Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Linked To One In Five Divorces In US

An anonymous reader writes "yes, in theory if you're single, Facebook can help you meet that special someone. But for those in even the healthiest of marriages, improper use can quickly devolve into a marital disaster. A recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that Facebook is cited in one in five divorces in the United States. Also, more than 80 percent of divorce lawyers reported a rising number of people are using social media to engage in extramarital affairs."

212 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. What percentage use FB again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Saying that divorces are linked to Facebook is like saying car purchases are linked to internet usage.

    1. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      Saying that divorces are linked to Facebook is like saying car purchases are linked to internet usage.

      Quite. One in five divorces cite Farcebook because one in ten people worldwide (~600 million) use Facebook, which is probably more like one in six/seven in the USA; the chances are very high that if one half of a couple uses FB then so does the other...

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    2. Re:What percentage use FB again? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      120% of studies that are designed to be misleading end up with 250% bogus numbers.

    3. Re:What percentage use FB again? by croddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The methodology is worse than that; I ran across this statistic a couple of weeks ago and tracked it down through some hellish chain of blog posts and it turns out that the way this was determined was searching a list of divorce court documents for the word "Facebook" and about 20% matched the string. Any divorce filing containing the string "Facebook" was coded as a divorce linked to Facebook.

      The most encouraging thing about this is that it sort of indicates that Facebook has only infiltrated about 20% of marriages.

    4. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Farcebook

      I assume typo as you didn't repeat it. I thought the name is amusing.

      But I agree, it's pretty bogus. Who is to say these marriages won't eventually break up for a different reason? Or, like the adage of straw on a camel, you might name the straw that broke its back, but that ignores the accumulated problems.

    5. Re:What percentage use FB again? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Statistics can be used to prove anything Kent, 15% of all people know that - Homer Simpson.

    6. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Greater than 99% of divorces are linked to heterosexual couples.

    7. Re:What percentage use FB again? by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      100% of divorces are linked to marriage.. and breathing.

    8. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      Heh... I promised myself I would never get married to anybody, ever. Thus, I would never have to worry about being divorced and having to hand half of my income and assets to a person who used to love me but now hated me.

      Women never seem to understand this basic concept: if you don't get married, you won't get divorced.

      Other side effects include: being able to do whatever you want with your life, without interference; never having to stay in a bitter relationship for fear of legal trouble; not having to buy a house and minivan.

      Have fun, stay single!

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    9. Re:What percentage use FB again? by sorak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A better analogy is that divorces are linked to facebook in the same way divorces are linked to the telephone, or to strip clubs.

    10. Re:What percentage use FB again? by gknoy · · Score: 2

      On the bright side, very few of the divorces were of gay couples! :)

    11. Re:What percentage use FB again? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

      You might want to be careful all the same, if avoiding marriage and divorce risks is your goal.

    12. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have to blow my mods on this one.

      Turns out Lesbians have a much higher divorce rate than gay males.

      So Females are involved in over 50% of divorces. (- hehe, it's a fact!)

      I speculate that Females are much more likely to "pull the trigger" when unhappy than men are. This may be because of their emotional state or it could be the divorce laws favor them. In any case, Females also initiate the majority of straight marriages too.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    13. Re:What percentage use FB again? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      But people know how to keep strip club visits/bills secret and telephone records are not easy to get, nor are they as detailed as what these morons post on line about themselves. I have no sympathy for the cheaters, nor for the insanely indifferent to their privacy.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    14. Re:What percentage use FB again? by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a joke in the community that seems rather apt....

      Q: What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
      A: A moving van.

      Sad, but true. At least in my experience... relationships do move pretty fast. Not going to turn this into a men vs. women like you seem to be trying to do, but in my experience, women do tend to be a lot less restrained emotionally than men are. Perhaps that's the reason... but I would shy away from using the word "volatile" if you know what's good for you. :)

    15. Re:What percentage use FB again? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "Women never seem to understand this basic concept: if you don't get married, you won't get divorced."

      I can pretty much understand getting married only if you intend to have kids with some one.

      Other than that...why bother?

      I saw a study recently...that rated happiness in relationships between men and women. Out of couples..the happiest in the relationships, were those with no kids. The least happy, were the couples with toddlers I think around kindergarten range.

      It also said that the satisfaction in a relationship, deteriorated as a function of the length of time of the relationship.

      I don't think men and women were meant to be together in one monogamous relation for all their adult lives. Why would the divorce rate be so high if it weren't otherwise?

      Nah..I like to hook up with a woman...enjoy our time together for a length of time...and look for the next one.

      I'm still friends with many if not most of them..but I'm not looking for a lifetime stuck with one bed partner...and risking losing half my shit whenever I want to upgrade to a new 'model'.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:What percentage use FB again? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2

      Or it could be because females know full well they won't have a problem finding other strong, attractive partners. Men, on the other hand, have to work their asses off to attract a woman that is worth paying attention to.

    17. Re:What percentage use FB again? by jefe7777 · · Score: 1

      Mod up. I was also thinking, does appending "The Hermit" to one's moniker become necessary as one of the "advantages" of being single? Let me try it on for size: jefe7777 The Hermit hmmmm. next thing you know I'll be wild eyed and breathing heavily about "my precious" to the rare (and unfortuate) vistor...

    18. Re:What percentage use FB again? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:What percentage use FB again? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't see how buying a house is a requirement for marriage. I do have to say that even if I were single, I would have bought one. I want to own property and no longer am interested in dealing with landlords... unless I'm the landlord.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      Common law marriage is NO LONGER LEGAL in the U.S. It hasn't been for decades.

      FYI.

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    21. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 2

      Actually, I append "TheHermit" to my name across the board, because I'm basically a crazy techo-hermit. In my apartment, it's just me and my gear! And where other hermits used to focus their energies on religious study, all I care about is programming and art.

      It kinda works for me though, I think. Plus, it's in my email, so women know INSTANTLY I'm basically antisocial and dislike groups. It's like product labeling.

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    22. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      Me and my big mouth... Spoke too soon; it can be "contracted" in eleven states (like a disease! ha ha):

      "Common-law marriage can still be contracted in eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and in the District of Columbia."

      Yeesh! Well, out of those, the only ones I kind of like are New Hampshire and Colorado, and in New Hampshire you have to die first so I figure that's not that bad.

      Anyway, I'm safe! I'm a New Yorker!

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    23. Re:What percentage use FB again? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Do you realize how much stuff you can lug around in a minivan - especially with the seats removed? It is a *fine* mode of transportation!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    24. Re:What percentage use FB again? by hovelander · · Score: 1

      I recently heard that 98% of GSW's are caused by guns, but the NRA tells me that Glenn Beck is fighting the coming Caliphate and I shouldn't worry about it.

      (Left intentionally incomprehensible so that it makes logical sense to RepubliTea drinkers...)

    25. Re:What percentage use FB again? by hovelander · · Score: 1

      (Sorry for the troll, just felt good as a lark)

    26. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      That's what I mean... The way I see it, if you don't get married and things later go badly, you can part ways with a handshake instead of getting lawyers involved.

      I heard something funny today, elsewhere in this thread:

      "50 percent of marriages end in divorce. The other 50 percent end in death! Rotten deal either way... "

      I said this aloud at work, just kidding around, next to a married coworker. He was really quiet for a few minutes, and I felt quite guilty.

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    27. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then you'll end up divorced, living in a van, down by the river!

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    28. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      It's not the house. Owning a house is good. The thing to do as a single guy in my opinion is to buy a small, non-family-friendly house, like a weird, spooky little two bedroom cottage with lots of spiders and house centipedes and a full basement you can turn into a mechanical lab. The nice thing about these houses is that they're usually cheap, like in the 50K range. Taxes are low too, and heat and electric is REALLY cheap.

      Best of all, this type of house makes women who are husband hunting reject you outright. "Only two bedrooms???" It's yet another useful feature.

      I suspect that the kind of women a man like me actually WANTS (i.e. mid-forties horny single women without kids) would really be into that sort of thing. It's "cozy", perfect for an older couple.

      So it basically drives away the women I don't want and attracts the ones I do. Theoretically. Cottages for the win. Capes maybe. Or -- damn! A prefab Cabin! A cabin would be great, with an overhead sleeping loft...

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    29. Re:What percentage use FB again? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Females initiate 90% of all divorces. 70% are due to females filing themselves, and 20% are due to the woman choosing to cheat. Now you know why the divorce laws are so totally screwed up and one-sided.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    30. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      It's not that men are from nature any more emotionally restrained than women. It's just that men who are aggressive and impulsive get a bloody hard time from kindergarten on - not entirely unreasonable - and so they are taught to restrain those traits. Whereas young girl's aggression stays under the radar for most adults, isn't challenged. If you've seen case stories of female bullying, you'll know how bad it can get.

      Adult culture enforces the distinction, too. Women's aggression simply isn't viewed as negatively as men's.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    31. Re:What percentage use FB again? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Adult culture enforces the distinction, too. Women's aggression simply isn't viewed as negatively as men's.

      I don't think so. In the UK at least, women murderers, child abusers and hooligans are almost always portrayed in the media as being more evil than their male equivalents

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Turbio · · Score: 1

      Facebook has only infiltrated in 20% of FAILED marriages.

    33. Re:What percentage use FB again? by sorak · · Score: 1

      I can agree to that. The real story is that people aren't very smart about how they use FB, not that FB breaks up marriages.

    34. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Bitter!
      Party of one!

      Your table is ready.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    35. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And yet, females of straight marriages typically suffer after divorces and do have problems finding a new mate, especially if they have children.

      I think that may be changing rapidly as we move to a service economy tho.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    36. Re:What percentage use FB again? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention that! My sister lives in a van by the river for half the year... I'm jealous of it - 1/2 year working, 1/2 year kayaking and mountain biking. I should have picked a more in demand profession...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    37. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      My car purchase was linked to the Internet. I did all the research online of what I wanted and what was available in the local area. I'm pretty sure this idea could be applied to cheating too if you were so inclined.

    38. Re:What percentage use FB again? by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      Is she a motivational speaker?

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    39. Re:What percentage use FB again? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      How do you measure that? Sentencing statistics are a better guide to society's attitudes, and by most accounts women get off easier for such crimes.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  2. It's just a part of peoples lives by dmomo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a common way for people to communicate. Facebook is going to be "linked to" everything as long as this is a fact.

    In other news:
    Facebook is linked to 50% of parties. Facebook is linked to 80% of weddings. Facebook is linked to 100% of political. Facebook is linked to 65% of friendships. Facebook is linked to 90% of people liking stuff.

    1. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Toe,+The · · Score: 3, Informative

      In other news:
      Facebook is linked to 50% of parties. Facebook is linked to 80% of weddings. Facebook is linked to 100% of political. Facebook is linked to 65% of friendships. Facebook is linked to 90% of people liking stuff.

      Parties, weddings, politics, friendships, and people liking stuff are... all linked to divorce.

    2. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One thing is more linked with divorce than anything else, marriage. 100% of divorces are caused by marriage.

    3. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Amen. 50% of marriages end in divorce, the other 50% end in death. Your odds are not good - for God's sake, don't get married!

    4. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by rishistar · · Score: 1

      Just because its part of peoples lives doesn't mean its linked to things. Slashdot is part of all our lives, but linked to 0% of marriages. Probably!

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    5. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      There's a difference? :-)

    6. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

      But SD is 6% related to people getting busted at work for screwing around on the internet instead of working...then getting fired will surely catalyze a divorce.

    7. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      death is cheaper :)

    8. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by mldi · · Score: 2

      You forgot about CmdrTaco!

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    9. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Dusty101 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once again, kiddies: Correlation does not imply causation!

      Actually, at the risk of being identified as pedantic, correlation does not *automatically* imply causation. It might, however, still suggest it.

      I still agree with the gist of the parent & grandparent posts' point regarding this particular story, though.

    10. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Did you guys even read the article? I'll answer for you: No. It doesn't say one in five people who get divorced happen to use facebook. It says "Facebook is cited in one in five divorces in the United States" Meaning, the divorce complaint specifically mentioned facebook.

    11. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      And in almost all cases, less painful ;)

    12. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Not really you still lose everything ;)

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    13. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      This is a common way for people to communicate. Facebook is going to be "linked to" everything as long as this is a fact.

      In other news:
      Facebook is linked to 50% of parties. Facebook is linked to 80% of weddings. Facebook is linked to 100% of political. Facebook is linked to 65% of friendships. Facebook is linked to 90% of people liking stuff.

      Don't forget poking.

    14. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      But you notice it less if you're dead. And as they say, perception means more than reality. :-)

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    15. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by PachmanP · · Score: 1
      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    16. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a narrow view. In some religions, including mine, marriage is not terminated by death, but continues for eternity.

    17. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      I think that, in scientific papers, correlation is usually *correlated* with causation...

    18. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by treeves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Marriage is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for divorce. Many (even a majority of) people who get married do not divorce.

      If the statistic is thrown around that 50% of marriages end in divorce, consider the many serial divorces, and realize that many people get married once and stay that way, to balance the numbers.
      Take a sample of three people: Joe, John and James.
      If Joe gets married and divorced three times, and John gets married once, and James gets married once, then five marriages have occurred, but three divorces. 60% divorce rate. But only 33% of that group got divorced.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    19. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      I just wonder what type of man lets his wife have a computer in the kitchen?

    20. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, correlation does imply causation. But in order to prove causation, you actually have to do real science which is really hard and takes a lot of time. So it's much easier to just imply causation and then get the laws changed, just in case, in order to protect the children, because it certainly won't hurt anything and it might help.

    21. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by syousef · · Score: 1

      This is a common way for people to communicate. Facebook is going to be "linked to" everything as long as this is a fact.

      In the article replace "Facebook" with "Telephone". It's not news anymore is it?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    22. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the dead guy...

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    23. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Yeah, true. People *do* forget about serial marriages, and thus when they read that 1000 people got married and 400 divorced, they (falsely) concludes that 40% of all *people* who marry, will also divorce.

      The actual rate is lower, and it's even lower if you discount people who're not really serious about marriage to begin with. (I'm sorry, but if someone gives up after 6 months, I'm not willing to believe that they where serious about a life-long comittment to begin with)

      If neither you, nor your partner has been married before, and the marriage has already held more than 2 years - then the odds of getting divorced at all are something like 20%.

      i.e. aproximately 4 out of 5 marriages that ever really get started at all, last for life. That's not bad at all.

      Add in that today it's acceptible, and indeed common, to divorce *without* huge misdoings by either part, but instead just "irreconcilable differences" or "drifted apart", and I tend to think the marriage-stats are downright awesome.

    24. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Maxx169 · · Score: 1

      Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'. http://xkcd.com/552/

    25. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I would think about getting a different religion if I were you.

    26. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I agree with you and the other person.

      The negativity can be transferred to Olympic competitions: 90% [just picking a number for the sake of illustration] of Olympic athletes fail to win, thus proving that starting a race causes losers. The logical perspective is that starting a race has no influence on whether or not you lose, but not starting causes you to not win.

    27. Re:It's just a part of peoples lives by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      This was entertaining (especially your "especially women" comment, I love when men who obviously are baffled by women make generalizations like that). But if your relationship is so weak that any blowing wind can drive you off course you really shouldn't be in that relationship.

      I have no rules about who I can spend time with or have an emotional relationship with. Nor does my wife. It's not an issue.

      If you need to set boundaries like that you probably need to start talking about the future prospects of your relationship.

  3. And this is news? by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be willing to bet that the use of the telephone (one of the greatest social inventions of all time) is linked to just about 100% of all divorces, as well.

    What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more. But they are new, and so I guess that makes them suspicious, doesn't it?

    1. Re:And this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Telephones have better privacy controls.

      Facebook's tendency to make it easy to leak information you didn't intend probably leads to divorces much more efficiently than telephones.

    2. Re:And this is news? by SpryGuy · · Score: 2

      Modern telephones, with text messaging and call history (frequently available on the web as well, or via an app) don't have quite the same privacy as the old POTS dial-up corded phones of the past.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    3. Re:And this is news? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more. But they are new, and so I guess that makes them suspicious, doesn't it?

      I'd have thought people interested in technology would be interested in examining how that technology interacts in the real world. I mean, you don't find it interesting that social media is so widely implicated and in what that implies for it's impact on society and the changes as the wired generation reaches adulthood? The positive effects of social media on the current Jasmine Revolution(s) are widely examined and praised here on Slashdot, one would think that the negative effects would be equally interesting.

    4. Re:And this is news? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Things are only interesting as long as they're surprising.

      “Look at the population of the people who are your online friends,” Kimmons said. “Is it a good mixture of men and women? Do you spend more time talking to females versus males or do you favor a certain type of friend over another? That can tell you something about how you’re using social networks. You may not even be aware that you’re heading down a road that can get quickly get pretty dangerous, pretty fast to your marriage.”

      Another safeguard is to spell out from the beginning with your online contacts what your expectations are of social networking relationships. Also, it’s a good idea to not engage in intimate conversation with someone who is not your spouse.

      “If you’re doing this at 2 o’clock in the morning with no one watching because you don’t want anyone else to know about it, that should be a signal to you that this is something approaching a boundary line or you’re at least moving in that direction,” Kimmons said.

      Do they really think they have to spell this stuff out to people? The only way relationships can get "dangerous" to your marriage is if you let them, whether online or not.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:And this is news? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more."

      I concur, people trying to blame websites for their failed marriages really are tools, and nothing more. Oh, wait. . . you were talking about the websites. . .

      Ambiguous pronouns are SO much FUN. . .

    6. Re:And this is news? by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Facebook is actively encouraging this kind of behavior. A phone is a neutral technology. Everytime I hit facebook, there are ads for 'meet singles in your area', or your old school friend has updated her photo's, or some twat has just poked you. Facebook is like crack, and can create a crack in relationships.

    7. Re:And this is news? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. "It just happened" is the biggest cop out for cheating out there. It NEVER "just happens".

    8. Re:And this is news? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      A set of eyes large enough to roll at this story and anyone who's blaming Facebook for the dissolution of their marriage doesn't exist.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    9. Re:And this is news? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more.

      It's the same disengenuous strategy that makes them blame baseball bats, knives, guns, or cars for murder. Lots of people like to avoid standing in judgement of another person's choices and actions, because that means they have to sort through their value system, deal with philosophical contradictions, face down their own hypocrisies, and all of that other annoying stuff that requires a dash of intellectual honesty and integrity. It's so so much simpler to blame the tools. And, of course, it increases the odds that a lawyer can sue a third party for a pile of cash, on the grounds that tools have the magic power to make you use them, and that the people who make the tools are the villains that make other people use them in a criminal or otherwise unethical way.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:And this is news? by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Depends on how far in the past you're looking. Once phones were being switched automatically there was slightly more privacy than when Gladys was connecting Bob to Mary across town, and Gladys just happened to mention it to Bob's wife one day when she ran into her at the market. But only slightly.

    11. Re:And this is news? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Not to mention when Bob's wife, hearing a strange noise, wakes up in the middle of the night, and not feeling Bob next to her she gets worried and picks up the phone to dial 911... and instead of a dial tone she hears Bob talking to some other woman from the extension in the kitchen...

    12. Re:And this is news? by werfele · · Score: 1

      Once phones were being switched automatically there was slightly more privacy than when Gladys was connecting Bob to Mary across town, and Gladys just happened to mention it to Bob's wife one day when she ran into her at the market.

      If you're going to go back as far as the switchboard, most people would have been using party lines, which pretty much guaranteed that your neighbors were all up in your business.

    13. Re:And this is news? by somersault · · Score: 1

      You're saying it's the cheaters who are the victims here? Gimme a break. It's entirely a matter of choice. Even if someone's the most beautiful woman in the world offered herself naked on a plate, a married man who actually cared about his wife (not to mention his own honour) would turn her down. If you're ready to cheat on your wife or even your girlfriend, you should already be divorced/split up.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:And this is news? by SpecBear · · Score: 2

      Do they really think they have to spell this stuff out to people? The only way relationships can get "dangerous" to your marriage is if you let them, whether online or not.

      Yes, and no. Yes, in that there are a whole lot of people out there that who really believe that such things "just happen". No, in that the people who need to be told that there's a broad danger zone that you have to travel through before you cross the line into cheating are also the people who are least likely to listen.

      You're absolutely correct in that relationships can only get dangerous if you let them. I've seen this far too many times. I tried to counsel a friend who was able to rationalize all kinds of behavior as long as he wasn't actually cheating. He walked right up to the line and when he took that last step, he claimed it "just happened".

    15. Re:And this is news? by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that if you're doing the whole marriage thing properly you're already married to the most smartest, most beautiful woman on the earth.

  4. So this would be like email, fifteen years ago? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm fairly sure there were stories like this going around when email became popular, and people started using it to, y'know, communicate with each other.

    Before that, cellphones--telephones--hell, I bet even the telegraph was implicated in adultery.

    (WHAT.ARE.YOU.WEARING.STOP
    SIX.SKIRTS.HOOPS.CRINOLINE.BUSTLE.CHEMISE.HAT.STOP
    NO.GLOVES.YOU.NAUGHTY.WENCH.STOP)

    And back before that, it was letters.

    Anything people have ever used to communicate has been implicated in adultery, because that's sort of how to set up a liason, ain't it?

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:So this would be like email, fifteen years ago? by JackCroww · · Score: 1

      You, sir, win the Internets for today.

      --
      "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
    2. Re:So this would be like email, fifteen years ago? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      It's little known that many of the walls of hieroglyphs in Egyptian ruins are just smutty notes people left one another. They were pretty much the Craigslist "adult services" section of their day.

      This, for example: http://humanpast.net/images/hieroglyphics.jpg

      Translates to "For a hot time contact Lusty Isis in the main market square, next to jewelry vendor. 300 papyrus scrolls for complete experience. 50 scrolls extra for Anubis costume."

    3. Re:So this would be like email, fifteen years ago? by corbettw · · Score: 2

      You've got your translations mixed up. That's an ad for a new work-at-home business plan, and it only takes 300 scrolls to start.

      It actually looks promising, I'm gonna go see if it's still available.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:So this would be like email, fifteen years ago? by sorak · · Score: 1

      And all sexting sounded non-consensual.

    5. Re:So this would be like email, fifteen years ago? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      And back before that, it was letters.

      This eventually goes back to cave drawings.

      • Her: Nice bison.
      • Him: Not bison; mother-in-law.
      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. 320 Lawyers Like This by dmomo · · Score: 5, Funny

    [thumbs up icon]

  6. It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by adonoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're in one of the "healthiest of marriages", you're not going to be doing anything on facebook or elsewhere that's going to jeopardize your marriage. I'm not going to be an asshole in person, or online. If you think that something is OK online, but not in real life, then you've got problems.

    1. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not quite that simple. Adults tend to become attached to the person of the opposite sex that they spend the most time with. Before facebook and e-mail it was fairly obvious to see who you were spending time with. Now we have tools that make it unnecessary to be physically with some one to feel like you are with them. This can be deceptive for everyone involved. It starts with "I'm not cheating on my wife, I'm must checking an old girlfriends facebook page." But ends up with more personal conversations being had over facebook than in real life with your wife. And it's more deceptive than letters, because if you are writing letters you must get out paper, a pen, an envelope and a stamp, sit down and write, making it obvious how much time you are investing. However, for many people facebook is only as far away as alt-tab, so the amount of time you spend on it isn't as obvious.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    2. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by rogueippacket · · Score: 1

      Agree. Facebook is not the cause here - marriages are difficult, life-long commitments, and technology provides an easy way out for a lot of people who find themselves unhappy and unwilling to work things out with their partner. Everyone has different reasons for divorce, but the moral of this story is simple - don't make a commitment you can't keep, and don't simply give up when things get difficult.

    3. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by maxume · · Score: 2

      It still seems fairly simple, the Facebook just happens to make the infidelity a little easier.

      (You seem to be saying that the Facebook activity seems harmless at first and then the person doing it ends up somewhere they didn't see themselves going; that's probably true, but I think the fact that they let it happen probably says more about how ready they were to get married than it says about Facebook)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      Aaaaannnnd...I'm calling bullshit.

      It's dead simple. There is a huge leap between looking at a facebook page of old girlfriends and moving on versus opening your heart up to someone behind your wife's back. A good rule of thumb is that if you can't admit something to your spouse, you're probably doing something that isn't healthy for your relationship. It's not the length of time you spend writing or chatting, it's the context and the circumstances.

    5. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      I believe Penny Arcade said it correctly. Anonymity + Audience.

      In this case, people are getting hit with the reality that they aren't really that anonymous (or private) on the internet.

    6. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Finding porn online is morally no different than renting it at the video store or visiting the local strip club (unless you're also committing copyright infringement at the same time).

    7. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      I don't know if you are correct about being attracted to people you are around or not. You are correct about communications with ex's. On of my ex's contacted me when my mother died. My mother helped her out a lot with financial stuff when her father died 10 years ago. She sent me a very heart felt message and then told me about all the issues she was having in her life.
      I really felt bad for her. But knowing her I also knew that she could get the wrong idea if I spent too much time consoling her. Part of becoming and adult is finding that balance in relationships. Being too close to someone can sometimes do more harm than good. That and even then you must always think about how your spouse feels. Your first responsibility is always to your family.
      But what it comes down to is Facebook is a tool for communications and what is communicated is the problem not the tool.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "There is a huge leap between looking at a facebook page of old girlfriends and moving on versus opening your heart up to someone behind your wife's back. "

      true, but BOTH cause divorce.

      And the more time you spend with someone, the more attached you become to them.

      " good rule of thumb is that if you can't admit something to your spouse, you're probably doing something that isn't healthy for your relationship."

      No, not really, its hugely more complex then that. So do you mean "can't" as in I will get into trouble, or 'can't because you uncomfortable to talk with.

      And yes, there are subjects that people won't talk to there spouse because they are uncomfortable to do.
      These range from Money, to house cleaning, to sexual experimentation. Shuold they talk to their spouse? yes, but society puts certain pressures to behave certain ways so it can be hard.

      I highly advise a qualified marriage consoler. I mean someone with a degree, not just some yahoo who tossed their shingle out because all problem can be solved with [insert specific whacko belief here]

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I have a natural urge to bitch slap you, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an asshole move on my part.

    10. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Some people consider going to a strip club to be cheating.

      On the other hand, some don't consider bringing naked chicks home to be cheating.

    11. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      They didn't say that "healthiest' is repressing basic biological urges. They said "you're not going to be doing anything on facebook or elsewhere that's going to jeopardize your marriage". There is a big difference between the two. Of course, even if your wife is cool with you not "repressing basic biological urges" with women you bring home, she would quite reasonably be pissed off when you go to jail for rape because you didn't "repress basic biological urges" with women who have no interest in you.

    12. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by daremonai · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, some don't consider bringing naked chicks home to be cheating.

      Well, what else should you do? Leave them out on the street? C'mon, they'll get cold!

    13. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Everyone has different reasons for divorce, but the moral of this story is simple - don't make a commitment you can't keep, and don't simply give up when things get difficult.

      And realize that people can change over time, and "forever" isn't always a realistic option. Life really isn't that simple.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    14. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by phoenix321 · · Score: 2

      The very meaning of the word "Civilization" is repressing basic biological urges.

      One single day of work cannot be had unless you repress basic biological urges. Don't urinate in the hallway, don't defecate in the staff meeting, don't fart in the restaurant, don't masturbate in the cinema and don't have sex with that sickingly cute coworker if she says "no".

      And it goes on: don't kill those who stole your food, don't kill for food, don't take other people's stuff.

      People not repressing their basic biological urges when appropriate *are* assholes, usually. No one would ever get out of bed to work.

    15. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      He didn't say renting it at the video store, he said "using windows to find naked chicks".

    16. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      A good rule of thumb is that if you can't admit something to your spouse, you're probably doing something that isn't healthy for your relationship.

      Hmm, I'd always heard that open, honest tell everything conversation must be avoided at all costs if you want a marriage to last...not saying to lie, but telling everything?!? Generally not a good idea.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by syousef · · Score: 1

      If you're in one of the "healthiest of marriages", you're not going to be doing anything on facebook or elsewhere that's going to jeopardize your marriage. I'm not going to be an asshole in person, or online. If you think that something is OK online, but not in real life, then you've got problems.

      I understand what you're saying but you've said it very very poorly.

      For example I've played Battlefield 2 online. There is no way I'd go out and kill and mame people for fun in real life.

      The online environments can alter what is and isn't acceptable. However the implications in real life aren't altered. For instance in the context of the game I might shoot and kill, but I would not bully a player - a real life person - via the medium of the game.

      I think the important thing is to establish what is and isn't acceptable online just as you do in person. If in your marriage it's acceptable to flirt mildly without intent, it might be the same online. Or the lack of face to face contact may mean that how serious the flirtation is becomes less clear. Therefore it might be acceptable to flirt in person but not on Facebook, within the context of what the 2 people in a particular marriage agree. If you don't have those lines of communication open in the first place, your marriage is already in trouble!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    18. Re:It's not facebook's fault you're a jerk by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Really? I have very close female and gay male relationships.

      There's nothing new here. I still have a pay phone down my block. It's on a corner. You could drive over and no one would know. Cheaper than a TracFone. No phone to accidentally leave in your pocket. You used to be able to make a call while you pumped gas.

      With children there's the concept of attachment. It's actually the opposite of what you would expect. A well attached child feels free to explore the world. They'll come back to their parent, but have increasingly prolonged play times away from them. The more stable and attached the child is, the more they can enjoy the world without their parent being constantly by their side.

      If you can't let your spouse out of your sight, you're not really attached. If you have to close off your relationship to where you can't contact the outside world for weeks at a time, it's not a healthy relationship.

  7. And how many are linked to cars? by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Facebook Linked To One In Five Divorces In US

    And how many are linked to cars (*), another tool used by those who have decided to be unfaithful?

    Yet another time for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.

    (*) Hey, dumb stories demand a car analogy. :-)

    1. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My wife signed up to facebook breifly, "friended" a few friends and family, and within a day or two had old boyfriends and male acquaintances trying to get in touch with her to chat etc... it was vaguely unsettling really. I'm sure some were happily adjusted in their own lives and were just interested in catching up... but it was pretty clear some of them were looking to hook up.

      Its pretty easy to see how that can get out of hand.

      It even seems to be a likely outcome of joining facebook from what I've seen.

      And to rebutt your car analogy -- nothing like that happens you buy a new car. I'll concede that cars are also tools that are used by the unfaithful, but the car doesn't have all your exboyfriends in the backseat when you buy it.

    2. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      ... and within a day or two had old boyfriends and male acquaintances trying to get in touch with her to chat etc... it was vaguely unsettling really. I'm sure some were happily adjusted in their own lives and were just interested in catching up... but it was pretty clear some of them were looking to hook up ...

      I guess my point is that such contact does not create the urge to cheat. It merely facilitates an existing urge. So I'm still leaning towards facebook, like a car, just being a tool that facilitates cheating.

    3. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by sorak · · Score: 1

      Another way to read this:

      20% of men dumb enough to cheat via facebook.

    4. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I guess my point is that such contact does not create the urge to cheat. It merely facilitates an existing urge. So I'm still leaning towards facebook, like a car, just being a tool that facilitates cheating.

      I think you're severely underestimating the potential damage of this mere "facilitation". We're only human. We want what's in front of us. We're opportunists. Facebook opens up way more opportunities than were open pre-Facebook.

      I can name several exes and former hookups that I would never have been in touch with now, yet I see their daily updates on their lives via Facebook. It's all fun and games as long as you know your own limitations and human frailties. How funny is it to peek in to their lives and say, "Yup! Dodged a bullet with that one, didn't I."

      There are two exes, however, that I would never friend under any circumstances. It's not that I don't trust myself--it's that I don't want to have to trust myself. Sometimes it's better just to let sleeping dogs lie.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    5. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      If you do a quick Google, you will find many surveys that show women actually cheat more often then men do. Now its hardly scientific, but I would argue this may be true. This is a hypothesis : There has been evidence that women are attracted to two types of men for different reasons. As far as a husband goes, women want a more nurturing, soft featured man. When it comes to sex however, women want a testosterone laden hunk. The problem is that the more testosterone a man has, the more uncontrollable he is and he will usually move on to other conquests. If a woman can score a softy for a husband that will raise their children for them and provide resources, while banging big buff angry dudes and keeping it hidden, they will have more competitive offspring since the offspring will have good genes and a safe environment to grow up in.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "...but the car doesn't have all your exboyfriends in the backseat when you buy it"

      Great line! I was tending to think "well, they said the same thing about phones and cars and , so what's the difference?

      I think you pointed out the difference.

      sr

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:And how many are linked to cars? by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      It can only get "out of hand" if your relationship isn't strong and doesn't have set boundaries.

      There is no way in hell I would ever accept a friend request from an ex. Neither would my wife. Her and I have been together for over a decade (married for 7) and that's still a boundary you don't cross.

      It is every bit as inappropriate as having an ex call you on the phone once a week "just to chat".

  8. it's just a communication medium by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    It's like saying air is implicated because people forced it through their larynx while cheating.

  9. The real take away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is that there are no divorce lawyers in Arkansas. according to the AAML website. Is divorce not legal there?

    1. Re:The real take away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      is that there are no divorce lawyers in Arkansas. according to the AAML website. Is divorce not legal there?

      Divorce requires a marriage. Marriage requires a license. A license requires the pair to be unrelated.

      Sorry, I feel ashamed and guilty for the above but I'm going to press submit anyway.

    2. Re:The real take away by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, when a man and woman in Arkansas get divorced, are they still first cousins?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:The real take away by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      More importantly, when a man and woman in Arkansas get divorced, are they still first cousins?

      No, they are still siblings.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  10. UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought it was the homosexuals that were a threat to my marriage? You can't possibly get me to accept that now its the Internet and the Facebook that are the real barrier to matrimonial bliss.

    Lets be honest, the usual cause of most divorces is the two people in the marriage.

    1. Re:UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Obviously, it's teh gheys that are recruiting members for their growing army by using Facebook.

    2. Re:UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by corbettw · · Score: 1

      It's the homosexuals on Facebook. They're in it with the reverse vampires.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      This only confirms my opinion that Facebook is GAY!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by sorak · · Score: 1

      You're starting to piece it together. It all falls apart when your wife logs onto Facebook one day and sees:

      NevarMore likes the gays

    5. Re:UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the homosexuals that were a threat to my marriage?

      Does anyone make the argument that gay marriage threatens some individual's hetero marriage? I've only heard the claim that it threatens the institution of marriage.

      I don't happen to agree with the premise, but that doesn't give license to put words into peoples mouthes.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    6. Re:UNPOSSIBLE! Doesn't fit the narrative. by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Well based on the number of people on here who seem to think that men are doing the majority of the cheating it would point to that wouldn't it?

  11. Outside influences by morcego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't people at some point stop blaming outside influences for their own failings ?

    I'm happily married. I'm a hardcore gamer, who spend a lot of time online. My wife hates computer games. We make it work fine.
    My daughter owns a notebook, spends a lot of time online. I don't have any kind of "network nanny" on her computer. So far, she hasn't committed mass murder in her school.

    Go be a husband/wife and a parent. Stop blaming outside influences, computers, games, TV etc for your own failings. Own up to it.

    Facebook don't force people to commit adultery. Videogames don't brainwash kids to murder other people. Deal with it.

    --
    morcego
    1. Re:Outside influences by migla · · Score: 1

      >>Facebook don't force people to commit adultery.

      True that. But it sure can probably present the opportunity for someone who's a potential cheater, without which they might have just been married happ... well, ever after, at least.

      Not being in contact with other people through facebook or whatever could be likened to security through obscurity, which is *not* the way to go with computers or with relationships.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    2. Re:Outside influences by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't people at some point stop blaming outside influences for their own failings ?

      I don't think you can quite ignore outside influences, either.

      For the sake of argument, let's divide the set of married people into three buckets: 1) those who definitely will not cheat, 2) those who definitely will cheat, and 3) those who might cheat.

      For starters, let's not concern ourselves with the first and second buckets. Their fates are already sealed. Instead, let's divide bucket 3 into two groups: Group 3.1) those who might cheat, but don't, and group 3.2) those who might cheat, and do.

      It is my opinion, that sites like facebook alter the ratio between groups 3.1 and 3.2 by creating opportunities that didn't exist before. We're human. We want what's in front of us. We're opportunists.

      I agree that the Facebooks of the world can't turn good people bad, but you've got to admit, they sure have the potential to induce questionable people to do the wrong thing instead of the right thing.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:Outside influences by morcego · · Score: 1

      So you are going to blame the site, not the person?

      --
      morcego
    4. Re:Outside influences by SpecBear · · Score: 2

      A man is only as faithful as his options. - Chris Rock

      I don't believe Rock is correct for all men, but it's certainly true for bucket number 3. Basically, the difference between buckets #2 and #3 is the amount of effort one is willing to put into cheating, and the level of plausible deniability one needs to rationalize it. Type 2s will make opportunities to cheat, while type 3s will just take advantage of opportunities that arise. Thus the Type 3s are only as faithful as their options. Which, in my book, isn't really being faithful.

    5. Re:Outside influences by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 2

      ahhh.... no..

      Group 3.1) those who might cheat, but don't - are not cheaters....
      and group 3.2) those who might cheat, and do. are DEFINITELY cheaters.


      Stop trying to give people outs... you either respect the person you're with enough not to treat them like shit, or you don't.

    6. Re:Outside influences by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      So members of group 3 would be faithful, as long as they were locked in a room and never allowed contact with other humans.

      Your logic is the same as "security through obscurity" ... and neither works.

      Cheating is a choice. Nothing more, nothing less. People who make that choice will rationalize it 8 ways to Sunday, but in the end it always comes back to them having made a choice to toss their marriage aside.

      "People who would cheat" are going to cheat no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's facebook, the telephone, or the supermarket check out line that facilitated that communication.

    7. Re:Outside influences by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      So you are going to blame the site, not the person?

      No. There's a difference between describing human behavior and rationalizing it.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    8. Re:Outside influences by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to give people outs... you either respect the person you're with enough not to treat them like shit, or you don't.

      I'm not trying to give people outs--just trying to describe human nature. While I agree that cheating is wrong, is it really so useful to thump our chests and wag our fingers and scream that which is obvious?

      To illustrate my point, I have never cheated on my wife, and I don't believe that I ever will. That being said, there are 2 women from my past that I absolutely will not friend on Facebook. I'm sure nothing would happen even if I did reconnect with them, but why play with fire?

      That's why, in my mind, it's worth suspending judgment for a bit and just trying to understand human frailties. We can't, by force of sheer will, make ourselves into perfect creatures. Better to understand ourselves and try to work within our nature.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    9. Re:Outside influences by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      So members of group 3 would be faithful, as long as they were locked in a room and never allowed contact with other humans.

      I would think of group 3 as more of a spectrum of propensities to cheat, not a constant propensity. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear when I subdivided the group.

      Your logic is the same as "security through obscurity" ... and neither works.

      I'm not even sure of the practical value of that old statement. Is a password "security" or "security through obscurity"? I guess it all depends on how much effort it would take me to obtain your password. Is port knocking security through obscurity? Most claim that it is, but how is it different from a password?

      The notion of security as a binary condition of a system (secure vs insecure) is ludicrous. Any security can be subverted, given sufficient resources. Should we then conclude that no system can be "secure"?

      Of course not. Security, in my mind, is better framed as an economics problem (which might be my economics background rearing its ugly head). What is the value of the resource being secured? What resources would be required to subvert the security mechanisms? If the resources required to break the security mechanism far enough exceed the value of the secured resource, I believe we can call the resource "secure". Otherwise, no. And since "security through obscurity" can still add meaningfully to the cost of accessing the secured resource, we must conclude that security through obscurity works, as long as we recognize its limitations.

      "People who would cheat" are going to cheat no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's facebook, the telephone, or the supermarket check out line that facilitated that communication.

      I haven't done any scientific studies on this, but my gut tells me that bucket 3 is pretty large. What good does it do to give up on its members? Why not make an attempt to uncover and understand situations that trigger our human frailties and make an effort to avoid them? Can you really not see any value in trying to help morally ambiguous people to do the right thing, even if it isn't always the person's natural inclination?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    10. Re:Outside influences by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I think it's more:
      1) Will never cheat
      2) Will cheat given the opportunity
      3) Will cheat in times of stress, depression, weakness (a revenge affair, for ex.) if there is an opportunity.

      Social networking makes it more likely group 3 will cheat, as it is more likely they will have an opportunity when they are vulnerable.

      It doesn't excuse the affair, and doesn't make the other person feel any better about it; it just makes the 3s statistically more likely to cheat than if they were, say, living on an isolated farm in Montana in the 1880s.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    11. Re:Outside influences by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Damn, I wish I hadn't commented on this conversation so I could mod you up.

  12. Your High School Sweetheart V1.0 is now available by RevWaldo · · Score: 2

    Do you wish to install?
    [Yes] [No]

    .

  13. Sensationalism by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    We hate social services that require having friends. We love arguing about correlation and causation. Slashdot serves ads.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Sensationalism by craash420 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot serves ads.

      What are these "ads" of which you speak?

      --
      Extra medication for all!
    2. Re:Sensationalism by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Slashdot serves ads.

      What are these "ads" of which you speak?

      Oh, are you the one that turned them off for everybody?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Sensationalism by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      Slashdot offers me an option to not display ads... I have never ticked it because, unlike most other sites on the net, slashdot ads are not nearly as obnoxious as they could otherwise be. In the event that they start filling space between posts I will exercise my ad suppression, either by the slashdot checkbox or via adblock.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
  14. False alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook causes divorces. That's not good.

    Luckily we use slashdot, so we're safe!

    1. Re:False alarm by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Perpetual virginity: the most effective divorce prevention known to man!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  15. I wonder by Nyghtfall · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many divorces were actually due to Farmville or some other app?

  16. Re:Your High School Sweetheart V1.0 is now availab by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Warning: Virus Detected

  17. kids these days... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    My daughter owns a notebook, spends a lot of time online. I don't have any kind of "network nanny" on her computer. So far, she hasn't committed mass murder in her school.

    No, but she has been instrumental in toppling several African governments this month. The consequences will never be the same.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  18. Martial Disaster by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 1

    So the art of living a happy marriage is a "martial art"?

  19. Not a problem in my marriage by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I'm too smart to ever have a Facebook account, and my wife is too stupid to set up a Facebook account without assistance...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Not a problem in my marriage by somersault · · Score: 1

      my wife is too stupid

      Uh.. yeah. This makes me wonder how many divorces have been instigated by Slashdot posts..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Not a problem in my marriage by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      It's not so much Slashdot itself; more like people who describe themselves as "nerd" not only have bad personalities, but a loathing of women.

    3. Re:Not a problem in my marriage by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty certain she doesn't read slashdot...

      Also, dude, it's a joke! Did Henny Youngman's wife file for divorce when he said, "Take my wife... please!"? Did Rodney Dangerfield's wife file when he said, "I haven't spoken to my wife in years. I didn't want to interrupt her!"?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Not a problem in my marriage by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Well, one was started with one...

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Not a problem in my marriage by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      As long as your wife never reads this comment, then Slashdot won't ruin your marriage either.

    6. Re:Not a problem in my marriage by somersault · · Score: 1

      Fair enough if you were joking. I suppose she'd have to actually be a rock to be so stupid that she couldn't set up a Facebook account, judging from some of the comments on Failbook etc..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  20. slashdotters by hynso · · Score: 1

    slashdotters are prob the only sensible folx that immediately see through this suggestive phrasing bs.

  21. misinterpreted the statistic by e3m4n · · Score: 2

    At first I thought it was basically saying that 20% of all facebook users get a divorce and facebook was the culprit. Now I realize its saying that out of all the divorces, 20% of them claim its due to a connection they made with someone on facebook. I would like to know what percentage these 20% contribute to the entire demographic of married couples on facebook (if both spouses on facebook count as 1). That would give a better perspective on how much an impact facebook has IMO. Whatever the results, I would consider the same impact substantially higher for non-married committed relationships where separation consists of no legal paperwork or drawn out procedures. I'm so old and jaded these days I know the grass is never greener on the other side. Everyone has a list of flaws, marriage is all about finding the person with the flaws you are willing to live with. Leaving a known quantity for an unknown quantity is not really the smartest choice. After 11 yrs of marriage I know that if I leave a mess somewhere I wont get judged over it. Likewise if my wife does something that gets on my nerves I'm over it in 10 minutes anyway. None of that exists in a new relationship. Sure its shiny and new, but eventually that wears off and suddenly you realize there's flaws you might NOT be willing to live with. Acceptance is the most important ingredient for making a relationship survive the long haul. Going with shiny and new, you never know if the other person wont bolt as soon as they find out you fart in bed, or like to work late on projects. Just because you two get along great as pen pals is hardly a basis to completely up-heave ones life.

  22. Re:Bogus by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    Is this the Peer Reviewed research that our academic publishers are claiming deserves high fees for? What happened to outrage at bad methodology?

    P.S. Bill and Ted like this.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  23. Wow! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    In other news, lawyers are linked to 100% of divorces.

    In a controversial finding, "Cow Clicker" was directly implicated in 87% of the divorces in the more rural states, and "why can't mah lazy bum hubby git out dere make a billion like that jew kid?" was cited in over 62% of divorces involving blood relatives.

    1. Re:Wow! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      In other news, lawyers are linked to 100% of divorces.

      Not true, unless you count the judge who signs off on the divorce. My current wife and her ex-husband (or as she likes to say, her "first ex-husband") got a divorce without having any lawyers involved. Of course, they were both civil adults about the whole thing, and really a model for how to get a divorce. As opposed to my ex-wife and myself, who fought over everything and helped several lawyers pay off their cars early.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Wow! by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Which actually brings up another thought; why isn't getting divorced as easy as getting married? Even when it's amicable, in many states it's still a mountain of paperwork (which can get rejected for any number of "technical mistakes") culminating in a court appearance that can take months to get on the judge's calendar. Marriage though, only really requires a short trip to the town clerk, and another visit to someone to officiate (priest, mayor, judge, McDonalds manager, dog-catcher, etc). In NJ at least, the resistance is from the "save marriage" crowd, who somehow believe that if you make divorce as miserable as possible the end result will be more happily married couples (can you spot the flaw in the logic there?).
      Sure, sometimes it's going to get messy if people are ready for a fight, but there really should be a "fast-track" option that is as cheap and easy as getting married in the first place for people who are in agreement and simply want to break off the relationship amicably.

      Okay, rant over.....

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    3. Re:Wow! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Legal Disclaimer: Only true for certain values of 100%

  24. you could also say by lazlo · · Score: 1

    So what they're saying is that, when it comes to divorce, facebook has now made it up to the point where it's 20% as bad for marriage as lawyers?

    --
    Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
  25. Facebook is like an earworm by daviskw · · Score: 1

    My wife started using facebook because her coworkers were using it. She was working with them in close quarters all day and then she would come home and talk to them on facebook most of the evening. Its been a year since it ended and I don't yet know if this is going to end in divorce. What I can tell you is that we as people were never evolved to have someone whispering in our ear all day. What makes Facebook in particular and social networking in general dangerous is that you used to have to be close to someone to become attached. Now you only have to be texting them or chatting with them or whatever. It does what the phone never could do: It connects you to anyone you ever met that you can find online.

    I'm not saying that this is neccessarily a bad thing. I am saying that we aren't wired for and we aren't prepared for this kind of connectivity.

    --
    Beware the wood elf!!!
    1. Re:Facebook is like an earworm by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " I am saying that we aren't wired for and we aren't prepared for this kind of connectivity."

      based on....?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Facebook is like an earworm by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Also people tend to be considerably more frank and open when they percieve themselves to be alone in front of a computer rather than talking to someone face to face. Thus, /b/ and divorces.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  26. Re:Facebook is a communication tool. Like a phone. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Sure, but both telephones and car interiors are difficult to clean after you've used them for extramarital purposes...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  27. Re:My parents too by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    So, um.... whose basement are you living in now?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  28. Or... by oenone.ablaze · · Score: 1

    Wow! Facebook must cause divorces! Or, Facebook is now simply a "space" in which social activity takes place for a great many people, and that evidence of illicit affairs and other information unpalatable to a spouse can be found there just as it was previously found in desks, coat pockets, cameras, and inboxes.

  29. Re:win the internets by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    But before he won the internets, you could sorta keep all that stuff under wraps. Facebook is like a "friendly wikileaks".

    Who gets the peace prize?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  30. Re:My parents too by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    If someone smashed my computer, I sure as hell would dump her. No need for computer wrecking psycho bitches. Hell, I would have to consider the value of my relationship if she "accidentally" infected my computer with a virus more than once.

  31. Oh noes. by eyenot · · Score: 1

    More proof that facebook is a holy roman conspiracy. Quick everybody switch over to handfasting and ICQ before they crush us into a dark age of bondage orgies and skype.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  32. eMail? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Well for some stupid reason my GF once read my emails.
    And found a naked picture of woman I happen to know.
    That was a great outrage :D
    We did not divorce, though.
    I don't really get why "researchers" waste their time with such bullshit research. As if the couples had not divorced if there was no facebook, lol.
    Hm, perhaps to buy advertizing space for layers specialized into divorces?

    angel'o'sphere

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  33. Maybe those who use facebook... by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 1

    aren`t the best candidates for grownup relationships like marriage.

  34. Re:RTFA by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Your stricture is a harsh and oppressive environment. *heavy breathing* your wife is going to think twice about it at the first opportunity *heavy breathing* she's gonna meet somebody who has what you don't: newness and fun *heavy breathing* because of your repression and the law of forbidden fruit, even thinking about letting him fuck her in the break room is gonna feel better than the same ol you've pigeonholed her into *breathing heavy* and when she finally lets loose and lets him cream her vulnerable pussy, its gonna feel better for her than anything she can remember, all because of you. ... You, and every other schmuck truing to live in a fantasy land of perfect security and shoring it up with bullshit like marriage. Listen to biology: every married man is a wanmabe cuckold.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  35. Casual link != Causal Link by gavron · · Score: 1
    Sure, Facebook is cited. Did facebook CAUSE the divorce? No. Stupid people who a) are not properly honoring their marriage vows and b) post about it to FB or provider other clues of the infidelity are.

    It's time to quit blaming the technology... if you cheat on your spouse... the one to blame is the dummy in the mirror, not the blog you crapped on them with.

    E

    1. Re:Casual link != Causal Link by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Hold up there, orson.
      Its not that cheating people cheat and post about it online -- its that they're using online to find who ta cheat with ta beginwith! Hoss!

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  36. Marriage Problems in General by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2

    My Grandma got married a few months back (yes, you read that right). I was talking to one of the ministers at the service, and he was commenting on how he does fewer weddings these days than he used to. I asked him if he thought it might be because people are having more odd-ball weddings, rather than typical church related services. He said he had worried about that at first, but after doing some digging, it just seemed like fewer people were actually interested in marriage. This trend seemed particularly true in younger adults like myself.

    That kind of discussion, plus this kind of news, plus my own personal experiences talking to folks makes me wonder if the institution is simply being questioned on a more fundamental level. It always seemed a bit odd to me (though not completely unreasonable) to commit oneself to the company of another single person for the entirety of one's remaining life. I think a lot of younger folks are starting to question that paradigm as well. As such, I think this particular 'study' might just be revealing a symptom of a deeper topic. I think the traditional institution of marriage is on the verge of slipping from being the formal definition. I don't think as many people in the free (kinda) world today are as interested or intrigued by the idea of spending the rest of their lives with one person. One of the great things the internet has done is that it has opened many people to new perspectives and new ideas. There is a lot to learn out there, and there are millions of beautiful people to meet and get to know on whatever level one may desire. I think, in light of these revelations, folks are starting to see that binding oneself to a single mate for the rest of their lives seems a bit, well, boring. If you marry someone when you are, say 22, and after ten years or so, you two have had a good run, and some good times, but things have stagnated, why not let good memories remain good memories, quit while you're ahead, and go meet someone new (if that's what you both want)?

    Of course, these are just the musings of my own mind, but it's something to think about. I'd wager that over the next few decades, we are going to see the traditional institution of marriage start to fall from its place as the accepted standard.

    1. Re:Marriage Problems in General by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      You're right. If you want to see the result, just take a look at the black inner cities of the US, they're trend downward for marriage started in the 60s rather than the 80s.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Marriage Problems in General by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Because we HAVE to stick to every tradition that is thousands of years old or civilization will collapse!

      Now, where is my favorite concubine...

    3. Re:Marriage Problems in General by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I think the better solution to the problem you're posing (the number of people in the world to meet and know) is to become a swinger. My wife and I don't play with everyone we meet, but we've had a chance to meet lots of really interesting people and have a lot of fun with them. It's also allowed us to explore aspects of our relationship that were taboo to our parents' generation.

      At the same time, we still have a partner we can depend on, and someone we can plan a future and raise children with. It's a win-win.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Marriage Problems in General by eyenot · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, one of the greatest outcomes of the fall of "Victorian" gender politics and social mores has been the emergence of open admission to "swinging". Sometimes two similarly pent-up, high-pressure, low-curiosity types meet, compat, and spend the rest of ther natural lives together. But anybody who's at least 18 knows from anecdotes that those are the extreme rarity, and can conclude that marriages based on being like that are either situations of denial (of some fundamental fact) or gambles, or just the result of peer pressure. Refreshingly, in this day and age, a man and a woman can do what they will. People who aren't trying to become icons of eldritch tradition have a much better chance staying together if they agree that instead of parting over the seeming inevitable, that they will wholeheartedly embrace it. Accepting that "extra marital" desires are natural (and powerful) and something to go along with will show the couple what they're really made of; the alternative is to resign their remaining lives to loyal membership in something that bears little or no resemblence to normal human desire. Anyways, kudos to those who share the knowledge that there is life after marriage (and not only as some ironic cliche).

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    5. Re:Marriage Problems in General by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. but it has to be equilateral. My ex was unfaithful, I had had open relationships in the past. I suggested we have an open relationship as a way of dealing with her actions. She was fine with this until she realized that it meant that I wanted to enjoy it as well. Long story short, cheating slut freaks out, treats my like crap and in great irony calls me the immoral one even though I was always honest and never cheated.

      Now my only regret is that I was too in love to see her crap from the beginning and kick her ass out before I wasted 8 years of my life with her.

    6. Re:Marriage Problems in General by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Who ever said the decline of the marriage tradition was a bad thing?

    7. Re:Marriage Problems in General by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      The good news is, now you're free to meet someone better. ;)

    8. Re:Marriage Problems in General by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few couples that have been married for more than ten years that don't have children.

    9. Re:Marriage Problems in General by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's certainly not because the majority of men in their neighborhoods are unavailable for marriage due to being in prison.

      If you could prove this holds true in a majority white upper-middle class college educated neighborhood, do let me know. Otherwise I'll keep blaming it on the other 1000 disadvantages life has doled out to inner city blacks.

    10. Re:Marriage Problems in General by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      My wife and I were together ten years (married eight) before we had children. I highly recommend it.

  37. Why they get the blame by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more.

    Because the alternative is to admit that the real moral culpability is with the user of said tool and our society can't stand the idea of actually being "judgmental" toward someone who actually cheats on their spouse. Even that is asking too much since many Americans now stridently denounce you for being "judgmental" for even saying that you have to be a pile of dog $H%& as a human being to cheat on your spouse or break up your family just because you find your spouse "boring" (not abusive, just not interesting).

    The mainstream media simultaneously celebrates the divorce culture as "women's empowerment" and then wonders why many men are turning to pickup artists and douchebaggery instead of emulating Ward Cleaver...

    1. Re:Why they get the blame by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "and then wonders why many men are turning to pickup artists and douchebaggery instead of emulating Ward Cleaver..."

      Because acting that way seems to vastly improve your chances of getting laid?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  38. Self Esteem by DocZayus · · Score: 1

    Maybe it has something to do with people having a stronger self-esteem? http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/03/01/facebook.self.esteem/index.html

    --
    -- http://www.doczayus.com/
  39. Re:RTFA by Americano · · Score: 1

    This does not mitigate the risk of her fucking another woman, however. And for the majority of you that will think that's cool and not cheating: Allow me to dress into womens' clothing, put on a wig and makeup, tape my dick to my taint, and spend a few hours getting your wife off with my hands and mouth. What's the difference?

    Um... wait, don't tell me. I think I saw this in Kindergarten Cop: "Boys have a penis. Girls have a va-CHINA." Yours just happens to be taped to your taint.

    Do I win?

  40. Facebook and other Social Networks by Renraku · · Score: 1

    It's no longer necessary to hit the bar every night for a month to maybe find someone you're compatible enough to sleep with. This will ruin some marriages because sex can be just a click away, and all it takes is someone feeling scorned or lonely because their significant other went to bed early one night to sew the seeds of infidelity. People are petty, petty creatures. The smallest slight can lead to a major affair down the road.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  41. No problems for most of us! by antdude · · Score: 1

    Most of us cannot even get a woman like me after 35 years. I don't have to worry about this. Oh wait, some of us don't even have Facebook accounts. Even better. :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  42. Oblig. Hitchhikers reference by howlingfrog · · Score: 1

    "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

    --
    The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
  43. Facebook a facilitator, not to blame by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    There was a story a few months ago about a preacher warning his congregation about Facebook infidelity. While the his comments were of course hyperbolic, there's some truth at the core. It's not blaming Facebook, but it facilitates people looking up old relationships which could lead to problems.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  44. Bravo by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

    Wittiest observation I've seen in a while.

  45. 20% undone vs 17% done => deficit by vlueboy · · Score: 1

    The word was that match.com contributed to 10% of US marriages some years ago. An online source didn't confirm this at the moment but says a 3-year study granted them a score of 17% couples married.

    For the half-full means half-empty crowd, divorce is still winning offline and online.

  46. Farmville by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Of those involving Facebook, 100% involved Farmville.

  47. Re:Facebook Linked To One In Five Divorces In US by Eccles · · Score: 1

    You do realize the fellas have to cheat with someone, don't you? And I don't think the closet cases are anywhere near the majority.

    I suppose you could claim it's married men and unmarried women, but there are certainly lots of unmarried men who are more than willing to sleep with married women.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  48. Re:Lawyers linked to 80% of divorces in US by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

    The lawyers help you suck all that money from them, then they suck all that money from you. You are better off without them.

    --
    Cheers, Chris
  49. Re:in the end... by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

    "its complicated"

  50. Re:Your High School Sweetheart V1.0 is now availab by Geminii · · Score: 1

    ...Respond with Trojan?

  51. The statistic has some validity even based on this by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    As a really off topic side note, let me point out that out of all the people I know, lawyers and stock brokers are by far the most likely to purchase lotto tickets or gamble on sports or races.

    Lawyers love statistics. In fact, in a market over-saturated with opportunistic lawyers who profit from others misfortune (personal injury, divorce, etc...) the competition is rough. Divorce lawyers are facing a terrible time. More and more people are finding out that there's no point to marriage anymore. There just really isn't any point at all to marriage when you can simply write a good will instead. Marriage has two purposes. It is a religious thing which I'll ignore for this topic. It is also a means to secure the welfare of the member of the relationship who lacks the ability to support themselves financially.

    In modern times when women are self sufficient, work full-time jobs, have university educations, run companies, etc... they are no longer the "weaker sex". If a relationship comes to an end, they will no starve or freeze in the cold. Instead, they'll go to work the next day and do what they did the day before and simply reestablish themselves. Life goes on. In short, the need for marriage no longer exists for them.

    All marriage really accomplishes anymore is to lock two people in a relationship by making it a greater inconvenience to separate than if they weren't married. But marriage does actually have a huge draw back. Credit. In modern times, if a single member of a married relationship performs badly with credit, then both members suffer. By avoiding marriage to begin with, mistakes made by one member of the relationship will allow the couple to use the other participants credit while they repair the first persons.

    Story finished, the point being, while there are more divorce attorneys popping up all the time, the number of prospective divorces are dropping since divorce requires marriage.

    Lawyers advertise fiercely in the U.S., it's hard to watch anything from a children's cartoon to a discovery channel documentary without being bombarded with advertisements regarding personal injury and divorce attorneys. They have to strum up business.

    Back in the 80s, there was a guy who made his fortune by reading the NY city statistics reports used for traffic planning and emergency services as to where the most car accidents were occurring within the city. This guy would then rent an open corner or near corner shop at the intersection with the highest accident rate. He'd then put some crappy tables and stools in it and sell some of the cheapest coffee he could buy for $10 a cup with a sign on the wall "No coffee, no loitering". Lawyers would line up around the block each morning at 5am to be the first one in at 6:30am when he opened to get the stool closest to the door while still having a window view. When an accident happened, they'd rush for the door, head straight for the victim and try handing out their card. If the victim said "I have a lawyer", they'd rush to the other guy and say "That guy says he has a lawyer, sign here".

    Statistics are part of the legal game. These lawyers would starve if they didn't have them. Because of reports like this one, even poorly executed, they know that placing advertisements on Facebook for their services with tasteless jokes like "If you're a married person here on Facebook, there's a 20% chance you'll need my services". It doesn't matter that the badly researched statistic is badly interpreted. What is important is that the lawyer knows where they should be advertising. In fact, a lawyers ability to twist the meaning of research that was conducted from an inappropriate perspective is often what allows them to feed themselves to begin with.

    If I were Facebook, Twitter or otherwise, I would spend a fortune on publishing statistics like this. It would REALLY drum up their advertising revenue. Would be even better if they can offer targeted marketing. For example, if you're willing to pay extra, then instead of spamming 600 million u

  52. Mod parent up by turing_m · · Score: 2

    The bottom line is you get married to have (and raise) children. Getting married for any other reason is idiotic. If you aren't going to commit to marriage, don't have children. There are enough children in the world now.

    Strange, but encouraging to see this sort of wisdom on slashdot. This is the original reason for marriage, (vastly) predating preferential tax treatment etc. Children are an essential part of every civilization, which is why if there is an exception to every culture having a marriage ceremony, it would be the exception that proves the rule.

    And if people are going to bring about the end of a marriage which has borne children, through action or inaction, then let it be said that they are selfish dicks for doing so.

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  53. We're linking it to SINKS by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Every house in which a family broke up through divorce, had a sink.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  54. I don't get it. by ramzaruglia · · Score: 1

    Facebook is now one of the factors of divorce? Wait, what are the other 4? Adultery might be the first. This is silly, maybe any day from now, the Vatican will have a say about this, and they're going to be on rampage. That's for sure...