[smcl]

> The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction

Wait why is that the problem? I don't think anyone believes that being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship.

> And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for a modern middle class.

One of the points (a worryingly small number of) people are making here is that this is good. You don't need to just stay married just for survival - so if you're unloved, unfulfilled, abused or simply unhappy you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing.

[brokenkebaby]

>I don't think anyone believes being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship.

I didn't claim you do. The point made is about "How promiscuous either of you were [...] before you met will have no bearing [...]" Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree.

>you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing

Whay's "good" is obviously subjective to your life goals. But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs on one's health, livelihood, social status, and well-being. It also negatively impacts kids if there are any. There's a limited number of cases where staying together is just too bad, but it doesn't mean that high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally), or one's particular divorce is fine (personally).

[smcl]

> Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree.

No idea what this means.

> But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs

Alright I'm gonna stop you right here. It should be very clear that I meant you are free to divorce your partner and not end up financially ruined or socially stigmatised or outcast like you would in the past. The implication that divorce just means sadness and loneliness forever is really blinkered.

> high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally)

You've used an interesting adjective here. How are you deciding that the current amount is "high"? How much is "normal" and how have you reached that conclusion? And what's the plan to reduce it to the normal amount once you figure out these numbers - stopping no-fault divorces so guys like Steven Crowder (who seems pretty pissed about the idea that his wife was allowed to leave him) can continue to abuse their spouses?

[brokenkebaby]

I think it's pretty clear what it means if you start reading from your own comment. You claimed that a history of promiscuity means nothing (and even blamed it on the parent commenter's insecurities, remember?) My response was that it signals higher possibility of ruined relationship in future. Which you somehow misread. That's it.

>you are free to divorce your partner and not end up financially ruined or

Maybe my writing is too unclear, or yours, but I'm not sure what are you trying to say. My claim: separation is not free, and loneness is not free. Which is in response to you writing that we should appreciate the ease with which pairs falling apart.

>How much is "normal"

If you have a phenomenon creating economical, mental burdens, strongly correlating with children life failures, how much of it you'd like to see? I guess as low as there are cases of real danger, marital fraud, or people lost to addictions. Which I suppose would be a single digit percent.