American Women

Hi Joe,

The information came from the highly respected and often quoted University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. I read the summary results in USA Today I think. I, too, was a bit startled and taken aback by their findings.

The summary statistics you mention are what I usually hear and personally believe. Maybe the differences are in the demographics or the stratified random samples in their studies. Who knows?

One last thing. A good friend of mine is a divorce lawyer and he has to refer many new clients to other divorce and family law lawyers because he's overwhelmed with work.

I think it's really sad that so many of you would avoid marriage based on statistics or other people's experiences. It wouldn't matter if the facts stated that only one out of 10 marriages were happy - there is nothing to say that YOUR marrige won't be that one out of ten!

I had a godawful marriage, a horrendous drawn-out divorce and then almost 2 years of stalking and harassment followed - not to mention being left with thousands of dollars worth of HIS debts. What does that prove about marriage in general? Absolutely nothing. It only says that for myself and that particular man, at that particular time in my life, getting married was a very bad decision. I could go down to the shop this afternoon and meet the man of my dreams, and live happily ever after! I did not enjoy being married, and I do not feel the need to be married at the moment - but that may change one day, when the time (and the man) is right. My parents have been VERY happily married for over 30 years, as have the overwhelming majority of my other relatives. Even if half of all marriages end in divorce - it still means that half of them don't. Don't be so cynical!!

And I've said it before and I'll say it again...if having to spend 10 grand on a ring, thousands on a wedding and then losing everything you own in a divorce settlement is what is keeping you away from marriage- STOP DATING SUCH MATERIALISTIC WOMEN!!! LOL

Thanks, Paddy -- I earlier spent a couple of hours on UM's ISR site the past several days without finding such a study, which would seem like something they'd highlight, so I've got to suspect part of this might be USA Today's usual less than accurate summations (something I say with regret, having taken money from Gannett Co in the past.) I may give ISR a call, since they're local to me and I know a couple of folks there. I've no doubt that divorce is still all-too-prevalent and far higher than it was when I was a wee lad; I simply think in the same way that we tend to see the horrible and spectacular on the evening news that sometimes the things that are most usual and normal get short shrift in the reporting. Bravo for your friend -- having dealt with lawyers of many stripes, I'd bet his state of being overwhelmed is due to him being good at what he does more than anything; I know tons of lawyers who can't buy clients (and that's what they should probably do, in reality :))

RN, thanks for your take on things, as someone who's been through the opposite side of the wringer. All the people who go to casinos know that they're gettting less than 50% odds, but that doesn't really stop anyone because the possibilities are just so alluring. My take on things is this -- while any of us can certainly screw up just about anything, and for most of us what we want has little correlation to what we truly need, the bottom line is that if you do it right you've only got to be correct once. If not, you can do it over and over and over and still end up fucked. I wish you good luck on your afternoon trip to the shop, and if not that trip, then tomorrow's.

That's not an argument about marriage, but about attitude, and in that it's the same argument I've made since I first came on this board -- good situations (or bad) are as much about perception and attitude as anything else. This goes back to the study I quoted a while back that says that people tend toward their native levels of happiness/unhappiness.

RN, almost all women in the New York City are materialistic and I guess all the greediest bitches flock to this city. I can't avoid these women unless I travel out of the city and perhaps into the heartland. Joe, I agree that perhaps I am having these problems and fears BECAUSE of the types of women I meet in NYC. I could try bringing a woman from the heartland with me to the city but I still have to question her motives. Does she like me and want to be with me or is she really one of those materialistic women that are drawn to the city and would take half your stuff after they marry you and divorce you. It would be different if I LIVED outside the city and met and married a woman outside the city because her motive is pure in that she is staying outside the city because she wants to be with you.
BTW, Joe, what part of the USA do you live in?

joe_zop, you've been sending me email virus and worms. You think I don't know it? Shame on you!

You started doing that 2 and a half months ago during our last altercation and continued for a few weeks. Sometimes 2 or 3 emails a day. Then you started again a few days ago. Very few people ever email me at that account, I only get 1 or two emails a day. None of my 4 other email accounts got such email virus. You're trying to crash my computer? I have firewalls and anti-virus. You are pathetic, self-righteous, self-important and you're a joke.

We all know you have no life. You're on the internet 24 hours a day. You carry around your English language like a security blanket. Just like you always have to mention your "laptop", just to make sure we know, gasp, you have one(the guys in Thailand section are laughing). In this day of computers and electronics, you're English may cut it in Chiang Mai but not in New York or even Los Angeles.

Darkseid, I agree you're in a tough spot -- I'd definitely not want to be dating in NYC; if you're there you've got to have a little shark in you somewhere to survive, more if you're to prosper, which usually isn't a great thing in a relationship. It's simply tough when motive ends up being a primary litmus test.

As I recall, you're not quite at geezer status, so there's plenty of time to find someone if that's what you want to do -- the median age for first marriage in the US for men is around 27, and most studies also indicate that the older you are when it happens the more likely the marriage will last. The divorce rate is highest for men in their early twenties and women in their teens, though the total numbers are higher ten years later (higher percentage of people being married at that point.) A couple of the stats I've seen say the percentage of people first married over the age of 25 who get divorced drops to under 25%. Given that you're mobile and your economic status is decent your odds improve further. All this presuming, of course, that you were even ever interested in getting married -- stats say you're fairly typical these days, with three times as many people choosing to remain single as before 1970. It's just a different world -- 53% of households in the US are headed by married couples these days, compared to 61% in 1980 and 78% in 1950.

And I'm near Paddy's alma mater in Michigan, where the divorce rate (and suicide rate) is higher than that of New York -- which is actually tied for fifth-lowest. Of course, New York stats are about the state as a whole, so the independent nation of NYC gets lumped in with snowed-under Buffalo, much to the usual chagrin of both. :)

DJ, you're seriously warped. I don't know your email address, have no interest in it, and I've never emailed a worm or virus in my life. You're a laughable mosquito, and not worth the time or effort it would take in any event. If you're such a protected technical genius, I challenge you to support this contention with fact -- post some evidence or email it to Jackson. That's just more typical self-centered paranoid crap from you, padded now with slander.

You've never "saved" me from a thing or person, and I referenced supporting you exactly one time, and that was during your attack on me. Hilarious that you consider my discussion with bigbucksdude on SARS neverending, given how long you went on about ladyboys in the same section. Wasn't it you who suggested a section on SARS to Jackson as a way of helping people decide whether to travel? How many cases of SARS have there been in Thailand since I chastized him for spreading paranoia?

And naturally your personal analysis is as full of crap as everything else. Not even worth addressing. Talk about pathetic.

Perhaps you'll favor us all with more astoundingly deep, useful and non-obvious information, like the fact that there are good restaurants in Bangkok. Or proclaim to us all again that Dick Johnson was to first to notice that the sun came up this morning. Wow.

Talk about pathetic and self-righteous. Add deranged and you describe yourself.

darkseid:

Silicon Valley has the same problem with materialistic women, too, though the economy has seen an exodous of these callous cows to greener pastures.

And I completely agree with you on the motive factor. Of course, this could be applied not only to Rural American Wimmins, but women anywhere else.

It's ironic that I may be moving to Indiana for a few months. If that happens, I'll give you an update on Rural American Wimmins.

VIVA RIO!!

-- L

Darkseid must [b]really[/b] hate New York now that he's been to Brazil! Can't see why he doesn't just move, although I know he's explained his reasons before. I spent some of my teenage years in CT and I used to troll for hookers in NYC. The Avenue of the Americas was also good for wandering around while under the influence of LSD. I kind of liked NYC, although I haven't been back there in 25 years.

Now RN, in my case I had a mediocre marriage in hindsight (started off well but went downhill pretty fast, but my wife was more disturbed than I really realized at the time) and a very easy divorce that cost me nothing financially, so my lack of desire to get married again has nothing to do with materialistic cows. I just don't see any point to it. However, I certainly don't see lots of happy marriages like JZ does, nor do I see any among my relatives. I suppose one of my sisters' marriages is OK although very boring (but she is heavily into boring). My other sister is on #2 and I just visited them and their marriage stinks. Of course he became impotent and pretty much disabled so that could be a factor (unemployable too). My brother got married at 18 and will soon have his 40th anniversary but his wife is a shrew and he screws around on her all the time. My parents' marriage was God awful although my older sibs say it was good at one time. Grandparents' marriages were terrible, aunt's terrible ...

Now I am a person who moves quite easily among different social classes and social circles, plus I have spent time in both the blue collar world and the white collar world, and I have lived in quite a few different states (not including states of denial, etc.). This, I believe, has allowed me to view a good cross-section of American society. I would put the percentage of marriages which do [b]not[/b] end in divorce but are happy as maybe 30%, so considering half [b]do[/b] end in divorce and were thus at least presumably fairly unhappy, the chance of any given marriage being and [b]staying[/b] happy is about 1 in 6. Maybe a bit higher given that I have never really lived in rural areas which I know to have lower divorce rates, but still not very good odds.

Then I look at my four close women friends, two of whom I have been to bed with at some point, and ask myself if I would want to be married to any of them. Three definite nos and one maybe, and these are the best women I know. Would I marry my Argentinean amigovia? Definitely no.

Maybe I will marry a Méjican hooker so I can claim her on my tax return and split the money with her.

DH, your post brings up an interesting issue. You mention that your brother's been married for nearly 40 years, and that things are now pretty much a mess. Any sense of how long things were good?

And to follow in your footsteps -- my parents had a happy 18-year marriage, cut short when he died, my oldest sister is on her second, in which his happiness is mostly solid and hers is marginal (I'd sure as hell not want to be married to her), one of my brothers never married and the other has been in two absolute nightmares, including one that sounds like yours, complete with her attempting to kill him before she was institutionalized) and the second one from which he's in the midst of extracting himself, the middle sister has been in a very happy one for sixteen years, and the youngest sister ran through her first very quickly (picture two people, both with IQs in the 160 range, who feel they simply have to settle the issue of who's smarter every day) and is in heaven in her second, which recently passed the ten-year mark.

The issue your post makes me think about is this -- what's the line for defining a success in a relationship to most people here? Does it have to be forever? Until someone croaks? Is anything short of that not worth it? Ten years of ecstacy followed by ten years of boredom? Would twenty-five years of having everything work great, followed by two or three years of breaking up be success or failure?

I guess I wonder about this when I see that the average first marriage that ends in divorce lasts about eleven years -- I keep trying to figure out, given other things in life, like how long we have a job, live in the same place, etc., just how much of a failure that actually is. Especially when I think about how I've personally changed as years have passed.

I think my brother's marriage had problems from the start but I would say they were moderately happy for ten years or so. That is another case of two people with IQs in the 160 range battling over who is smarter, plus very healthy doses of passive aggression.

My marriage wasn't really affected by my wife's insanity as it did not overtly manifest itself until after we were divorced. The relationship overall was seven years and the first four were pretty darn good. I don't consider the overall relationship a failure; we both learned a lot and I at least was pretty unscarred by the breakup. She recently told me she would have been a lot better off if we had stayed together (she is divorced a second time) but I'm sure I would have fled when the bipolar thing manifested itself.

I think many marriages that end in divorce were perhaps overall successes; that is why I think people should get divorced when things have turned obviously and permanently sour, rather than "staying together for the kids' sake" or stupid crap like that. I think a lot of pretty unhappy couples stay together for financial reasons, fear of the unknown, or just plain inertia and I think that is a big waste of life.

But again I say marriage is an unnecessary anachronism at this time. It is an archaic concept and I don't think we can have archaic and eat it too.

I once read somewhere (okay, it's a book called "The Road Less Travelled" by M. Scott Peck) the following wisdom:

It's easy to fall in love, but it's just as easy to fall out of love, too.

Makes sense to me. I guess the trick is to make sure the couple can stay together once the honeymoon's over.

-- L

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dickhead
[i]The relationship overall was seven years and the first four were pretty darn good. [/i][/QUOTE]
I had 8 years LTR with Russian and 5 years with Brazilian women
Practically they were marriages because we lived together.
I had first 4 year relatively good and 4 year very bad with Russian and 4 year excellent and 1 year not good with Brazilian.
Is anybody else thinking 4 year is magic number? I notice what evil sitting in any women doesn’t matter how smart or kind she is. It is only question of time when this beast raises his ugly head. From my experience I have impression that women genetically programmed, exactly like robots. The relation started with love from the woman so strong that you often think that you are not deserved such love and finish with unexplainable hate that clearly you are not deserved.
3-4 years are enough time for child to grow up to run and hide in the cave in case of
danger or recognize his friends. After that woman probably programmed to have sex with another man to increase overall chances for all her children from different fathers
to survive. If such biologic cycle really exists then marriage is one of the most stupid things that created by humans.

Ordinarily Lenin is a bit too much of a troglodyte for me but he may have a point here. It might not just be relationships. I notice 4 years is about the point where I want to change jobs, allegiances to sports teams, and underwear. Also that is how often we hold presidential elections in this country and studies show (and no I don't have the links to my sources and I don't give a shit that I don't) that two-term presidents consistently have lower approval ratings during their second term.

I have suggested in the past that perhaps marriage should be a contract like sports contracts: for a certain period of time and then with "option years." Hey, why not? Then both parties could periodically evaluate where the relationship was going; that seems like a good thing to me. If one or both parties wanted out, the potential for a clean break seems higher. The possibilities to "save face" seem higher.

Forever seems like a very long time to me and "'til death do us part" has an inherently unattractive element to it from my point of view. Also think of the possibilities of saying for example, "Hey baby, feel liking getting married for a year or so?"

People just get sick of each other after a while sometimes. It isn't anybody's fault. Like I would marry Rubbie for one year (well, how 'bout six months???), sight unseen. How bad could it be? No money involved of course :)

Out of all my parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles, siblings and cousins - I am the ONLY one to ever get divorced so far. I guess I can't be positive that all the couples are still happy, but I'm pretty sure of it. They still do all those little things, like absentmindedly touching each other in public, finishing off each others sentences, stealing food off each others plates...those things that say they are totally comfortable with each other. I grew up with that around me all the time. Maybe that's why I still have a bit of a soft spot for marriage. :) (It's also probably a lot to do with having a 'traditional' rural upbringing).

I'm with you, Dickhead, when you say that marriage is probably unnecessary. As marriage is no longer a case of signing over a father's 'property' to another man, or celebrating the joining of two countries and their armies, I guess it doesn't serve any real purpose. But I still kinda like the idea. To me, a marriage proposal signifies true commitment. Not the wedding ring, not the name change, not the piece of paper that declares you husband and wife, but the proposal. For a man (or woman) to propose, it means they must have sat down and thought "Do I want this woman by my side for the rest of my life? Yes." And to go through with the wedding confirms he meant it. (I suppose that makes me either hopelessly romantic, or cynical and untrusting of people's motives).