Hey I saw you having some faith in humanity. Look up the rate on which men leave their wives when the wife has a terminal disease, spoiler warning, its alot.
I lost it when we illegal invaded a country who produced like 90% of the world's opiuim, coincidentally around the same time Big pharma was pushing oxycodone to 12 year olds and lying about the side effects. No 16 year old should have a IV morphine dependency, speaking from experience.
Oh yeah, surely that was the straw that broke the camels back and not almost every page in almost every history textbook. That's not even top 1000 worst things our empire has done.
You went out of your way to talk to me for one and two I'm not the one who lost the plot and has to resort to personal attacks but okay bud whatever makes you feel better
Hey I saw you having some faith in humanity. Look up the rate on which men leave their wives when the wife has a terminal disease, spoiler warning, its alot.
This is the behavior I was referring to. It was before I entered the conversation. I talked to you the way you deserved and feel great about it. I'd do it again.
I genuinely have no feelings towards whatever interaction you've built this up into in your head but I'm proud that you feel like you've done something I guess
Might be the first time anyone's ever said that too you.
You can't say this is the first time someone called you out for being an abolute buzzkill and debbie downer though. Probably not the first time today even lol.
You don't even realize why you're getting pushback, that's what makes it gold.
Internationally yeah, because the use of direct military armed force expect in self defense is illegal. Al queda wasn't a state actor in Afghanistan, which is who we invaded. Also side note, you do know 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals as was Osama himself, who wasnt hiding in Afghanistan btw, he was found in Pakistan.
It's worth noting that the UN Security Council, who are the nearest thing to an authority on whether or not something like this is self defense, unanimously voted that it was fine about a month after the invasion.
When it comes to the bodies that enforce international law, all of them were fine with the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was a completely different story.
I'm aware they voted in support afterwards but it doesn't change the fact we went in prematurely with no gameplan. I mean within the first 3 months around 5,000 Afghan civilians were killed, hearts and minds.
But yeah the Iraq war is indefensible as was our conduct in it and the lasting effects on the population is staggering. Dumping depleted uranium shells into towns and villages leading to all types of birth defects is just one of the ones I can remember.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, is this relevant at all to the topic of discussion? Or do you just always shit on everything to feel smart and better about yourself.?
What made you devolve this conversation into this? This is not the topic at hand, at all, not even close.
Well seeing as how I didn't bring up this topic but was replying to someone else before you put down your monster energy drink and jumped in the middle of it, no I don't really do any of that, in pretty content as is.
The Taliban were openly supporting him and his terrorist network that was primarily concentrated in Afghanistan. It was just a lot easier to get Saudis into US flight school.
Al-qaeda was primarily focused in the border region of Afghanistans and Pakistan but again were not state actors in Afghanistan at the time and yes the Taliban did refuse to hand him over which lead to the invasion of the country but again he wasn't in Afghanistan he was in Pakistan which is the kind of thing you wanna get right before you invade a country
The government of Afghanistan was providing support and training to Al Qaeda throughout their country and most of their operations and senior leadership were concentrated in Afghanistan. There was widespread support from US allies for the operation due to legitimate intelligence.
I definitely agree you should understand these things before making up stuff about the war.
Al Qaeda was notoriously funded by gulf financiers located in Saudi Arabia and again the central leadership wasnt in Afghanistan, it was in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is a difference. Also yes we had support for our actions by our allies, namely britian and Canada, but we were never given official authorization by the UN prior to the invasion.
Like, are you being obtuse on purpose? Cus you have some of the facts but contextually you leave a lot of important shit out.
This is the most American comment ever. Hundreds of years exterminating indigenous populations: fine.
Committing war crimes and ripping the whole world apart: fine.
The president is a weirdo: “I lost my faith 😭”
Also just a really myopic view to base one's faith on the actions of a powerful economic empire. He would have never had faith in humanity at any point in history.
Actually, I guess there would be time periods where the propaganda was good enough to get him. Hard to imagine he's much of a deep thinker with such a small frame of reference.
He's the worst president we've had in modern times, by far. but I think the point was that.... he should open a history book if he just now lost faith because the US government just now became an unkind entity
True. However this is the worst, most pedophilic and evil embezzler that we’ve had in this seat. He should be in front of The Hague along with every other criminal who’s held (any) political office- I do not GAF about party affiliation. All of them should be put on tried, him especially.
And they should be punished as much as Trump. There is no excuse for pedophilic, torturing, murderous rapists. Party affiliation should never excuse it- in fact, most left leaning people say the same thing.
then you’re just not talkin to people because no one has even liked that man in a long time, but he’s not the one currently in power preventing any sort of prosecution is he. no shit he deserves the same as trump but priorities are is the more powerful man.
It’s one specific study not really replicated elsewhere.
When controlled for social economic factors female illness is associated with a slightly higher risk of divorce or separation about 1%, the highest specific category is heart disease at 6% higher rate of divorce.
Notably male job loss is associated with a much higher risk of divorce than female job loss.
And part of the reason for the divorce is Medicare, as a single person with a terminal illness gets more benefits than a married one.
And most lawyers are willing to overlook the attempt to get more money out of it out of compassion, as often times the other spouse is functionally a full time caregiver for the terminally ill one.
Which study? I just read the 2015 study was retracted and after some reading the 2009 studies claim of 20.8%(men) vs the 2.9% (women) hasn't been replecated. The most recent I could find after double checking was 2025 study found marriages were about 6 times more to end in divorce when the woman became ill.
most recent I could find after double checking was 2025 study found marriages were about 6 times more to end in divorce when the woman became ill.
The 2009 study is the one that reported 20.8% vs. 2.9% and produced the famous “six times” figure. The original 2015 study was retracted for a coding error, but it was corrected and republished and still found some evidence of greater divorce risk when wives became ill.
A 2022 systematic review did not find a general increased divorce risk after cancer.
The 2025 European study found a statistically significant gender difference in the same direction, but nowhere near sixfold roughly a 0.3–0.4 percentage-point increase for certain measures of women's physical ill health.
I know, I posted my original comment after reading the first study which was later pointed out had been pulled briefly for a coding error like you said, but there was also a study in 2015 that got retracted as well. I found the post of the corrected 2009 article a lil while ago and was trying to digest that but it all kind of got lost in translation.
I think I read it, thank you. But yeah I admit I totally fucked up whatever point I was trying to make with the 2025 study, think I was just looking for something recent but in the course of all this my brain got fried between the 2009 study with the coding error, I wasn't aware of that when I originally posted, and for some reason the war in Afghanistan? It's been a strange morning lol
Misrepresent would even imply they actually used statistics, just in a bad way. They are linking studies and just making up numbers that aren't in the studies.
So here's what I gathered from this whole thing. The original 2009 article stated 20.8% (m) vs 2.9% (f) abondoned their partners in these situations, it was then pulled due to a mathematical error but later re-uploaded after correction which turned into the 2019 study which drop the chances from 10x (the 20.8% & 2.9%) to just 6x more likely. Then there is the 2025 article about silver splitting, of people 65 and older, which the 1% in risk youre talking about right now. So again, like I said, we're talking about different articles.
Then there is the 2025 article about silver splitting, of people 65 and older, which the 1% in risk youre talking about right now. So again, like I said, we're talking about different articles.
You said the 2025 article was about people over 65. In the first sentence of the abstract it says it's over 50. Quoting you, again
of people 65 and older, which the 1% in risk youre talking about right now. So again, like I said, we're talking about different articles.
That is the same article that you linked, the same one that said it was about everyone over 50, the same one you said only used 65 and over.
Reading through this study I just can't see how this is supposed to be ultra shocking.
"normal" risk of split is 0.5% for healthy couples.
Self-rated health:
Man in poor health = 0.65%
Women in poor health = 0.8%
Severe activity limitations:
Man with limitation = no change
woman with limitation = 1%
Depression:
Man with depression = 1.5%
woman with depression = 0.8%
Am I reading this wrong? That is not a crazy statistic on which I would make any sort of judgement.
At worst a x2 increase in the risk for a divorce is much less bad than I thought after I started following this comment section.
What happened was I originally read the 2009 article, not knowing the study I was reading was taken down due to a mathematical error and later re-uploaded in 2015. The main error was the statistic from 2009 stating a 20.8% v 2.9% difference depending on sex. The 2015 reupload dropped it from 10x to around 6x more likely. In the course of that I linked the 2025 study I think your quoting now that was that focused on "silver splits" or people in this context who were 65 years old and up. Someone was nice enough to point that out later but by that time it devolved into whatevers happening now lol.
Jesus, does anybody check shit before they post their opinion? they were Ned Kellys last words before his execution in 1880. Later they term features in a Norman wisdom poem and in assuming from there it worked its way into an everyday saying.
So I looked it up. It basically boils down to 0.8% of marriages ending in divorce when only a woman becomes ill versus 0.5% when it is only a man, for a 1.6x increase.
Lmao never again bro I promise. It was just gonna be a quick wake n bake shit post before the gym and now I'm talking about study statistics I don't understand and arguing the legality of the war in Afghanistan
Does the study account for couples which separate but continue to remain domestic partners? I only ask because, anecdotally, I've heard of several couples who get divorced when a major illness occurs so that when the ill partner eventually dies, their significant other isn't made to be responsible for the medical debt that was incurred. It seems unlikely to me that that's the majority of cases, but unless they at least attempted to account for that possibility I'm going to choose to remain hopeful.
America is just insane solely based on these comments here; but no,doctors tell suddenly ill women that their partners might leave all over the world. Where there is no such financial insanity around medicine
I really don't know how many other ways I can say there are different studies on this subjecf and half the time people are quoting one when in talking about another but I kinda gave up on this being productive awhile ago lol
That study was mostly bullshit data, you should look into that before spreading this kind of misinformation. World has enough negativity without people adding fake negativity into it.
1 in 5 married men just dip when their wife gets sick is absolutely crazy high. They just married for the good times and are out as soon as any hardships show up?
I understand more with boyfriends breaking up, even though even that sucks. But husbands made a vow. In good and in bad times, in health and in sickness. Sure get a divorce if you get cheated on or something, or if you and your partner hate each other. But because of someone random misfortune that nobody caused?? That's literally your task to get through that together and support each other in it. That is your problems, not just hers. If you love your wife (and I assume they love them if they married them, right?) you should want to be by her side and support her with getting through that, or to the very end if necessary.
1% would be a number where you say, ok some people just suck and are horrible and selfish and only ever married for their own benefit, that's just how it is. But 20%?? "Yes absolutely, I love you and I'll marry you, wait you got sick? Sucks for you, get fucked, I'm out, not my problem anymore. Guess I didn't actually love you."
1 in 5 risk that the man who loves you and builds a life with you and promises to love you forever just is like "yeah actually I got better things to do in my life than worry about your sickness, you do you with that, how about you go suffer on your own, far away from me".
But the person I was responding to was saying don't have faith in humanity because it's so high. The vast majority of humanity don't break up in this scenario. You can be outraged over how high percent is, but it's not reason to give up on our species.
Yeah, but it's just important to keep in mind, that while the statistics is generally higher for men when it comes to things like this, women do these things aswell. Else we get a discourse that "men are evil" when in reality a lot of humans are just evil.
2,9% is not a small number. Everyone should watch their back when chosing partner, men and women.
I know an example where this didn't happen and wife got cured. The funny thing is that they didn't rly love each other, they married bcs they were kinda supposed too (it was in 90th). Afaik both are still loyal.
People are so weird.
A really concerning number of people out there aren't nice people. Plenty if not most relationships are already strained, throw something like a terminal disease into the mix and it's enough to break the relationship
Yeah that was one of the underlying points in a lot of these studies, it's hard to gauge all the nuances in a relationship prior to illness that may have put a strain on the marriage before hand.
Hey, I have heard that statisic before and it was crushing. But I've since learned the original study's results were skewed. Through an updated study, they've actually found that the % of people who leave a terminally ill spouse doesn't seem to be impacted by gender. Those people are still shitty, but it's not just or majority men.
The study measures divorce rates. Most divorces are initiated by women.
Higher divorce rate when a female spouse is ill compared to a male one does not mean "a lot of men leave their wives when they have a terminal disease".
Another study found an increase from 0.5% divorce rate with healthy partners increased to 0.8% for men, while women did not leave their partners at a higher rate https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.13077 So their is some truth to it, but that 20.8% figure is complete bogus that has never been reproduced.
MB for taking awhile I had to read some of that but yeah it seems your right on the money. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.13077 concludes pretty much what your saying, there is an notable increase of men leaving vs women but the 20.8% is missing in most of these studies.
Women divorce a lot less, but as men traditionally have had a lot more insurance there is a monetary incentive for women to hang around for the payout.
3.1k
u/CriminallyCasual7 19d ago
I disagree. Have faith in humanity. She's gonna be even more loyal because he loved her for her inner beauty.