Facebook and Divorce


Recommended Posts

FB was not the cause of the divorce, like seeking_peace exh infidelity was. Just a tool a ex used. Exhubby had spoken of this individual and had made attempts to locate her prior to FB. Facebook was just the tool he used to finally locate her. Would he have eventually left for someone else? Who knows. But FB facilitated his "reconnecting" with his "soul mate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

More divorced couples say Facebook hurt their marriage

Facebook may be a fan favorite, but a new report claims it could be bad for your marriage.

According to Loyola University Health Systems, more than 80 percent of divorce lawyers report they've seen a jump in divorce cases involving social networking.

Facebook seems to be the number one offender with one in five divorced couples claiming the popular site led to the end of their marriage.

Many of those cases involved flirty messages and photographs, as well as reuniting with old flames and past hook-ups.

So what do you think? Do Facebook and other social networking sites hurt marriages? Weigh in with your comments below.

Makes sense to me. Also, people have a tendency to spend more time on networking sites than with their own family so they lose that communication. I think a big problem is people who talk to their ex's. Networking sites are the root of the problem but they sure add the fuel to the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

"That's a tough question. Is FB causing more divorce? Possibly. I know that I married my husband just 3 months after my divorce was final. I reconnected with him on FB. He was my friend before the divoce, but he certainly did not cause the divorce. My exhusbands drugs, lieing, cheating, and infedellity did.

"

I agree completely, my ex had emotional affairs with women online before Facebook was around. He would use ICQ and Yahoo messenger and just " meet" people randomly on there. The friends that I have on facebook are mainly friends from Elementary, Jr, and HS that I've KEPT in touch with through the years, not that have just " found" me there. The man I married 2 years ago was someone that I considered my BEST friend over the course of 20+ years, even through both of our marriages and my then husband was also friends with him and his family. We had dated in Jr/HS , but we parted as friends and I married at 18. My ex started finding these " Internet friends" and it just went downhill from there. So after 25 years of his mental and physical abuse, drunkeness and online and then real affairs, that was IT for me! I remarried a year after my divorce was final and I married my best friend, and the man I should have been with to begin with all those years ago! But we live and learn, and we wouldn't be the people we are if we hadn't gone through what we did seperately. I am friends with men and women on Facebook who aren't family, but I'm NOT one to even have an emotional " affair" with someone , I"m devoted to my husband and I have zero doubt that he is completely devoted to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am friends with multiple past girlfriends on facebook. I am friends with many current and past female co-workers on facebook. I separate facebook from my romantic desires. I love my wife, she trusts me, she doesn't care who I am friends with. I tell her every time I friend/ or am friended by past girlfriends or whatever.

Is it right for everyone? No. It works for me, I am not tempted by "what could have been". I am happy to see that they are happy. I am happy when I see that they have beautiful children and good jobs or whatever. I also wouldn't care if my wife was friends of facebook with past boyfriends or romantic flames, as long as she wasn't trying to hide anything from me.

It comes down to communication and trust in a relationship. I think that a person who is likely to cheat will do it on facebook, the office, or anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facebook is like a loaded gun. In the wrong hands, it's dangerous.

Don't fool yourselves. You don't always have to be a cheater to cheat. Sometimes, having a convenient resource (social networking) is a stepping stone to opening up possibilities that one wasn't assertive to prior. So there's always an exception. That said, Fb is like a loaded gun. In the wrong hands, it's dangerous.

Hubby and I both have Fb accounts. He never uses it. In fact, I update his page because he forgets that he even has an account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commit 100% to your marriage. Everyday. Right when you wake up. Love your spouse with all your heart, mind, and strength, second only to God. There is no Me. Only Us. Just like God and Jesus are One so should you be with your spouse.

Then things like facebook won't have power over your marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it is so important for people to know exactly what they are doing when they decide to get married, you cannot (for the life of me) think about marrying someone if you have doubts or feel another person is your "soul mate" because then when you actually get married, half of the time you are wondering "what if..." scenarios in your mind, have emotional affairs and then when the thought is entertained a lot, leads now to the action by searching for the person on Facebook, etc and the rest is history. This talks more about the individual BEFORE they got married than AFTER they got married, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "techne" is Greek, the root for our words technology & technique. It means "craftsmanship" or "artifice", and generally "a kind of knowledge associated with people who were bound to necessity". It refers to anything that is utilized by human beings to alter/change/transform the world they live in. So a shovel is technology. So are whips, paint brushes, & language.

All tools endow the user with power. With a shovel, you can more effectively dig. With a whip, you can more effectively enslave. With language, you can more effectively communicate. All of these can also be done using only the body, but it is less effective. Thus, all tools represent power. The question becomes: Where did we get our techne?

In my opinion, we received our first technology when God spoke to us in the pre-existence. This was followed by the endowment of language within the Garden. All subsequent tools were also received from the Lord: the technology of publication, flight, warfare, and telecommunication. All of them have been used for good and ill.

There is not a single tool or technology that has not been used for sin. Hence the existence of unrighteous dominion. Does the existence of UD mean that Priesthood authority didn't come from God? No. The adversary does not reveal technology or power to us. He simply appeals to the natural man within all of us to misuse that technology to glorify ourselves... the very thing that he himself wanted to do with God's mantle of Glory and godhood.

If you ever venture to peruse the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, you will discover an instructional on how to establish a personal religion where you insert yourself into the place of the idol. All worship is then directed towards the glory of the self. The prayer offered by the Zoramites on the Rameumptum in Alma 31 is a fine summation of the contents of that book. But the technique for idol worship was not introduced by Lucifer. Worship was introduced by the Lord, idol worship is the misuse of the technique suggested by Satan.

Facebook is merely another tool in the tool shed. When Elder Uchdorf encourages us to testify via such technology as text messaging, the precedent is the Liahona. That's right, the Lord sent the first text message to what was essentially a GPS navigational device.

In summation, Spiderman was right in his conclusions about power. The onus is on all who are married to fight the natural man off in order to honor the covenant. Availability of cheating partners does not cause cheating. The test merely reveals the character of the individual, and that test is coming to all whether they are involved in social media or not.

Edited by Obolus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that Facebook is merely a tool (or a loaded gun, great analogy) and it shouldn't be blamed on its own for an affair, yeah, it can provide opportunities.

I still say self-control and love for spouse is best.

While I am FB friends with some old boyfriends, there is no one on there with whom I was ever downright serious. I never thought of it as an affair problem till this thread, I just thought it would be awkward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correlation != Causation.

Nor does it rule out causation. A survey of lawyers and divorcees providing subjective opinion on causation is quite different from the typical exploratory scientific publication where such a platitude would be used to correctly reframe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that people who are going to cheat on their spouses will do it, with or without Facebook. Social networking just provides a convenient avenue for connecting.

Facebook doesn't cause hurt marriages. People cause hurt marriages.

I laugh a little at so many (not just you wing and pam, your two early comments simply provide convenient and poignant examples) that are so quick to comment on something they apparently have never experienced. As if the simple slogans so often used are sufficient to understand the nature of the situation. I hope everyone taking such a stance never gets to experience the efficiency of the "tool" for causing greater problems in a marriage than would exist were the "tool" not present to be abused.

Shall we postulate that pornography isn't all that bad? After all, only "bad”, or "unfaithful" married persons would use such a "tool", right? Or that for some, they feel they can use it "responsibly" to meet emotional needs for companionship of the opposite gender, and justify there is no risk to their marriage (because, after all, they are not physically present with a person)? Clearly pornography is an extreme comparison as FB does have many good uses, but the underlying principle is the same.

It's quite simple. I'm married. That means I'm not found alone with a woman not my wife. If I have to have a meeting with a female coworker, the door is open or we're in a public place. If someone is stuck by the side of the road, I'll stand there and wait for the tow truck, but won't be giving a ride unless my wife is on the cell phone with me. Public chat rooms only.

I used to be in a lot of good company. But when all this social networking stuff showed up, it seemed like everyone was content to just go with the flow and refuse to see that the new technology was a quick and easy way to violate this simple marriage-preserving rule of thumb. I don't get why people who otherwise refuse to be alone with a member of the opposite sex, see nothing wrong with friending and having private conversations with their facebook contacts.

Bingo! Thank you for highlighting it so well LM. As can be seen in this thread (and previous nearly identical threads) from multiple responses ("I separate facebook from my romantic desires" :rolleyes: yeah, well, if there is no emotional value to those associations, why keep them?), people think that because there is no physical presence, there is no issue. How utterly ignorant of the reality of how affairs start!!! Conversing privately with someone electronically most certainly develops those emotional bonds where all issues take seed. Until FB (and to a lesser extent it's predecessors), there never was such an efficient tool to look up and privately develop bonds with past flings where romantic feelings once (and likely still) existed.

All tools endow the user with power. . . . Facebook is merely another tool in the tool shed.

I appreciate your post Obolus, so well pointing out well how FB is a tool without trying to pretend that just because it is a tool, it doesn't generate inherent risks. FB indeed is just a tool. And my point is that it is a very powerful one that makes straying into inappropriate relationships so much easier. It is offensive to me when people think just because something like FB is a tool, it can be ruled "benign" and all concerns can be summarily dismissed.

Yes, it is up to the user to use the tool FB is for good purposes, but to try to argue that there is no issue just because it is only a tool is foolish and akin to burying one's head in the sand to pretend an issue doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FB indeed is just a tool. And my point is that it is a very powerful one that makes straying into inappropriate relationships so much easier.

I think you make a good point. I definitely share the opinion that one should not be linked up with exes once you are married. There is no need whatsoever to even cause your spouse to wonder.

Proper usage of any tool requires training, and there is sadly no training given with this particular tool. All FB & Twitter users, for instance, should take a basic public relations class to coincide with their use because these are also tools of public broadcast. Sadly, most users learn PR the hard way as they participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor does it rule out causation. A survey of lawyers and divorcees providing subjective opinion on causation is quite different from the typical exploratory scientific publication where such a platitude would be used to correctly reframe it.

Didn't say it did. As long as people don't think it somehow is proof of causation then no reframing is needed. I find though that people tend to forget that. For the record making decisions about your life based on correlation is not always unjustified. We do it all the time, how many times do we get sick after going to a certain restaurant before we decide not to go again?

I laugh a little at so many (not just you wing and pam, your two early comments simply provide convenient and poignant examples) that are so quick to comment on something they apparently have never experienced.

So what is this unspecified experience that they haven't experienced but LM has? Marriage? Divorce? An affair? Facebook? Being attracted to someone other than your spouse? Or are you laughing at LM as you agree with him?

Edit: I don't think he's off base mind you. What Facebook does it provide a venue in which committing an affair (emotional if not physical) is easier than face to face contacts (though it's certainly not alone in that aspect) and which the degree of separation versus physical contact makes it easier to not notice what is going on (though once again not alone in that aspect). But I don't have any of those experiences (baring Facebook) so you should commence laughing at me.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM isn't so foolish as to dismiss with platitudes without seriously contemplating the subject - as clearly evidenced by his walkthrough of how so many rationalize being alone in one manner is unacceptable, but will engage in another manner. Wisdom can be gained without actual experience. LM is one person I would, in many respects, place into that category. Those that shut their eyes, don't try to understand from observation, and summarily dismiss without either experience or rational thought/observation, I do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM isn't so foolish as to dismiss with platitudes without seriously contemplating the subject - as clearly evidenced by his walkthrough of how so many rationalize being alone in one manner is unacceptable, but will engage in another manner. Wisdom can be gained without actual experience. LM is one person I would, in many respects, place into that category. Those that shut their eyes, don't try to understand from observation, and summarily dismiss without either experience or rational thought/observation, I do not.

So, how exactly do you know that I haven't seriously contemplated it? How do you know that I have an absence of rational thought/observation on the matter? You don't know me. You don't know my experiences. You don't know my history or my family's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how exactly do you know that I haven't seriously contemplated it? How do you know that I have an absence of rational thought/observation on the matter? You don't know me. You don't know my experiences. You don't know my history or my family's.

Obviously if you'd applied rational though you'd agree with him. Good old variation on "If you aren't agreeing with me you aren't listening to me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh a little at so many (not just you wing and pam, your two early comments simply provide convenient and poignant examples)

You may laugh at me all you want..I stand behind my comment. Facebook is an internet site. It is not human nor can it control a person. It is the people using facebook that may use it or get caught up in it in ways that may not be appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may laugh at me all you want..I stand behind my comment. Facebook is an internet site. It is not human nor can it control a person. It is the people using facebook that may use it or get caught up in it in ways that may not be appropriate.

Exactly. One of my friends was contacted 10 years later by his ex-fiance after she somehow located his e-mail address. That doesn't make e-mail bad. She said she just wanted to be "friends" again and he told her he was happily married and wasn't going to do anything to make his wife uncomfortable. I think it's much easier to bump into old flames on Facebook, but there's no rule anyone has to accept their requests and they can be blocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how exactly do you know that I haven't seriously contemplated it? How do you know that I have an absence of rational thought/observation on the matter? You don't know me. You don't know my experiences. You don't know my history or my family's.

So Wingnut come stand with me on the foolish side. Obviously that is the category we seem to be put in because our opinion differs with another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if you'd applied rational though you'd agree with him. Good old variation on "If you aren't agreeing with me you aren't listening to me."

So Wingnut come stand with me on the foolish side. Obviously that is the category we seem to be put in because our opinion differs with another.

Play that game if you want. My reaction to your poor posts is not about disagreement with a pov - its about summarily dismissing an important topic. Spinning it to be about a failure to accept other opinions isn't really hiding that you don't know what you are talking about on this topic. It is actually further evidencing the fact.

Have either of you had a spouse use the tool to harm your marriage? Neither of you have been in a [marriage] relationship while FB has been in existence!!! Don't give me no crap about you being able to understand or comment on the OP of divorcees and divorce attorneys giving their opinion on FB's influence on their past marriage.

Neither of you really even touched upon the OP's core question - "Do Facebook and other social networking sites hurt marriages?" Both of you came out simply dismissing without any discussion or experiential basis, let alone an expounding of thoughts beyond a simple platitude far to simple to demonstrate any understanding or convey a useful meaning.

Edited by ryanh
Wingnut wants to nitpick semantics about what constitues significant in the face of experience for FB impacting a "marriage"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of you have been in a significant relationship while FB has been in existence!!!

So either an engagement isn't a significant relationship, or Facebook isn't currently in existence, since Dravin is currently engaged to be married.

Expressing an opinion in brief words doesn't mean that one is summarily dismissing a topic. It may mean that one chooses not to discuss it at length because it's personally painful to them in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So either an engagement isn't a significant relationship, or Facebook isn't currently in existence, since Dravin is currently engaged to be married.

I am well aware of D&C's engagement. That's a long ways from the experience of having FB being used as a tool to interrupt a marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do Facebook and other social networking sites hurt marriages?"

We've answered this question 5 million times already - not only this thread but in a zillion other threads on lds.net like this.

Cars do not kill people - Car Drivers do not kill people - STUPID CAR DRIVERS kill people.

Scalpels do not perform surgeries, Surgeons perform surgeries.

Computers do not rob bank accounts. Programmers do not rob bank accounts. Hackers do not even rob bank accounts. BANK ROBBERS rob bank accounts.

Here - this is probably easier for you to understand:

Missionaries now use facebook to reach out to investigators. They also now use mormon.org.

NEITHER MORMON.ORG NOR FACEBOOK CAN CONVERT PEOPLE, MISSIONARIES CANNOT EVEN CONVERT PEOPLE - ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES.

So, in conclusion... Facebook does not hurt marriages. People who use facebook do not hurt marriages. WEAK SPOUSES hurt marriages.

Do you get it yet?

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share