriage is the strongest it's ever been". This has been said to me by both a cheater and someone who was cheated on prior to the next affair. I feel like the real correlation is with it being said by whoever is most desperate to believe it is true.

[desk_jockey]

To the topic of the alarming number of divorces happening to those who are retiring early. I think many are focusing too hard on the "retiring" part than they are the "early" part. How old are those who are retiring early? What is the average divorce rate among that age group?

I too would like to see a study on this.  Is there really an alarming number of divorces happening among those who retire early?

For every MMM or Dr Doom whose early retirement that ended in divorce, there is a Billy & Akaisha or a Jeremy & Winnie whose early retirement didn't.   50 / 50, kinda like the overall probability of divorce. 

It seems that there are certain life transition points that occur, in which couples either find a way to work things out or they don't: a major illness, the death of a child, becoming empty-nesters, retirement, etc.   Early or otherwise retirement is a transition that can be successfully navigated as a couple or not.   Maybe it just seems there are an alarming number of divorces among early those who retire early just because a few of our gurus and influencers happened to get divorced. 

[shelivesthedream]

I'm not really on Facebook any more, but I've heard several people say a similar thing to @NumberJohnny5 : that if a long-term couple suddenly starts posting fountains of praise on Facebook, it's a sure sign there's trouble behind the scenes.

[Metalcat]

To the topic of the alarming number of divorces happening to those who are retiring early. I think many are focusing too hard on the "retiring" part than they are the "early" part. How old are those who are retiring early? What is the average divorce rate among that age group?

I too would like to see a study on this.  Is there really an alarming number of divorces happening among those who retire early?

For every MMM or Dr Doom whose early retirement that ended in divorce, there is a Billy & Akaisha or a Jeremy & Winnie whose early retirement didn't.   50 / 50, kinda like the overall probability of divorce. 

It seems that there are certain life transition points that occur, in which couples either find a way to work things out or they don't: a major illness, the death of a child, becoming empty-nesters, retirement, etc.   Early or otherwise retirement is a transition that can be successfully navigated as a couple or not.   Maybe it just seems there are an alarming number of divorces among early those who retire early just because a few of our gurus and influencers happened to get divorced.

There isn't. Divorce is just common, especially in the age range that these people have gotten divorced, so it's not even weird that they're all happening around the same time, because they're all around the same age. It's just standard observational bias.

It would be exceptionally weird if there weren't this many divorces in the community. Staying married indefinitely is not the norm. Especially among couples that aren't religious.

Divorce is just really common and totally normal.

[desk_jockey]

To the topic of the alarming number of divorces happening to those who are retiring early. I think many are focusing too hard on the "retiring" part than they are the "early" part. How old are those who are retiring early? What is the average divorce rate among that age group?

I too would like to see a study on this.  Is there really an alarming number of divorces happening among those who retire early?

For every MMM or Dr Doom whose early retirement that ended in divorce, there is a Billy & Akaisha or a Jeremy & Winnie whose early retirement didn't.   50 / 50, kinda like the overall probability of divorce. 

It seems that there are certain life transition points that occur, in which couples either find a way to work things out or they don't: a major illness, the death of a child, becoming empty-nesters, retirement, etc.   Early or otherwise retirement is a transition that can be successfully navigated as a couple or not.   Maybe it just seems there are an alarming number of divorces among early those who retire early just because a few of our gurus and influencers happened to get divorced.

There isn't. Divorce is just common, especially in the age range that these people have gotten divorced, so it's not even weird that they're all happening around the same time, because they're all around the same age. It's just standard observational bias.

Agreed.  What you are saying reinforces the point that I was trying to make, in a more clearly worded manner.

It would be exceptionally weird if there weren't this many divorces in the community. Staying married indefinitely is not the norm. Especially among couples that aren't religious.

Rather than an “are/aren’t religious” correlation, I’d suggest that it’s a strong cultural bias factor.   There are countries and cultures that have a strong societal bias against divorce, (religiousness may be key asked in this bias).   The USA had this cultural bias, but it began to change in the 60s and 70s.  Indian and Chinese cultures still seem to have a bias against divorce even though this may be less for religious-reasons. 

That leads to a thought:  Because people in the FIRE community seem to be less bound by cultural and societal expectations of adherence to life’s treadmill, would that also make them more likely to divorce?

In absence of sufficient data, I think we are experiencing observational bias.

[zolotiyeruki]

There isn't. Divorce is just common, especially in the age range that these people have gotten divorced, so it's not even weird that they're all happening around the same time, because they're all around the same age. It's just standard observational bias.

It would be exceptionally weird if there weren't this many divorces in the community. Staying married indefinitely is not the norm. Especially among couples that aren't religious.

Divorce is just really common and totally normal.

The overall divorce rate in the US is around 45%, which definitely counts as "common," but there are a LOT of caveats.  Tie the knot after age 18?  Less likely.  One spouse smokes?  Way more likely.  Go to church?  Half as likely.  No kids?  More likely.  Income over $50k?  Less likely.  College grad?  Less likely.  Disagree on whether to have kids?  More likely.  Parents still married?  Less likely.  Second (or third, or...) marriage?  More likely.

As a couple who married after age 18, have kids (and agreed on it), have an income over $50k, don't smoke, graduated college, go to church, have no previous marriages, abstained from sex until marriage, have parents who never divorced, and are similar in age, DW and I check a whole lot of "less likely to divorce" boxes.

[Metalcat]

There isn't. Divorce is just common, especially in the age range that these people have gotten divorced, so it's not even weird that they're all happening around the same time, because they're all around the same age. It's just standard observational bias.

It would be exceptionally weird if there weren't this many divorces in the community. Staying married indefinitely is not the norm. Especially among couples that aren't religious.

Divorce is just really common and totally normal.

The overall divorce rate in the US is around 45%, which definitely counts as "common," but there are a LOT of caveats.  Tie the knot after age 18?  Less likely.  One spouse smokes?  Way more likely.  Go to church?  Half as likely.  No kids?  More likely.  Income over $50k?  Less likely.  College grad?  Less likely.  Disagree on whether to have kids?  More likely.  Parents still married?  Less likely.  Second (or third, or...) marriage?  More likely.

As a couple who married after age 18, have kids (and agreed on it), have an income over $50k, don't smoke, graduated college, go to church, have no previous marriages, abstained from sex until marriage, have parents who never divorced, and are similar in age, DW and I check a whole lot of "less likely to divorce" boxes.

Okay sure, but none of that means that the divorce rate we see in the FIRE community is exceptional.

[maizefolk]

As a couple who married after age 18, have kids (and agreed on it), have an income over $50k, don't smoke, graduated college, go to church, have no previous marriages, abstained from sex until marriage, have parents who never divorced, and are similar in age, DW and I check a whole lot of "less likely to divorce" boxes.

Sure thing, but I think the average FIRE couple likely checks somewhat fewer of the boxes than you and wife. They probably had incomes over $50k/year before they retired and attended college, but do you think the FIRE community as a whole is more likely, less likely, or equally likely as the population as whole to attend church, be on their first marriage, have abstained from premarital sex, or come from houses where their parents never divorced?

[RetiredAt63]

There isn't. Divorce is just common, especially in the age range that these people have gotten divorced, so it's not even weird that they're all happening around the same time, because they're all around the same age. It's just standard observational bias.

It would be exceptionally weird if there weren't this many divorces in the community. Staying married indefinitely is not the norm. Especially among couples that aren't religious.

Divorce is just really common and totally normal.

The overall divorce rate in the US is around 45%, which definitely counts as "common," but there are a LOT of caveats.  Tie the knot after age 18?  Less likely.  One spouse smokes?  Way more likely.  Go to church?  Half as likely.  No kids?  More likely.  Income over $50k?  Less likely.  College grad?  Less likely.  Disagree on whether to have kids?  More likely.  Parents still married?  Less likely.  Second (or third, or...) marriage?  More likely.

As a couple who married after age 18, have kids (and agreed on it), have an income over $50k, don't smoke, graduated college, go to church, have no previous marriages, abstained from sex until marriage, have parents who never divorced, and are similar in age, DW and I check a whole lot of "less likely to divorce" boxes.

We ticked all those boxes except church, and yet here I am, part of the grey divorced after empty nest and just pre retirement group.  Every so often there have been enough changes in life that people sit back and evaluate things and make adjustments. Sometimes that adjustment is retirement or a push for earlier retirement.  Sometimes it is a realization that never living with that person again sounds like a huge relief.

[robartsd]

Sure thing, but I think the average FIRE couple likely checks somewhat fewer of the boxes than you and wife. They probably had incomes over $50k/year before they retired and attended college, but do you think the FIRE community as a whole is more likely, less likely, or equally likely as the population as whole to attend church, be on their first marriage, have abstained from premarital sex, or come from houses where their parents never divorced?

The only one on that list that sounds more likely for a FIRE couple than the general population is first marriage (at least for those retiring before 40).

[Metalcat]

Sure thing, but I think the average FIRE couple likely checks somewhat fewer of the boxes than you and wife. They probably had incomes over $50k/year before they retired and attended college, but do you think the FIRE community as a whole is more likely, less likely, or equally likely as the population as whole to attend church, be on their first marriage, have abstained from premarital sex, or come from houses where their parents never divorced?

The only one on that list that sounds more likely for a FIRE couple than the general population is first marriage (at least for those retiring before 40).

I'm under 40 and married to a man who was divorced.

Also, very few in this community actually retire that young.

[zolotiyeruki]

As a couple who married after age 18, have kids (and agreed on it), have an income over $50k, don't smoke, graduated college, go to church, have no previous marriages, abstained from sex until marriage, have parents who never divorced, and are similar in age, DW and I check a whole lot of "less likely to divorce" boxes.

Sure thing, but I think the average FIRE couple likely checks somewhat fewer of the boxes than you and wife. They probably had incomes over $50k/year before they retired and attended college, but do you think the FIRE community as a whole is more likely, less likely, or equally likely as the population as whole to attend church, be on their first marriage, have abstained from premarital sex, or come from houses where their parents never divorced?

That's a great question!  Certainly the college education, later marriage, and higher income boxes are more often than not ticked.  The more cultural/social boxes (religion, abstinence, presence of kids, parents' marital status)?  I dunno.  This forum skews left at about a 2:1 ratio, which I imagine would have a negative correlation to those factors (well, not the parents). 

[RetiredAt63]

Someone should do a poll! Who divorced because of FIRE? Who stayed together because of FIRE? Who would/would not have divorced/split regardless of FIRE? Personally I doubt there are enough people here or in the "real" life of work forever and spend to be meaningful.

Money issues are a common cause of divorce.  Of course FIRE is not a standard money issue. 

[Metalcat]

Someone should do a poll! Who divorced because of FIRE? Who stayed together because of FIRE? Who would/would not have divorced/split regardless of FIRE? Personally I doubt there are enough people here or in the "real" life of work forever and spend to be meaningful.

Money issues are a common cause of divorce.  Of course FIRE is not a standard money issue.

That's true. I wonder if having too much money (being FI) a reason some people divorce? I imagine it could be as it may be that one spouse want to spend more or on different things then the other. I joke that I divorced because of FIRE - and there is a tiny bit of truth to that - but not because of money differences. Lots of FIRE issues can cause discord in a relationship even if a couple is fully aligned on finances and spending.

It's the same way that having children can both make divorce more likely for some couples and less likely for others.

[Metalcat]

Someone should do a poll! Who divorced because of FIRE? Who stayed together because of FIRE? Who would/would not have divorced/split regardless of FIRE? Personally I doubt there are enough people here or in the "real" life of work forever and spend to be meaningful.

Money issues are a common cause of divorce.  Of course FIRE is not a standard money issue.

That's true. I wonder if having too much money (being FI) a reason some people divorce? I imagine it could be as it may be that one spouse want to spend more or on different things then the other. I joke that I divorced because of FIRE - and there is a tiny bit of truth to that - but not because of money differences. Lots of FIRE issues can cause discord in a relationship even if a couple is fully aligned on finances and spending.

It's the same way that having children can both make divorce more likely for some couples and less likely for others.

True. You never know the reality of a situation until you experience it. I know a divorced forum member here who FIREd suffered from post partum depression (unexpectly). Another who's spouse seem aligned with them retiring but ended up (also unexpectedly) finding the life style too difficult. So on. What looks good at the planning stages doesn't always feel as great as people often think it does. That pretty much goes for everything in life. That's why I give Dr. Dooms ex-DH a pass (affair aside) as she may have really had no idea how deeply their retiring early might effect her and them. And how much social pressure from outside an unconventional life (RE) can effect them.

She also told him she didn't want to end up with a cripple when he was diagnosed.

Doom specifically mentioned untreated mental health issues, which would be a HUGE issue for any marriage.

[RetiredAt63]

Someone should do a poll! Who divorced because of FIRE? Who stayed together because of FIRE? Who would/would not have divorced/split regardless of FIRE? Personally I doubt there are enough people here or in the "real" life of work forever and spend to be meaningful.

Money issues are a common cause of divorce.  Of course FIRE is not a standard money issue.

That's true. I wonder if having too much money (being FI) a reason some people divorce? I imagine it could be as it may be that one spouse want to spend more or on different things then the other. I joke that I divorced because of FIRE - and there is a tiny bit of truth to that - but not because of money differences. Lots of FIRE issues can cause discord in a relationship even if a couple is fully aligned on finances and spending.

It's the same way that having children can both make divorce more likely for some couples and less likely for others.

True. You never know the reality of a situation until you experience it. I know a divorced forum member here who FIREd suffered from post partum depression (unexpectly). Another who's spouse seem aligned with them retiring but ended up (also unexpectedly) finding the life style too difficult. So on. What looks good at the planning stages doesn't always feel as great as people often think it does. That pretty much goes for everything in life. That's why I give Dr. Dooms ex-DH a pass (affair aside) as she may have really had no idea how deeply their retiring early might effect her and them. And how much social pressure from outside an unconventional life (RE) can effect them.

She also told him she didn't want to end up with a cripple when he was diagnosed.

Doom specifically mentioned untreated mental health issues, which would be a HUGE issue for any marriage.

And I think she had an affair?  If your spouse has mental health issues that you cannot live with, you divorce first.  Then you can date other people.

[Metalcat]

Someone should do a poll! Who divorced because of FIRE? Who stayed together because of FIRE? Who would/would not have divorced/split regardless of FIRE? Personally I doubt there are enough people here or in the "real" life of work forever and spend to be meaningful.

Money issues are a common cause of divorce.  Of course FIRE is not a standard money issue.

That's true. I wonder if having too much money (being FI) a reason some people divorce? I imagine it could be as it may be that one spouse want to spend more or on different things then the other. I joke that I divorced because of FIRE - and there is a tiny bit of truth to that - but not because of money differences. Lots of FIRE issues can cause discord in a relationship even if a couple is fully aligned on finances and spending.

It's the same way that having children can both make divorce more likely for some couples and less likely for others.

True. You never know the reality of a situation until you experience it. I know a divorced forum member here who FIREd suffered from post partum depression (unexpectly). Another who's spouse seem aligned with them retiring but ended up (also unexpectedly) finding the life style too difficult. So on. What looks good at the planning stages doesn't always feel as great as people often think it does. That pretty much goes for everything in life. That's why I give Dr. Dooms ex-DH a pass (affair aside) as she may have really had no idea how deeply their retiring early might effect her and them. And how much social pressure from outside an unconventional life (RE) can effect them.

She also told him she didn't want to end up with a cripple when he was diagnosed.

Doom specifically mentioned untreated mental health issues, which would be a HUGE issue for any marriage.

And I think she had an affair?  If your spouse has mental health issues that you cannot live with, you divorce first.  Then you can date other people.

I may be wrong, but I thought *she* had untreated mental health issues, which I would think would be the biggest factor in her behaviour.

His diagnosis that I mentioned was Ehlers Danlos, which is a complex genetic disease that affects the integrity of the body.

[RetiredAt63]

Someone should do a poll! Who divorced because of FIRE? Who stayed together because of FIRE? Who would/would not have divorced/split regardless of FIRE? Personally I doubt there are enough people here or in the "real" life of work forever and spend to be meaningful.

Money issues are a common cause of divorce.  Of course FIRE is not a standard money issue.

That's true. I wonder if having too much money (being FI) a reason some people divorce? I imagine it could be as it may be that one spouse want to spend more or on different things then the other. I joke that I divorced because of FIRE - and there is a tiny bit of truth to that - but not because of money differences. Lots of FIRE issues can cause discord in a relationship even if a couple is fully aligned on finances and spending.

It's the same way that having children can both make divorce more likely for some couples and less likely for others.

True. You never know the reality of a situation until you experience it. I know a divorced forum member here who FIREd suffered from post partum depression (unexpectly). Another who's spouse seem aligned with them retiring but ended up (also unexpectedly) finding the life style too difficult. So on. What looks good at the planning stages doesn't always feel as great as people often think it does. That pretty much goes for everything in life. That's why I give Dr. Dooms ex-DH a pass (affair aside) as she may have really had no idea how deeply their retiring early might effect her and them. And how much social pressure from outside an unconventional life (RE) can effect them.

She also told him she didn't want to end up with a cripple when he was diagnosed.

Doom specifically mentioned untreated mental health issues, which would be a HUGE issue for any marriage.

And I think she had an affair?  If your spouse has mental health issues that you cannot live with, you divorce first.  Then you can date other people.

I may be wrong, but I thought *she* had untreated mental health issues, which I would think would be the biggest factor in her behaviour.

His diagnosis that I mentioned was Ehlers Danlos, which is a complex genetic disease that affects the integrity of the body.

I remember the ED, but I thought it was him that had the mental health issues?  I may have read it wrong. 

I don't think mental health issues make someone cheat.  I think blaming cheating on "mental health issues" is like blaming someone's boundary-ignoring behaviour on being on the autism spectrum.   Both are excuses.

I could see divorcing someone for totally different reasons and being glad you weren't going to be responsible for looking after that person's health issues.  Which is not ex-Mrs.Doom.

[shelivesthedream]

It is strongly implied that *she* had mental health issues that Dr Doom asked her to seek treatment for and she refused, contrasted against Dr Doom's multiple bouts of therapy that he has posted about over the years. Obviously that may not be the case, but that is the narrative presented on the blog.

[Metalcat]

I remember the ED, but I thought it was him that had the mental health issues?  I may have read it wrong. 

I don't think mental health issues make someone cheat.  I think blaming cheating on "mental health issues" is like blaming someone's boundary-ignoring behaviour on being on the autism spectrum.   Both are excuses.

I could see divorcing someone for totally different reasons and being glad you weren't going to be responsible for looking after that person's health issues.  Which is not ex-Mrs.Doom.

Not saying that untreated mental health issues cause cheating, but that they likely influence behaviour more than, say, retiring early.