Divorces are getting so common that a woman I know doesn't bother

"Divorces are getting so common that a woman I know doesn't bother getting a new marriage license. They just punch her old one and give her a transfer. You can't teach an old dog new tricks - so she keeps changing dogs." These words from Nipsey Russell capture the changing tide of relationships, where the concept of marriage has evolved from a sacred bond to something more transient, less permanent in the eyes of some. The quote highlights the way divorce—once a rare and socially stigmatized event—has now become so common that it no longer carries the weight it once did. The metaphor of the woman being given a "transfer" for her old marriage license speaks to the normalization of divorce, as if it is simply another change in a cycle of relationship turnover. The phrase "you can’t teach an old dog new tricks" further suggests the idea that people—much like dogs—find it difficult to change their nature or habits, especially when it comes to matters of love and commitment.

In the ancient world, marriage was often seen as an essential institution for the stability of both society and family. For example, in ancient Rome, marriage was a political and social contract, a means of maintaining status and ensuring the continuity of bloodlines. Divorces, though they existed, were still a rare occurrence, and when they did happen, they were often seen as a failure of both parties. The moral weight of divorce was carried heavily, and the breaking of such a bond was not to be taken lightly. Yet, even in these early societies, there were stories of individuals challenging the norms. The Roman poet Ovid, for instance, wrote in The Art of Love about the fleeting nature of love and relationships, hinting at a more transient view of romantic attachments. But even Ovid’s view, which celebrated the ephemeral nature of passion, did not suggest that the institution of marriage itself should be treated so casually. Russell’s quote reflects a more modern perspective—one that has grown accustomed to change in relationships.

Throughout history, there have been many stories of marriages that stood as enduring symbols of commitment, even in the face of tremendous challenges. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert are an example of such a union in the 19th century. Despite the immense responsibilities of their royal lives, their marriage was often seen as a model of deep affection and devotion. The idea of divorce was virtually unheard of in their time, and Victoria famously mourned the loss of her husband deeply, illustrating how marriage was once viewed as an unbreakable bond. The deep respect and loyalty in their union contrasted sharply with the more disposable nature of marriage today, as Russell’s quote humorously observes.

Yet, the changing nature of marriage is undeniable. As society progresses, so too do the structures that bind us. The rise of divorce in modern times reflects shifts in social values, gender roles, and personal freedom. Over the last century, women’s liberation movements have played a significant role in reshaping the landscape of relationships. No longer bound by the societal expectations of submissiveness and sacrifice in marriage, many women now seek partnerships based on equality, mutual respect, and personal growth. The shift from a traditional view of marriage as an indissoluble contract to one that may be more flexible reflects the empowerment of individuals to make choices that are in alignment with their own well-being and happiness.

Russell's humorous take on divorce—the woman’s old marriage license being “punched” and replaced with a “transfer”—is a pointed commentary on the casualization of marriage. It speaks to the growing prevalence of short-term relationships and the increasing ease with which couples separate. In this world, commitment to a single partner for life seems like an anomaly rather than the norm. People change over time, and as Russell suggests, perhaps they are not always inclined to stay committed to a single relationship. Much like an “old dog,” they may resist the learning of new tricks—a metaphor for the difficulties people face in changing patterns of behavior or adapting to new forms of relationship stability.

However, while Russell’s observation rings with truth, it also carries a deeper, more solemn lesson. The human experience is one of change, but that does not mean that meaningful commitment and loyalty are outdated. The ancient Greeks, for example, revered the concept of philia, a form of deep friendship and commitment, as a central aspect of both personal and societal harmony. It was not merely a romantic love, but the mutual respect and loyalty that bind individuals together for a common good. Similarly, while marriage may be undergoing a transformation, the essence of connection and commitment remains central to the human heart. The challenge we face is to adapt to modern realities while also retaining the value of loyalty, trust, and mutual growth in our relationships.

The lesson to take from Russell’s words is this: change in relationships is inevitable, but it is up to us to decide how we approach that change. In a world where divorce and relationship turnover may be normalized, we must still strive to honor the values of commitment and loyalty that create lasting bonds. Relationships should not be disposable, but rather treated with the care and respect that they deserve. Whether in marriage, friendships, or partnerships, the essence of true connection lies in effort, understanding, and a willingness to adapt to each other. And so, let future generations remember that while relationships may shift and evolve, the underlying principles of love and commitment must always remain the bedrock of human interaction. Let us strive to create connections that endure, even in an ever-changing world.