Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook a Factor in a Third of UK Divorces

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the divorce-by-relationship-status-change dept.

Facebook 189

hypnosec writes with an excerpt from an IT Pro Portal article: "A recent survey conducted by a UK based divorce website disclosed that 33 percent of behavior divorce petitions filed cite Facebook as a cause for filing for divorce in 2011. In 2009 this figure was 20 per cent. 5000 people were surveyed by Divorce-Online, the UK divorce website, during 2009 and 2011 covering Facebook as a means to check behavior of spouse with the opposite sex and spouses using the social networking platform to comment about their exes post the separation. Three reasons that came out on the top for listing Facebook in divorce petition were inappropriate messages sent to the opposite sex, posting nasty comments about exes, and friends on Facebook reporting about spouse's behavior."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (5, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569422)

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! How many times can the same story be recycled over the course of two years?

December 22, 2009 - Facebook's Other Top Trend of 2009: Divorce [networkworld.com]

April 12, 2010 - Facebook to Blame for Divorce Boom [foxnews.com]

June 28, 2010 - Facebook is divorce lawyers' new best friend [msn.com]

January 19, 2011 - Divorce cases get the Facebook factor [menmedia.co.uk]

March 7, 2011 - Survey Shows Facebook an Increasing Factor in Divorce [thenewamerican.com]

January 1, 2012 - Facebook flirting triggers divorces [indiatimes.com]

Slow news cycle? Nothing else to publish? Blame Facebook for divorce!

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569444)

It is not Facebook, It is access.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569458)

They couldn't possibly say it was because of MySpace, Second Life, Geocities, AOL, Prodigy etc, that would have been uncool.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (4, Funny)

lewko (195646) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570182)

I would divorce my Wife if I found out she used MySpace.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (1)

blinkwing (1687842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570384)

I would divorce my Wife if I found out she used MySpace.

So you wouldn't divorce her for using Bebo?

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569540)

Sounds like a perfect Reality TV comedy theme to milk. I wonder if Gilbert Gottfried would like to host the show.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569862)

Fuck FaceFad. I have a much better idea you should all try.

You want attention? Just go out in public... and then .. pick your nose AND EAT IT! Make sure somebody sees you doing it. Act satisfied.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569618)

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! How many times can the same story be recycled over the course of two years?

Before Facebook was created... was there analysis done to see if Telephones, The postal service, Credit cards/ATMs,Cars, Prostitution, Hotels and Mobile phones were factors in divorces?

I suspect a lot of divorces ended due to cheating; and driving to a cheap Hotel to meet with someone...

And yes... the car is an enabling technology, but it doesn't cause the behavior that leads to divorces; it's just a channel enabling communication (including destructive communication).

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (4, Interesting)

cavePrisoner (1184997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569914)

To be fair, Facebook makes it easier to get caught. All you have to do is stay logged in once by accident. If the cheater gets caught with any of the ones you listed, it can usually be explained with business. Getting caught on Facebook is just straightforward.

Also, facebook just looks bad sometimes, even when you haven't done anything wrong. I have an ex that likes all my posts. I haven't spoken to her in a year, but if I were married I can imagine that still creating some tension.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570026)

I have an ex that likes all my posts.

Post that you don't like her liking her posts. See if she likes that. Seriously, it will reveal the motivation - she is either wanting to appear friendly or doing it to potentially cause issues in future relationships.

Kinda... but not really (4, Interesting)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570092)

There are cases like mine where my FaceBook is never logged off and my wife can read it any time she wants. The reason is, there's nothing to hide. I've classically been "The Safe Guy" on FaceBook and at the office and elsewhere. Women will hang around me and even flirt a bit with me because they know that not only do I enjoy the attention, but that there's just no way that I'm going to be a risk to them. I'm also the guy who will bring them safely home at the end of the night if they drink to much.

You make the presumption that it's an issue that it's easier for people to get caught. And yet, men acting inappropriately or stupidly probably only accounts for about half of the cases. Some guy adding his ex from high school or someone else that his wife is jealous of (and it works reversing the genders as well) probably accounts for a lot also. People are extremely insecure at times. All my ex-girlfriends which didn't turn out to be nut jobs (and even one or two that did) are on my friends list. I also have the captain of the high school cheer leading team and others which my wife could easily get jealous of if she didn't understand me well enough to know that friends are friends... wife is wife. You do some things with friends, you do some more things with wife :)

Now, there's another big reason for it. Women or men who got married too quickly, found out that they screwed up... maybe getting married too young, got married for the money, got married just to throw a wedding (watch TLC sometime, Bridezilla, Left at the Alter, etc...) and once the dream wedding was over, there was no point to the marriage. All kinds of reasons people get married when they really shouldn't have and then FaceBook is a great way to come up with "evidence" against their spouse so they can get out of it without getting too burned.

So, FaceBook is probably just something that magnifies problems for some people. Jealous and insecure people were able to lie to themselves beforehand and pretend like it's just their imagination and now they got some confirmation it wasn't. Guys who act like assholes behind their wive's backs get talked about. People who were looking for a way out to begin with can find things more easily. In short, Facebook is really nothing more than a tool.

Now, for the real solution to this problem.
DON'T GET MARRIED. Marriage is a religious commitment between two people before an audience and some god of some type. In most religions, it's expected to be for life. If you and your girl are two people who are the types to not "stick together through thick and thin" then getting married in the first place is a lie. In modern times where a woman is able to put food on her own table, buy her own cloths and if necessary put a roof over her own head, there's absolutely no good reason for marriage other than religious belief. If you have kids together and are worried about the issue of custody if one of the parent die, there are civil unions and contractual agreements for that. You don't have to get legally married to have a wedding party. You don't have to get legally married to get some guy in a funny costume or hat ask you if you love each other. Legal marriage is an institution which says "I'll make a promise to this lady because I love her and I don't want her to ever worry about where her next meal is coming from. I legally take the responsibility of this woman and promise that since she is incapable of taking care of herself if need be, this will take care of that." and to a woman it says "I'm too weak to care for myself and I need some legal protection that makes it so he can't just run off to be with someone else without some form of legal and financial repercussion. So even if he does ditch me for someone who's willing to do things I'm not, he'll owe me for life". Civil union allows all the things like "If the decision comes whether to take me off of life support, I want this person to choose", but so does a living will.

Just remember, marriage is designed to protect the weaker gender. Oh... marriage is also the core of the entire divorce attorney business.

Re:Kinda... but not really (5, Insightful)

neyla (2455118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570172)

Almost agree. Minor nitpick: The religious angle isn't of importance. There's been long-term formalised bonds between husband and wife across a wide spectrum of different religions and cultures, enough so that I'd argue that the concept of "marriage", along with "funeral", "name-giving-ceremony" and "coming-of-age-ceremony" are near-universal in human culture.

Marriage is a formal announcement of a couples intention to stay together long-term. With this announcement comes certain duties, and certain priviledges. If you're cynical about it, you could say that you should marry if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks - I did, but religion wasn't a relevant part of that question (we're both atheists)

Re:Kinda... but not really (4, Insightful)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570294)

I'm an atheist and I really am not sure about my wife. I think she wants to believe, but I don't make it very easy to hehe.

To me, the marriage itself is irrelevant. Actually, not entirely, I live in a country other than my own and the marriage initially made that possible. But that's not the reason we got married. Marriage was very important to her and her family... who are Christians.

There are no duties or privileges that are not applicable within a responsible relationship that requires marriage to make so. Also, a formal announcement and a legal binding are two entirely different things. In fact, I'm a strong believer that people should be able to get legally bound in every way that marriage suggests no matter what their sex, religion or even how many there are. I think if four old ladies are living in a house together and they are all that each other has in the world, they should be able to get "legally married" so that from every perspective which the government is concerned, they are as codependent as a married couple. If one decides to leave, they can choose to hire a lawyer or sit before a mediator to decide what that person should take away from the relationship.

It's so sad and pathetic that we live in a world where marriage and divorce is a concern of the government. What's even more humorous is that the people who are most adamant regarding marriage and the government are the ones who are also most vocal about wanting the government to be smaller and have a lesser impact on their lives.

Re:Kinda... but not really (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570306)

Yeah, anthropologists have posted here before. The human race as we now know it never started being in lifelong monogamous relationships until the same time as modern agriculture started. Before that it was serial monogamy ~5 years together, just long enough for kids to fend for themselves, then off to a new relationship. Once there was something to tax, the governing bodies of the world stepped in and encouraged people to stay in relationships and have lots of kids so there would be more people to tax. Tax benefits to marriage in every society... Religions just like to incorporate everything into themselves so they can act like they are in charge.

Re:Kinda... but not really (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570190)

I would love to see your porn collection.

Re:Kinda... but not really (2)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570480)

"You do some things with friends, you do some more things with wife :)"
You obviously don't have the kinds of friends that we do... ;->

Re:Kinda... but not really (1)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570642)

hahah Love it...

I was talking about with your friends, you chat and drink coffee... I'd hope most people do that... plus more with their wife :)

Thanks for the giggle.

Re:Kinda... but not really (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571194)

I was talking about with your friends, you chat and drink coffee...

With friends you have a cup of coffee together. With the better friends, you make the cream to put into that cup of coffee...

Re:Kinda... but not really (3, Interesting)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570752)

If you have kids together and are worried about the issue of custody if one of the parent die, there are civil unions and contractual agreements for that.

I'm sure you could build a series of contractual agreements which would give you similar protections to marriage, but it would be an administrative nightmare. There is a lot to consider - visitation rights in the hospital for spouse and children, signing stuff for school, inheritance rights etc. In any case - the commitment to raise children together is a far greater one than the one to get married. If you are making it, then you might as well save yourself a lot of hassle and get married, too.

Re:Kinda... but not really (1)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570862)

Probably so... but it seems that it should be a single package bundle for those things. Like you could just go to the post office, fill out a form, get it notarized and send it in and that would be the whole thing. And it should be just fine for circumstances such as some old ladies living together who are codependent and want those rights with each other as well.

Problem is, when you call it marriage it seems that there must be some sort of sexual consummation to it. We sure as hell don't need marriage to have sex and make kids. At the same time, it's utterly ridiculous that you should need to have sex to have the rights of being married. I think the same should go for child adoption as well. If there are two or more people who want to raise a child or children together... why should they have to be married to do so? A legal binding securing the same rights for the child as they would have with their own parents should be easy as pie. Who cares if two of the guys or girls are sleeping together. If you have people who really want to provide a great home and awesome upbringing for a child that otherwise would be stuck in an orphanage and being forced to go to church, having a happy home with parents who love the child is always going to be healthier. And a simple form letter giving the parents the legal situation necessary to make it happen makes obvious sense.

I was an adopted child... got lucky since Rowe vs. Wade had just passed and abortion was a fashion thing at the time. I was raised by a family that made me go to hebrew school for 4 hours a week, temple for another 8 hours a week and that part of my upbringing was miserable. But, they loved me as their own. Fact is, if I'd have been raised by two people who just lived in the same house together and wanted to do what was best for me, I believe I would have done just as well. If those people (choose your combination of genders) chose to have a sexual relationship, I don't think I'd have noticed. I never noticed if my parents did.

Marriage combines sexual relationships with codependency and that just doesn't belong in the government.

Re:Kinda... but not really (4, Insightful)

marga (455344) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570900)

I find your comment completely misogynist and dumb.

Even if marriage WAS designed to protect women in the past, it doesn't mean that it cannot get a new significance with new times.

I agree that a lot of people get married for the wrong reasons. And that it'd be better if they didn't. I feel that you are mistaken in almost everything else you say, though.

Your statements are suprisingly dumb for a +5 comment... "I'll make a promise to this lady because I love her and I don't want her to ever worry about where her next meal is coming from" ... "I'm too weak to care for myself and I need some legal protection that makes it so he can't just run off to be with someone else without some form of legal and financial repercussion." ...

Marriage goes both ways. You fail to see that a man can also need the support of a woman. If a man is disabled for any reason (be it physical or psychological) then having a wife will mean having a person by his side to support him no matter what.

For me, marriage means: "I'm committed to you, I'll stand by your side, in the good times and the bad times, I'll respect you and care for you until death do us apart".

[I'm a married woman, I earn the same as my husband, I didn't marry him so he wouldn't run off, nor did I marry him so he would support me economically]

Re:Kinda... but not really (0)

maple_shaft (1046302) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571094)

I find your comment completely misogynist and dumb.

Even if marriage WAS designed to protect women in the past, it doesn't mean that it cannot get a new significance with new times.

I don't think most women truly understand that the concept of a woman being able to take care of herself and her children without resorting to prostitution as a relatively recent societal construct. It has only been in the past 75 years (generously) that women could arguably do fine without a man. It has only been in the past 200 or so that women could even hold an income earning job without being a pariah. In the past millenium since they were even legally allowed to own property in most human civilizations.

It is actually only a fairly recent concept that marriage occurred with common folk. Long ago a marriage was a legal binding to join families and protect wealth through marital inheritance. The sexual consumation aspect of it was one in which a marriage was arranged with the anticipation that a valid heir be produced to inherit said wealth in the event of the parents untimely demise. Note that sexual monogomy was originally only a constraint imposed on women, and that was to ensure the sire of any offspring the woman produces. Men had no such constraints.

Even in many countries today a man caught being unfaithful is punished with a fine while a woman being unfaithful is punished with death. This isn't mysogynistic, this is reality.

Re:Kinda... but not really (4, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571188)

Even in many countries today a man caught being unfaithful is punished with a fine while a woman being unfaithful is punished with death. This isn't mysogynistic, this is reality.

That's a really, really disturbing thing to read from someone 'civilized' enough to sit and a keyboard and type.

Can't it be reality AND mysogynistic? Must you be 'culturally sensitive' to the people stoning the woman to death? Really?

Re:Kinda... but not really (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571168)

What about spouse's pension? In many places, if you're married, your wife can can continue to get your pension if you die, whereas this isn't the case for civil unions. Also, visiting your spouse while in intensive care is easier if you're actually married rather than just being in a civil union.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569924)

Mobile phones certainly.

Enabling can be a strong factor. That random hot girl I met 5 years ago and befriended on facebook... why did I befriend her? If I haven't talked to her in 4.5 years (via facebook or otherwise), why am I still 'friends' with her? (Answer, I only defriend people who are bothersome). But before facebook, would I have given her my phone number? Probably not, and even if I had, she wouldn't have my current one.

Does a phone directory that has a section for cheating spouses simply facilitate cheating or does it outright encourage it? (And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? A directory of doughnut shops, cigarette shops or casino's is a double edged sword here).

If you go to the middle east it's the mobile phone that allows 'hookups'. Not being from the middle east I cannot profess to be an expert in the process, but basically you can find people in your area who are interested in a hookup for something that is probably illegal. The key here is that you didn't know the person in advance. With facebook I'm not sure you make the same argument, but my usage model might be atypical. If I'm splitting up with my current GF for that girl I've known since high school well... that happens. But if I'm randomly befriending hot girls on facebook looking for a hookup, well...that's a bit different. If facebook is helping me cheat, by 'recommending' potential hookups (which sounds more like a dating site than facebook) you're into more grainy territory. If I was getting unsolicited but legitimate suggestions sent to me for potential better partners than the current one I could sort of see a problem.

As you indirectly convey, it's not facebook that's the problem, or the car, it's how it is being used. But if your car had a button for 'send fake location data to my spouse" it might be a bit harder to say it isn't intentionally contributing to the situation.

All of this of course assumes (wrongly) that divorce is necessarily bad. If people aren't happy divorce isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least not in this day and age where it's pretty accepted. Facebook, for all of its many, many faults, lets you connect with people, if connecting with someone other than your current partner makes you happier, maybe that's for the best, but I'm sure your partners lawyer will enjoy looking through your logs, just to make sure you're punished for breaking a lifelong contract. After all, marriage is just a contract, and intentionally helping someone breach a contract comes with a messy legal framework. I don't think Facebook does that intentionally, and there are far more guilty sites out there though.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570138)

Before Facebook was created... was there analysis done to see if Telephones, The postal service, Credit cards/ATMs,Cars, Prostitution, Hotels and Mobile phones were factors in divorces?

Do a handful of google searches for $x factor in divorce and what you will see is a bunch of people trying to convince you that each thing is a factor, people trying to get your money. So yes, there was analysis done... to see if fearmongering was profitable. Answer, yes.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570192)

It's not facebook, per se. It's the internet. The fact is, people are more likely to cheat if there is plenty of temptation. They always think they can get away with it and that it's worth it and it's easy to be swept away by a stranger. There's excitement. There's something new. And for the biggest part of the process, it's all in the safety of your own home. It's just "my friend online - don't get jealous". Then, eventually, it's the guy or girl you met in person. And fucked. It happend long before facebook. It happened on BBSes. The first time I got laid, I was sixteen and hooked up with a twenty one year old married chick whose husband was away at basic training. We were just friends. Then we met. And were just friends. And then we met a second time a few days later. And had sex. And it was just something we did while he was still away and justified to ourselves. And then she wanted to leave him and be with me. And months later, she left me to be with another dude she met online. And this was in the early to mid 1990s. On a BBS. Where there are only a few hundred people and they're all in local calling distance. This wasn't the only such experience I've had. And I've witnessed even more of this stuff occur since the early 90s -- friends who did the cheating. Friends who were cheated on. Friends who were the guy or girl that the cheater cheated with.

Today, you have a billion people. Everywhere and anywhere. Not only via a dialup system in your home office, but via the phone in your pocket that you can use 24x7 when nobody even knows you are using it to communicate with people. And we have photos and video and chat.

As far as I'm concerned, it is only in the most rarest exception that someone cheating with another person online isn't just a matter of time. Given enough exposure, enough temptation, and enough time - it'll happen. Period. And it has nothing to do with "facebook".

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570740)

Yup, it's always been my thought that humans are essentially "opportunistically non-monogomous". If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If you constantly sleep around you aren't likely to create healthy offspring(as you may wind up dead, with an STD rendering you infertile, or in the case of women with a baby with 'weak' genetics), but if you put all your eggs into one basket, you are screwed if that basket has a hole in it.

You read stories from people who cheat and for the most part they aren't out there constantly chasing tail or willing to go to bed with the first thing that crosses their path, it's not worth risking the relationship for that. However there are people that drive them so wild that they have to have them, relationship be damned. Of course Facebook gives you a lot more opportunities to be opportunistically non-monogomaus. You don't have to spend time trawling bars(which would arouse the suspicion of your spouse), or even going out and explicitly looking for sex, opportunity comes to you in your browser.

Re:Facebook and divorce, it writes itself! (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570736)

I suspect a lot of divorces ended due to cheating; and driving to a cheap Hotel to meet with someone...

No, this is a UK story. There are no cheap hotels in the UK.

People are so fucking stupid (3, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571076)

Before, the guys would go to the pub, or hunt, or fish, or play soccer, whatever, with their friends, complaint about their wives to each other, harmlessly flirt with a girl or two. Girls would go shopping or have a drink, or go to the gym, whatever, with their friend girls, complaint about their husbands, check out some good looking dudes, no problem.

Everybody needs to blow some steam once in a while. It's really, really hard to keep a marriage. It takes lots of patience and you need to go out and decompress or else looking at your spouse's face every fucking day will become unbearable. People used to talk to friends and have a few drinks, words would be forgotten overnight. Now, every little fucking detail of what you do or say gets recorded forever. This is not the way normal life is meant to be.

I don't know who is more stupid. People having behaviours online that can put them in trouble, knowing they'll be publicly available forever, or their spouses, spying on them and them overreacting to things that would be perfectly normal if they hadn't happened online.

Divorces are painful and destructive. You basically have to turn all your life inside out. You destroy your children's world. Is it worth it because of pesky things like Facebook blabbering? If you don't have the stomach to put up with a lot of stuff you should never have gotten married and had kids in the first place.

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569424)

first

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569480)

Guess not...

Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (4, Informative)

Headw1nd (829599) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569454)

Wow, this is some poor reporting. At first I thought the summary was to blame, but no, the articles themselves have it wrong. Facebook is being cited in 33% of all British divorces, but not as the cause. When they say cited, they mean just that: That something from Facebook was brought up in the courtroom. That could be, and in fact seems to frequently be something from well after the couple has separated, brought up as part of custody or property hearings.

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (5, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569486)

This is supposed to be one of those dumb watercooler stories. People who don't get the internet are supposed to roll their eyes at the big, bad internet making things worse. Cheesy morning radio shows read this stories like this.

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (1)

Marillion (33728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569694)

... in other news, 33% of British use Facebook. [I honestly have no idea, it does seem plausible]

UK Facebook Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569922)

are total twats if they reveal stuff about their personal lives that can be 'used in court as evidence against them'.
The same goes for SMS messages not deleted from their phones.
Ditto for Twatter.
etc
etc
etc

Sadly these idiots are so hooked on the fact there are other sad people out there willing to read the drivel they spout about their boring lives that they can't stop themselves.

Just this morning, one twenty something who was sitting next to me on the train into Waterloo spent the whole 55mins updating her FB pages with useless crap about what she did yesterday. Right down to what mascara she wore.
Her 17in laptop sitting on her lap with the brightness turned up full was pretty impossible to ignore.

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570050)

... in other news, 33% of British use Facebook. [I honestly have no idea, it does seem plausible]

Not necessarily. Its only necessary for 33% of those who are get a divorce.

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570090)

So if more than 33% of the brittish use facebook does that imply facebook prevents divorces?

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (2)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570240)

actually 16.5 % would do

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569826)

It doesn't even say that anything particularly interesting was cited from Facebook. Lawyers often pad these kinds of filings with just-to-be-safe evidence, and Facebook is probably an easy source of evidence for all sorts of mundane things that wouldn't necessarily even be challenged at all. "Bob is, as of our last knowledge, in possession of the couple's former Honda Civic [attach a printed out & dated Facebook photo of Bob washing his car]" and that kind of stuff.

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (1)

lolococo (574827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571002)

Well, I have nothing interesting to say, but it's an honor to reply to a member of the 3-digits club!

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570430)

At first I thought the summary was to blame

Sometimes it is. It's why cmdrtaco is living off child maintenance somewhere.

Re:Cited in, not cited as the cause of. (2)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570682)

I think it's actually even worse than that. As per the summary, Facebook is said to be involved in 33% of behaviour divorces. As far as I can tell, these are the cases where one party petitions for divorce on the grounds of misbehaviour on the part of the other party. I don't know how big a portion of divorces that accounts for, but surely not all of them. So more accurately, in 33% of a particular subset of divorces, Facebook is brought up in the courtroom

People still haven't learned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569464)

ANYTHING you let get online is known by everyone. forever.

Including all those things you don't want some people to find out about.

Re:People still haven't learned... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569494)

But if you read the story you find out its not just what you or your ex posts.
Its what all the third party posters say. The he said she said, twice removed. Friends of ex-friends etc.

You have no defense against that.

Re:People still haven't learned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569518)

Yes you do. Don't put it out there in the first place. Then those people who don't really know you won't have your name up on their screen waiting to be gossiped about.

Re:People still haven't learned... (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569568)

Go read the story. You don't even have to have a Facebook account to get mentioned by third parties.
Next thing you know your ex cites a Facebook posting by someone you dont even know.

People Behaving As People (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569466)

People flirt in the real world, too. And talk to the opposite sex. And do everything you'd assume a human does.

Facebook has provided a way to record human behavior -- and that is, apparently, annoying to people.

Re:People Behaving As People (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569898)

People flirt in the real world, too. And talk to the opposite sex. And do everything you'd assume a human does.

Facebook has provided a way to record human behavior -- and that is, apparently, annoying to people.

Facebook isn't just a way to record. It is also a way to throw all that temptation of everyone not being your spouse in your ... face.

That being said, If you can't resist that temptation, or if you can't accept spouses talking to other people, the relationship was built on shaky ground.

Not suprising... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569470)

Its not that surprising. Human behavior hasn't really changed over the years however the information age has made it harder to hide affairs. 30 years ago an affair 1000 miles away while on a business trip would be incredibly easy to hide. Today? Not so much. We've gone from spouses spending little time in contact to constant 24/7 contact so it is no wonder that their spouse's flaws come to light. No longer is work an 8-9 hour void for 5 days a week with no contact to their spouse. No longer do long trips pose a problem thanks to cell phones.

The more we are in contact with each other the more evident flaws are.

Re:Not suprising... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569738)

Having an affair is not a flaw. Snoring, forgetting to take out the trash, grabbing the remote too often, those are flaws. Things that you accept or overlook or compromise over. An affair, goes waaay beyond, when it comes to that, then you have nothing. No, you have less than that, you have lost years of your life to a stranger.

Re:Not suprising... (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569782)

Oooh, ooh! *raises hand* Can I play?

When I'm out and about on my own for business or whatever, my wife doesn't call me and seldom expects me to call her. I might be gone for a week and talk to her for four minutes, total, and normally not even that unless there is a particularly egregious drama at home.

Accordingly, hiding a 1k-mile-away "affair" has/would've been/is -easy- for me, and I expect no different from her.

We've both got cell phones, so this is completely optional behavior in this modern world.

What do we win?

(editor's note: syphilis and HIV are unacceptable as a reward. incidental offspring of personal trainers and/or pool boys may be interpreted with prejudice.)

Re:Not suprising... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569878)

editor's note: syphilis and HIV are unacceptable as a reward.

If you use condoms you'll probably avoid those but if you do that regularly, you'll definitely get HPV and herpes.

More interestingly, do you go on business trips often? What do you see as the point of having a wife if you cheat on her so much?

Re:Not suprising... (3, Interesting)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570036)

Naaah. Just occasionally: I'm only out of town for a week or so at a time once or twice per year, if that.

And if something happens during that "week or so," then it's whatever -- not cheating. The wife and I have discussed it in general concept many times over our 8 years: She's only potentially offended by an emotional relationship developing that does not involve her. Meanwhile, I'm not interested in a secondary emotional relationship, so that's not an issue for me to contend with.

(But am I interested in a temporary physical relationship? Sure. FFS, does the Earth have gravity? There's lots of cocks and lots of cunts, and most of them fit together pleasurably.)

So, such as it is: Sometimes, fucking is just fucking fucking. This does not mean that simple fucking is necessarily fucking cheating, though you and/or your SO may view things differently -- which is OK, too.

Does that clear up your confusion?

Divorce App for Facebook.... hmm (5, Funny)

bgibby9 (614547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569472)

Shit, I'd better get into that first!

wow, what did people do before facebook? (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569476)

it must have been much more difficult to dig dirt when people wanted to divorce without saying they wanted out :)

Re:wow, what did people do before facebook? (5, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569764)

it must have been much more difficult to dig dirt when people wanted to divorce without saying they wanted out :)

My ex dug through my slashdot comments.

Re:wow, what did people do before facebook? (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570270)

burned.

Re:wow, what did people do before facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570622)

What was his name? I didn't know men could marry men (using the term loosely with you of course).

Re:wow, what did people do before facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570988)

"My ex dug through my slashdot comments." -- henceforth known as "gmhowell's paradox".

Another communications medium (3, Interesting)

abelb (1365345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569508)

Claiming that Facebook caused your divorce is like claiming the telephone caused your divorce when you heard your wife using it to cheat on you. People need to take more time to fully understand the communications medium they have chosen. Not that it's particularly easy with a closed, privately held system such as Facebook.

Re:Another communications medium (3, Interesting)

pntkl (2187764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569586)

I blame the whole technology of communication. It is responsible for 99% of marriages and divorces. I suppose gender identity disorder accounts for the remainder.

Re:Another communications medium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569978)

Depends on what you mean by 'gender identity disorder'! Years ago when ICQ began hitting the tubes, I was called to install it on home computers (as well as other things). A lot of the time it was during the day. With the husband gone to work, I was dealing with the wife. Typically, these women were very much 'stay at home' types, cleaning and cooking and waiting for the husband to come home.
Anyway, I set up an email account, installed ICQ, got them registered and showed them how to use it. I must have done this at least 50 times over 2 - 3 years
About a few months later, I was called up to help pack the computer as they were moving. The wife was gone and husband told me that she met someone else online.
This scenario played out so many times, that I started to warn people about the dangers of ICQing, that it destroys relationships, makes teenage girls pregnant and/or leave home and other socially disruptive behaviours.
Soon after that I stopped giving warnings when I realised that it really wasn't my place to make these fairly subjective recommendations, but if you would call these people having a gender identity disorder, then they fit the bill.

Re:Another communications medium (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570042)

Claiming that Facebook caused your divorce is like claiming the telephone caused your divorce when you heard your wife using it to cheat on you

Not even that, friends reporting spouseâ(TM)s behavior over Facebook is equivalent to them calling you, except you don't subpoena the phone company for that. This is like measuring how many times the word "called" appeared in court documents, then concluding 78% of divorces involved a telephone. Well duuuuuuh.

Re:Another communications medium (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571030)

Actually, it's plumbing that causes divorce. If women were occupied carrying water from the well, they wouldn't have time for divorce.

News of the Day, Jan 2nd, 1812 (4, Funny)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569510)

Social sites such as bars cited as responsible for 33% of divorces,

The top 3 reasons cited:
Inappropriate comments to members of the opposite sex;
Separated spouses saying nasty comments about each other;
Friends reporting spouse’s behaviour.

More news @ 11, or make that 12, the year, 2012, when NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

-AI

Re:News of the Day, Jan 2nd, 1812 (1)

pntkl (2187764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569596)

Hey AI, we're still in January. There's still time for divorces to originate from Slashdot's commenting forums.

Re:News of the Day, Jan 2nd, 1812 (2)

poor_boi (548340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570008)

I'd mod you up, but I've started browsing at +5. Sorry ;-)

I think I now may go get a facebook page (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569528)

If my chances of divorce are higher having Facebook, count me in.

Re:I think I now may go get a facebook page (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570082)

If my chances of divorce are higher having Facebook, count me in.

Why don't you just save yourself the effort and give half your shit away and stop talking to your wife and kids?

Great sampling tool; the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569542)

The surest way to get internet cenrered answers is to have online data capturing.

In other words... (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569640)

Just the usual meme, "People behave like dicks!" Except, word gets back faster. I don't see FB being a "cause" for any divorces: it's just the messenger.

Re:In other words... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569992)

Just the usual meme, "People behave like dicks!"

...in an effort to get more pussy.

Genetic diversity considered good by biologists, but bad by social standards... Guess which is wrong? (Hint: It's not evolution.)

Re:In other words... (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570798)

Just the usual meme, "People behave like dicks!"

...in an effort to get more pussy.

Genetic diversity considered good by biologists, but bad by social standards... Guess which is wrong? (Hint: It's not evolution.)

Good luck finding a girl so dumb that she believes your twisted and unscientific views. Genetic diversity does not mean fucking everything that moves. The offspring you have has to survive to adulthood if you are to pass on your genes, and pissing off to chase down and impregnate another woman puts your current offspring at a disadvantage. You can play the numbers all you like but a single good bet is a lot better than a few dozen bad ones. Nature uses both approaches of course but you really need to have litters if you're going to play numbers games that way.

Not Facebook of course, but the publicity (2, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569664)

Maybe it's because I've been online for about 20 years now and I've learned my lesson, but I never got into the whole social networking thing. The notion of posting every triviality in my life on the web without regard for the privacy or embarrassment of myself or my friends boggles the mind.

My theory is that as reality TV has become so mainstream and so many famous-for-being-famous celebs have found wealth regardless of their lack of talent and charisma, lots of regular folk are clamoring for their 15 minutes of fame that could make them the next millionaire Snookie. I created a Facebook page just for people to find me and I purposely don't stay logged in. I was embarrassed to see the rants, self-pitying pleas, flaunting, and exhibitions posted by people I barely knew. I guess like any other new technology, it'll take time for people to learn how to manage it in their lives.

Completely ridiculous (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569672)

For me, that is like saying, the automobile is responsible for 70% of divorces because it enables a spouse to drive to the house of their lover.
PEOPLE are responsible for infidelity, not their tools.

Re:Completely ridiculous (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569800)

I read it as this.

It enables LAWYERS to file Facebook for causes. Trust me they will anything if they can win some money in a settlement and a facebook logs gives them LOTS of information. It is a lawyers dream

Re:Completely ridiculous (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569882)

Oh? Lawyers are the #1 cause of divorce? When the revolution comes....

Blame it on facebook... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569784)

Seriously honey, it was just a one-time fling, Facebook means nothing to me...

Divorce 'causes'? (2)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 2 years ago | (#38569808)

Didn't we get rid of the 'cause' for divorce thing, and now the only cause for divorce is wanting one?

Saying that it is 'wrong' to sleep with someone else and that it should therefore cost everything the 'cheater' has is such a backwards idea.
I guess the UK still lives in the past.

Sexual conduct should have nothing to do with a marriage contract.

Re:Divorce 'causes'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571048)

That should be left up to the couple in question, shouldn't it? The real problem here is not seeing eye to eye when it comes to what constitutes "cheating". This term has a different definition for everyone, and when a couple's definitions differ, it tends to cause problems. Proper communication will solve this.

Re:Divorce 'causes'? (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571072)

Didn't we get rid of the 'cause' for divorce thing, and now the only cause for divorce is wanting one?

Legally yes. However, it may surprise you to learn that people get married usually do so because they want to be married. Therefore many people do not divorce without cause even though they legally can. In fact, many people who get divorced probably had no desire to do so before their trust was betrayed.

Saying that it is 'wrong' to sleep with someone else and that it should therefore cost everything the 'cheater' has is such a backwards idea.

I'd say it's a better idea than giving the majority of assets to the woman by default, which is the case now if you have children. If you break any other contract there are penalties, why should marriage be free of obligation?

Sexual conduct should have nothing to do with a marriage contract.

If you are swingers, then fair enough. If you enter that relationship promising sexual exclusivity there should absolutely be penalties for breaking that. If there are going to be other sexual partners, you need to know so you can protect yourself from disease.

Not very accurate... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569818)

If it wasn't Facebook it would be something else. People who are getting divorced will generally get divorced anyway. I think part of the problem is a lot of people don't consider marriage "permanent" anymore so divorce becomes a bit like breaking up. The other problem is people marrying someone they haven't tried living with yet and then finding their unbearable after. I lived with my girlfriend for 5 years before marrying her. But the idea that someone would've been married for 50 years if social networking sites like facebook didn't exist is ludicrous.

Re:Not very accurate... (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570056)

I think part of the problem is a lot of people don't consider marriage "permanent" anymore so divorce becomes a bit like breaking up.

That isn't correct. 90% of divorces are filed by women. A very high number of women get custody and maintenance. This leaves no negative incentive for a woman to file for divorce, hence the high divorce rate. If the children had a 50/50 chance of going to either parent and maintenance was something reasonable, you can be assured the divorce rate would drop.

Re:Not very accurate... (1)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570316)

Not quite. Or more accurately, not close. 90% of college educated marriages that end in divorce are initiated by women. The overall rate of women initiating divorce is closer to 70%, which is a huge increase since no fault divorce came into play. Prior to that, it was a 60-40 split. On the other hand, the financial outcome is a 50-50 split only 30% of the time, which makes absolutely no sense when 70% are no fault.

Re:Not very accurate... (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570400)

Not quite. Or more accurately, not close. 90% of college educated marriages that end in divorce are initiated by women.

I didn't say that 90% of marriages that end in divorces are initiated by women, I said that 90% of divorces are filed by women - not every filing results in a divorce.

The overall rate of women initiating divorce is closer to 70%, which is a huge increase since no fault divorce came into play. Prior to that, it was a 60-40 split. On the other hand, the financial outcome is a 50-50 split only 30% of the time, which makes absolutely no sense when 70% are no fault.

I agree with this if you're quoting US numbers; the numbers I saw were for SA, where wives don't get a maintenance (only children do), and where the law has recently changed to regard both parties as equally capable for caring for the children (so mummy doesn't get automatic custody, she has to fight for it). As far as property splits go, there is no need to do so as pre-nups are the norm. I had a pre-nup, and while I spent 300k ZAR on legal fees to get alternate weekend access to kid, I spent absolutely nothing to keep my house, my car, my savings and all my other assets.

separating couple will find any reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38569906)

Facebook is not a *reason* why people divorce and I bet it was not even a *factor* either. It is just an excuse trumped up when a lot of small things and big things led to the divorce. Infidelity, and love stopping between the couple is the reason (hormone level dropping after 5 years in the brain of the love bird would be a factor). Once that stage is reached and couple fill for divorce, they will use any reason. From favorizing the dog, to using facebook, to drinking with buddeee, to anything, as long as in their mind it "justify" it. Heck some spouse even trump up a pedophilia card in a bid to get sole guardian of the children.

Should be higher amongst the young. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570018)

What do you expect when you, your friends and their friends all document there activity online to be looked at ?

I mean come on.

I little defective work and friending someone in the know, will bring you undone.

It only a matter of time until the young fools are so addicted to Facebook. It will be crawled by law and they are in trouble with the law without cops leaving there desk.

Methology? (1)

oheso (898435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570020)

Not a word.

Self-selected from among the visitors to the Divorce-Online site?

Without some info about methodology, there's no reason to treat this report as anything but self-promotion.

How about the total number of divorces? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570122)

Did the total number of divorces go up? The TFA doesn't mention that.
So probably people are using facebook as an excuse where they used other excuses in the years before.

Biased (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570134)

Online petition means you don't get the >45 age-range, & something tells me ye olde people divorce too.

Re:Biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570450)

Probably you are 25 and think that anyone older than 45 cannot use the internet...?

But anyway, this is of course not an aselect poll. When you gather poll results on a "divorce online" site, you are for sure getting more response from Facebook users than when you do it aselect.

Well (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570296)

Define "factor"

Re:Well (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570778)

Define "factor"

How about just using it in a sentence: "Your wife will divorce you when she finds out you factor best friend."

Guns don't. Facebook doesn't. (2)

louzer (1006689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570300)

Facebook doesn't cause divorces. People cause divorces. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Both guns and Facebook are inanimate tools, that are initiated by volition. These tools just make it easy to shoot ourselves in the feet and rightfully so. We must exercise caution when using any tool. Personal responsibility lies with us until the tools malfunction.

Re:Guns don't. Facebook doesn't. (2)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570676)

To continue the analogy: It really doesn't matter how careful you are. Having a gun, or a facebook account, greatly increases the risk that others will shoot you (unintentionally or otherwise).

They seem like fun toys, but smart people stay away from them.

Hmm, I should sign up for Facebook! (0)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570482)

So I can get a woman and finally get laid? :P

Not Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38571126)

Choosing a sample of people from one website for a poll about how often another website appears in their life (whether in divorce proceedings or elsewhere) instantly introduces unreasonable bias, in so far as people who are using one website are much more likely to be using other websites too, and those people who will take polls on websites is a smaller, probably more active, fraction again. I suspect that if you took this poll offline and conducted a proper study, the percentage would be much lower.

Improper sampling technique, I'm sure (1)

mary_will_grow (466638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38571170)

"DivorceOnline" sampled 5000 divorced couples. Were they users of DivorceOnline? Were these 5000 folks chosen from a particularly tech-friendly subset of the overall divorced population?

This just in! Slashdot poll reveals 50% of adult males still live with their parents.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?