294
Women are being abandoned by their partners on hiking trails. What’s behind ‘alpine divorce’?
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
294 points (84.5% liked)
World News
54908 readers
2240 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
…
…isn’t that was “not exclusive” means?
Casual partners may still prefer to know if their partner is sleeping with others for a variety of reasons. The first one that comes to mind is health.
Sure. My point is, though, isn’t that already implied by them not being exclusive?
They could be not exclusive but still agree to let the other know when they introduce a new sex partner.
Y'all never heard of safe sex?
Soooo, this guy was a dick, but aren't you just defining "exclusive until we say we are not"?
Maybe I'm getting old and have lost the lingo (very possible) but I feel like we're redefining exclusive here.
How would they be exclusive if additional sex partners are allowed? It’s not an asking for permission scenario, it’s just keeping your partners informed of who is involved.
I’ve mostly done so for health reasons.
I still think we are saying the same thing.
"Let's not put labels on anything, let's just choose to not have any other partners while we are sleeping together. If one us changes our mind about that, they should be up front with the other person about it."
"Let's be exclusive. If one us changes our mind about that, they should be up front with the other person about it."
Am I missing something? Is "exclusive" used for a different definition now?
They could already have existing partners and wouldn’t be exclusive, but have an agreement to inform if there are new partners being added.
Also being exclusive is a more serious type of relationship than just friends with benefits imo.
The chance that they agreed on that and she wouldn't mention it is slim, though
I'm shocked by this comment section... Guys defending some POS for leaving their non-committed partner on their own?
I mean, she said go on without me.
It's an out and back. They waited for them up at the top.
To me the only shitty part is dumping them for another partner on the way down, goddamn that's pretty shitty. We're only hearing half the story though. Maybe she was being a jerk too and he didn't want to put up with it.
You don't expect your BF to hook up with someone new mid-mountain.
Actually it says he wasn't exactly her boyfriend either
Ok so it’s ok to abandon your fuck buddy. TIL
I was talking about the hooking up mid mountain part, which is what your comment I replied to was primarily about. And the OPs too.
You can just admit you missed that part instead of getting defensive.
I missed nothing. That is not important to the story. When you go into the wilderness with someone, you have formed an inherent defense pact and have a duty of care to each other. Hooking up mid mountain and leaving the other person, regardless of their relationship, is immoral. If harm comes to them, then it was likely illegal.
Your comment wasn't talking about the "abandoning mid mountain" part. It was talking about the relationship status part. That's the part I corrected. We weren't, in this comment chain, talking about the overall story - it was about your comment on their relationship. Stop trying to build a strawman.
Geez, Americans really can't admit they made even a minor mistake.
Adding you to my block list. Keep your petulant pedantry to yourself.
Point proven lol
Yeah, this is just zoomers not realizing what they've signed up for.
"I thought he was only seeing other men!"
Uhhhh
"seeing other women" means "not exclusive"
but "not exclusive" does not always mean "seeing other women"
He could be, just as one example of many, very unsuccessful at trying to see other women despite having an existing "nonexclusivity" agreement with her.
yes, but people are emotional and they don't abide by their own terms
every casual relationship i ever had was never actually casual. it was just full on monogamy with a 'get out of jail if someone better comes along' card built in.