Divorce to Marriage Ratio
Quote: ZenKinGI cant stop but laugh at all these young couples who are 'madly in love' and express their 'amazing love' on social media and then 15 years down the line, it all comes crashing down and they die-vorce....
About 50% of marriages end in divorce and virtually all western folks who have free will to choose who they marry go through a swoon phase where they proclaim their love for each another in social media. Animals go through that and procreate, and depending on their species may mate for a long time or may may go their separate ways. For humans, because raising the children takes a long time and requires a lot of effort we have been wired both to bond and yet have desires for others based on our wanting to have fun, and sex (mostly) is a great form of "free" entertainment.
When you marry (or even common-law) in some places the ceremony gives most couple equal possessions over net assets. After a marriage dissolves, support payments (spousal + child) become due from one party to the other according to state law.
Marriage should not be considered lightly. Hopefully it is +EV to both parties.
Marriage is not easy. You have to work at it and manage expectations. There will be health, social, financial, location, child-rearing issue and tons of other things. Character will be tested. The ability to compromise, to reason, and to look at the long term are tools that will help a marriage last longer.
Of course women can have careers. It takes maybe about two hours a day to keep my house in order, and that includes all non-working chores. This is an empty-nest household. So what is the other non-working party supposed to do with the other 14 hours that they are awake? Assuming a couple has two children that are 4 years apart you are talking about 23 years max, from conception to independence where that responsibility takes over. A career can last over 42 years (age 25 to 67) is what is the spouse supposed to do with 19 years of potential? Knit? Join a social club? Watch Oprah?
Adding children to the mix absolutely changes things, but every marriage with children has to figure out what's best for them to make it work. It's just another challenge.
True love of course exists between couples. Of course it is different with children - but that bond is not indestructible either, and you have the opportunity as a parent to have your children turn out to be somewhat like you.
Marriage is not for everyone.
Question for the mathematicians here. While roughly (the percentage goes up and down) 50% of all marriages end in divorce, I have heard that the statistics are somewhat skewed. From what I understand, the calculation is made by simply comparing the number of marriage licenses issued in a given year to the number of divorce filings. It doesn't, however, consider people who get married more than once. So...Quote: boymimboAbout 50% of marriages end in divorce...
Mr and Mrs Smith have four grown children. Three of them get married and stay married for life. The fourth child isn't so lucky in love, getting married and divorced three times. A statistician comes along and notes that the Smith family has generated six marriage licenses and three divorce filings and concludes that if you're born into the Smith family, your marriage has a 50% chance of failure.
Does a new Smith child actually have a 50/50 chance at divorce? Or are the odds actually a 75% chance of lifelong marital bliss?
Quote: boymimboAbout 50% of marriages end in divorce and virtually all western folks who have free will to choose who they marry go through a swoon phase where they proclaim their love for each another in social media. Animals go through that and procreate, and depending on their species may mate for a long time or may may go their separate ways. For humans, because raising the children takes a long time and requires a lot of effort we have been wired both to bond and yet have desires for others based on our wanting to have fun, and sex (mostly) is a great form of "free" entertainment.
When you marry (or even common-law) in some places the ceremony gives most couple equal possessions over net assets. After a marriage dissolves, support payments (spousal + child) become due from one party to the other according to state law.
Marriage should not be considered lightly. Hopefully it is +EV to both parties.
Marriage is not easy. You have to work at it and manage expectations. There will be health, social, financial, location, child-rearing issue and tons of other things. Character will be tested. The ability to compromise, to reason, and to look at the long term are tools that will help a marriage last longer.
Of course women can have careers. It takes maybe about two hours a day to keep my house in order, and that includes all non-working chores. This is an empty-nest household. So what is the other non-working party supposed to do with the other 14 hours that they are awake? Assuming a couple has two children that are 4 years apart you are talking about 23 years max, from conception to independence where that responsibility takes over. A career can last over 42 years (age 25 to 67) is what is the spouse supposed to do with 19 years of potential? Knit? Join a social club? Watch Oprah?
Adding children to the mix absolutely changes things, but every marriage with children has to figure out what's best for them to make it work. It's just another challenge.
True love of course exists between couples. Of course it is different with children - but that bond is not indestructible either, and you have the opportunity as a parent to have your children turn out to be somewhat like you.
Marriage is not for everyone.
Thanks for making another one of my points that I forgot to mention in the OP. Marriage is completely 'UN-NATURAL'. The fact that you mention 'You have to work at it to make it work' makes my point that it's not natural to be with someone your whole life, which is another reason for divorce, but it ties in with the point I made about both partners being in it really for 'themselves' the whole time and that true love doesnt exist.
Just look at the animal kingdom, you think they care about their partners or want to 'marry' each other and profess their love for the world to see? For example, lets talk about dogs. A male dog and a female dog have sex and eventually puppies. A day later, the male dog starts wandering around for a walk and sees another female dog. What do you think he tries to do? Do you think he starts wondering about if he should cheat or not? You think the female dog even cares? He goes after the other female dog without thinking twice. The dog doesnt care about the female who he had puppies with. To the dog, its just natural to f*** every female he sees. It's the same with humans because our instincts are very similar to that of other animals if not exactly the same. It's just that this societal stigma of finding the 'one' has been forced down our throats by religion and society and basically brainwashed everyone that 'cheating' on someone is such a bad thing when it's not.
Im not saying im some kind of 'player' or anything or endorse cheating, cause im not and im very loyal, but when you look at it logically, being married to someone for eternity is completely not natural and explains another reason why divorce rates are 51% and climbing. I think this is actually the main reason people divorce because they think this 'cheating on their partner' phenomenon is such a bad thing and creates a lot of animosity with their partner and end up splitting up. Imagine if both partners didnt give a damn if they found the other cheating? I bet the divorce rates would be maybe 20%. Another reason everyone is brainwashed by society and even religion.
Quote: GialmereQuestion for the mathematicians here. While roughly (the percentage goes up and down) 50% of all marriages end in divorce, I have heard that the statistics are somewhat skewed. From what I understand, the calculation is made by simply comparing the number of marriage licenses issued in a given year to the number of divorce filings. It doesn't, however, consider people who get married more than once. So...
Mr and Mrs Smith have four grown children. Three of them get married and stay married for life. The fourth child isn't so lucky in love, getting married and divorced three times. A statistician comes along and notes that the Smith family has generated six marriage licenses and three divorce filings and concludes that if you're born into the Smith family, your marriage has a 50% chance of failure.
Does a new Smith child actually have a 50/50 chance at divorce? Or are the odds actually a 75% chance of lifelong marital bliss?
The 50% statistic still stands. If the population were changing, one could argue about the divorce to marriage ratio, but it's fairly level. The 50% statistic doesn't say that every marriage has a 50/50 chance of success. Show me an 18-year-old couple who had an unwanted pregnancy and was pressed into marriage by their church, I'd give that marriage a 10% chance at success. Show me two professional people over the age of 30 who have dated for at least 3 years, I'll give it at least 60%.
Quote: WizardThe 50% statistic still stands. If the population were changing, one could argue about the divorce to marriage ratio, but it's fairly level. The 50% statistic doesn't say that every marriage has a 50/50 chance of success. Show me an 18-year-old couple who had an unwanted pregnancy and was pressed into marriage by their church, I'd give that marriage a 10% chance at success. Who me two professional people over the age of 30 who have dated for at least 3 years, I'll give it at least 60%.
While I don’t disagree with anything you say above, it was news to me to learn that the 50% statistic is calculated by (i) counting second/third/fourth marriages and (ii) comparing divorces in year X to marriages in year X.
(i) should maybe be obvious if you think about it, but I think that it makes the statistic incorrect as it is typically applied. IMO, people use the statistic going into a first marriage and thinking that it has a 50/50 shot of lasting vs divorce. A more appropriate statistic, as it is most commonly applied, would be the % of first marriages that end in divorce. And today is the first day I realized it must be less than 50%.
(ii) if true, skews the statistic. I assume the general trend is increases in marriages every year due to population growth, which would mean that the 50% statistic under represents the chance of divorce because it compares divorces from marriages in a time period in the past (when there were fewer marriages) divided by marriages today.
Quote: unJonWhile I don’t disagree with anything you say above, it was news to me to learn that the 50% statistic is calculated by (i) counting second/third/fourth marriages and (ii) comparing divorces in year X to marriages in year X.
Yes, that is how they do it, which I think is reasonable in a stable population.
Quote:(i) should maybe be obvious if you think about it, but I think that it makes the statistic incorrect as it is typically applied. IMO, people use the statistic going into a first marriage and thinking that it has a 50/50 shot of lasting vs divorce. A more appropriate statistic, as it is most commonly applied, would be the % of first marriages that end in divorce. And today is the first day I realized it must be less than 50%.
The way I've heard this argument expressed is looking at a snapshot of marriages to divorces, you're looking at marriages over a short period, and divorces over the whole population of married people. However, you're also looking at marriages over the whole single population. In the end, if you had a stable population and half of marriages end in divorce eventually, then you would expect to see a 1 to 2 ratio of divorces to marriages in a specific period of time.
Quote:(ii) if true, skews the statistic. I assume the general trend is increases in marriages every year due to population growth, which would mean that the 50% statistic under represents the chance of divorce because it compares divorces from marriages in a time period in the past (when there were fewer marriages) divided by marriages today.
I already gave the assumption of a stable population. I agree that if the population were growing, then the ratio of divorces to marriages in the present would be too low.
In researching my response, I found I was not correct about a stable US population:
Graph source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Census_Population_Graph_from_1790.svg
Never let it be said that I don't own up to it when I'm wrong.
While that graph may look like the population is growing out of control, on a percentage basis, it is dropping.
Also, a growing population is healthy for the economy, as you have plenty of working young people to support fewer old people. Let's just keep that growth up when I'm told (or am I already?)
So, yes, with a growing population 50% would be too high of an estimate. Perhaps I'll make an "Ask the Wizard" question over this.
This is a good topic, perhaps I'll at least split it off.
Quote: Wizard
This is a good topic, perhaps I'll at least split it off.
Ask the Wiz would be great, or splitting it off at least.
Would be interesting to know if first marriages have a higher, lower or equivalent divorce rate to second or third or fourth marriages.
Would also be interested in hearing why this statistic is quoted as a snapshot of divorces over marriages in a particular year rather than a longitudinal study that follows marriages to divorce and corrects for the tail of the future. Maybe just ease of calculation with existing data?
What would really be interesting would be to model the hazard function of the probability of divorce over time (as a function of how long you have been married).
Quote: unJonAsk the Wiz would be great, or splitting it off at least.
Done.
Quote:Would be interesting to know if first marriages have a higher, lower or equivalent divorce rate to second or third or fourth marriages.
I'd easily hazard to say that the probability of success goes down with each subsequent marriage. You don't hear about people whose second marriage just took very often. Usually it seems that someone gets married once and is done or gets married over and over, like Trump. It gets more complicated if the two people in the marriage have a different number of previous marriages.
Quote:Would also be interested in hearing why this statistic is quoted as a snapshot of divorces over marriages in a particular year rather than a longitudinal study that follows marriages to divorce and corrects for the tail of the future. Maybe just ease of calculation with existing data?
I could write a short book in response to this, knowing a thing or two about government statistics on such things. The short version, is there is no central authority in the federal government about who is married to whom. At Social Security, if you file for spousal or widow benefits, then show us the marriage certificate. We have nothing to prove it.
That said, we could only use data of deceased people. Who knows how many of the current population will eventually divorce. People dying now or already dead were from another time where divorce was more taboo.
Quote:What would really be interesting would be to model the hazard function of the probability of divorce over time (as a function of how long you have been married).
That would be interesting.
I would love to write a book on the mathematics of marriage. It would look at the optimal strategy for finding the optimal mate. How many people should you date before? How long should a trial last? I think it would say that you should date about seven people, and then take the best one, if still available, or, if not, wait for the next person to come along who is equal or better. You can err both ways -- settling too easily too young or being too picky and dying alone. However, nobody would buy such a book. Young people think they are immortal and know everything. Older people would have already figured out that my points were more or less correct.
Divorce (My jurisdiction): $200
So, that’s pretty easy.
Computer simulations to follow.
Good topic.
Quote: WizardThe 50% statistic still stands. If the population were changing, one could argue about the divorce to marriage ratio, but it's fairly level. The 50% statistic doesn't say that every marriage has a 50/50 chance of success. Show me an 18-year-old couple who had an unwanted pregnancy and was pressed into marriage by their church, I'd give that marriage a 10% chance at success. Who me two professional people over the age of 30 who have dated for at least 3 years, I'll give it at least 60%.
The 50% figure is a little misleading for thos that are not married yet. First marriages fail somewhere around the 30% mark. Second marriages are like 50%. Third and higher are around 75%. If you are not yet married you have a 70%+ chance of staying that way.
ZCore13
Quote: WizardAt Social Security, if you file for spousal or widow benefits, then show us the marriage certificate.
What about a person whose marriage ends with the death of a spouse and then gets remarried? That's two marriage licenses with zero divorce filings.
Quote: WizardI would love to write a book on the mathematics of marriage. It would look at the optimal strategy for finding the optimal mate. How many people should you date before? How long should a trial last? I think it would say that you should date about seven people, and then take the best one, if still available, or, if not, wait for the next person to come along who is equal or better. You can err both ways -- settling too easily too young or being too picky and dying alone. However, nobody would buy such a book. Young people think they are immortal and know everything. Older people would have already figured out that my points were more or less correct.
I remember awhile back some famous feminist wrote an article counseling young women to try to find a husband while attending college since they would never again have such a pool of eligible, educated, single men to choose from. An advantage play perhaps?
Quote: Zcore13The 50% figure is a little misleading for thos that are not married yet. First marriages fail somewhere around the 30% mark. Second marriages are like 50%. Third and higher are around 75%. If you are not yet married you have a 70%+ chance of staying that way.
ZCore13
Yep, I was going to write the exact same thing.
First marriages, the important marriages, do not
have a 50% failure rate. It's the second third and
fourth marriages, those are the ones that pump
up the stats.
Quote: GialmereQuestion for the mathematicians here. While roughly (the percentage goes up and down) 50% of all marriages end in divorce, I have heard that the statistics are somewhat skewed. From what I understand, the calculation is made by simply comparing the number of marriage licenses issued in a given year to the number of divorce filings. It doesn't, however, consider people who get married more than once. So...
Mr and Mrs Smith have four grown children. Three of them get married and stay married for life. The fourth child isn't so lucky in love, getting married and divorced three times. A statistician comes along and notes that the Smith family has generated six marriage licenses and three divorce filings and concludes that if you're born into the Smith family, your marriage has a 50% chance of failure.
Does a new Smith child actually have a 50/50 chance at divorce? Or are the odds actually a 75% chance of lifelong marital bliss?
If this family is the only family in the study and the question is "what is the probability of a marriage license being rendered null and void by divorce", the correct answer is 50%.
If the question is "what is the probability of a marriage license lasting forever", the correct answer is 75%.
So it depends on the question. And of course most families are not like this one, so 50% is probably fairly correct.
Quote: GialmereWhat about a person whose marriage ends with the death of a spouse and then gets remarried? That's two marriage licenses with zero divorce filings.
You are making me think back 30 years, but I think the first marriage doesn't affect you, so aren't required to prove it. If you were filing for spouses benefits based on the current wife/husband, you would need the marriage certificate.
Many people bring in more documents than they need, in which case they mark an event as proven, even if it didn't need to be proven, and they put a paper copy in the file of whatever certificate they brought it. The computer knew what documents were required to clear the case and wouldn't let you close it if all the needed "proof" boxes were not checked "yes."
Quote:I remember awhile back some famous feminist wrote an article counseling young women to try to find a husband while attending college since they would never again have such a pool of eligible, educated, single men to choose from. An advantage play perhaps?
Doesn't sound like something a feminist would say, but I think she was right.
I may owe BBB some push-ups for that one.
Pew
"Roughly two-thirds (65%) of men with a bachelor’s degree could expect that, if they marry, their first marriage will last 20 years or longer, compared with 50% of men with a high school diploma or less."
"Researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics estimate that 78% of college-educated women who married for the first time between 2006 and 2010 could expect their marriages to last at least 20 years."
Marriage longevity also varies between ethnic groups.
"Among men, Hispanics have the highest likelihood of being in a long-lasting marriage"
Quote: WizardI remember awhile back some famous feminist wrote an article counseling young women to try to find a husband while attending college since they would never again have such a pool of eligible, educated, single men to choose from. An advantage play perhaps?
Horny and inexperienced and socially
stupid men is more like it. A girl can
screw the socks off a college guy and
make him do whatever she wants, he's
so blinded by the sex. Thinking it will
be this way forever. Not quite..
Even if you restrict the question to the US, are you including common law marriages and marriages that are legal in some states but not recognized in others because they would simply be break-ups?
Quote: EvenBobHorny and inexperienced and socially
stupid men is more like it. A girl can
screw the socks off a college guy and
make him do whatever she wants, he's
so blinded by the sex. Thinking it will
be this way forever. Not quite..
Not if the guy is experienced in the boudoir.
She's just another notch on his, ahem, "belt."
College is a great place to sow those wild oats.
Only rookies succumb to the honeytrap.
Quote: TankoMarriage longevity for college educated is much higher than the average.
Pew
"Roughly two-thirds (65%) of men with a bachelor’s degree could expect that, if they marry, their first marriage will last 20 years or longer, compared with 50% of men with a high school diploma or less."
"Researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics estimate that 78% of college-educated women who married for the first time between 2006 and 2010 could expect their marriages to last at least 20 years."
Marriage longevity also varies between ethnic groups.
"Among men, Hispanics have the highest likelihood of being in a long-lasting marriage"
Interesting stats, but possibly very misleading. College educated people tend to marry later, so a better comparison might be married after 25 vs. married before 25. Or 23.
Quote: billryanAre there any marriages that are legal in some states but not in others?
I looked it up and although it's legal in all 50 states, some of them with Indian land still ban it. some US territories don't allow it, and the religious practice polygamy (mostly in Utah) is not recognized.
Quote: MrVNot is the guy is experienced in the boudoir.
She's just another notch on his, ahem, "belt."
College is a great place to sow those wild oats.
There is always a huge number of
men that stay inexperienced in
college and are ripe for the picking.
Those that care about their grades
and study a lot.
Quote: WizardYou are making me think back 30 years, but I think the first marriage doesn't affect you, so aren't required to prove it. If you were filing for spouses benefits based on the current wife/husband, you would need the marriage certificate.
Many people bring in more documents than they need, in which case they mark an event as proven, even if it didn't need to be proven, and they put a paper copy in the file of whatever certificate they brought it. The computer knew what documents were required to clear the case and wouldn't let you close it if all the needed "proof" boxes were not checked "yes."
Doesn't sound like something a feminist would say, but I think she was right.
I may owe BBB some push-ups for that one.
No, I think she was right, so no pushups for telling a simple truth. I don't really support the calculation or contention that women ONLY go for their Mrs. degree, but if a smart woman wants to partner a man with a lot of potential, college would be the single best place to meet them.
What are the other choices? Most CAN work, but to meet a man with brains, good earning potential, similar interests, and herself have the smarts and reasons to get higher education, where the dating pool is mostly single and of similar age, that seems ideal - and works both ways.
movie, Mona Lisa Smile, that's
about an all womens college in
the 50's where the whole goal
of life was to find a husband
and make him happy.
Boy, those days sure got up and
marched away. It also gave birth
to the feminist movement..
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't really support the calculation or contention that women ONLY go for their Mrs. degree, but if a smart woman wants to partner a man with a lot of potential, college would be the single best place to meet them.
Incorrect. My Med School 30 + years ago had a party called "SHIT" night. (So Happy It's Thursday). As the majority of the guys were on their way to Doctorhood, I'd posit it was a step up from a college party. I'm guessing other professional schools have similar events.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo, I think she was right, so no pushups for telling a simple truth. I don't really support the calculation or contention that women ONLY go for their Mrs. degree, but if a smart woman wants to partner a man with a lot of potential, college would be the single best place to meet them.
Glad I owe no push-ups for that one.
I thought the California girls I went to college with at UCSB were not interested in finding a husband but in some combination of getting an education and having fun for four+ years, as were the men. 95% outright rejected my advances, so they clearly could afford to be somewhat picky.
According to fatherly.com, the average length of an unsuccessful marriage is 8 years.
If you were observing a 1 to 2 ratio of divorces to marriages in the present, what would be the average probability that any given marriage ends in divorce?
The divorces we're seeing now were from marriages 8 years ago, when the population was 92.35% what it is now. Simple math suggests the true probability of divorce is 54.14%.
Let's check that.
First, according to the CDC, there are 6.9 marriages to 1000 in population per year. This figure is not relevant to the question at hand, but I think helps see the numbers involved.
Suppose the population 8 years ago was 300,000,000. That would be 0.69% * 300 million = 2,070,000 marriages in that year.
If 54.14% of them end in divorce eight years later, then we would be seeing 2,070,000 * 54.14% = 1,120,698 divorces in the present.
1,120,698 / 2,070,000 = 50% observed ratio of divorces to marriages in the present.
Lest anyone say it, yes, I know that not all divorces end in exactly eight years. It was just an estimate. If somebody else wants to do a more robust analysis, be my guest. However, the think the bottom line won't be far from my 54.14% true divorce rate.
Quote: Wizard95% outright rejected my advances, so they clearly could afford to be somewhat picky.
It's a fact that men who get laid a
lot get rejected a lot. A ton. But it
doesn't bother them and they keep
being aggressive. Like Babe Ruth
being the king of hits. He was also
the strike out king. When you swing
for the cheap seats every time, you
miss a lot.
Quote: EvenBobIt's a fact that men who get laid a
lot get rejected a lot. A ton. But it
doesn't bother them and they keep
being aggressive.
At that time in my life, my self esteem was so low that it took a year to took a year to get over it every time I was rejected.
Quote: WizardAt that time in my life, my self esteem was so low that it took a year to took a year to get over it every time I was rejected.
Believe me, if you had just shook it
off you would have got laid all the
time. I've seen ugly guys with nothing
going for them do it. You have to
be aggressive. No matter what women
say, a lot of them like aggressive men
that keep on trying.
Quote: WizardI would love to write a book on the mathematics of marriage. It would look at the optimal strategy for finding the optimal mate. How many people should you date before? How long should a trial last? I think it would say that you should date about seven people, and then take the best one, if still available, or, if not, wait for the next person to come along who is equal or better. You can err both ways -- settling too easily too young or being too picky and dying alone. However, nobody would buy such a book. Young people think they are immortal and know everything. Older people would have already figured out that my points were more or less correct.
I actually think a book about playing the odds with marriage would sell. It's an interesting take that a publisher could generate buzz with. Some of the math would no doubt confirm conventional wisdom, but much of it would would probably uncover non-intuitive revelations. Useful.
Graphs and charts for a given situation could be interactive so that readers would plug in the "cards" life has delt them (their age, education, finances etc.) and compare them to the upcards life is showing them (spousal candidate), like a gambler calculating the EV of a hand.
Hmm... The odds say I should fold on this loser.
True, you'd be tackling an emotional issue with cold numbers but, since the emotional approach only yields a 50% (er... 45.86%) success rate, why not give the math a chance?
Quote: EvenBobYou have to
be aggressive. No matter what women
say, a lot of them like aggressive men
that keep on trying.
Sadly, for me, I agree. I suspect Trump may have actually received more of the women's vote because the Access Hollywood tape.
Quote: GialmereI actually think a book about playing the odds with marriage would sell. It's an interesting take that a publisher could generate buzz with. Some of the math would no doubt confirm conventional wisdom, but much of it would would probably uncover non-intuitive revelations. Useful.
Graphs and charts for a given situation could be interactive so that readers would plug in the "cards" life has delt them (their age, education, finances etc.) and compare them to the upcards life is showing them (spousal candidate), like a gambler calculating the EV of a hand.
Hmm... The odds say I should fold on this loser.
True, you'd be tackling an emotional issue with cold numbers but, since the emotional approach only yields a 50% (er... 45.86%) success rate, why not give the math a chance?
Thanks for the encouragement. I'm sure I won't get started, but I still think its a great idea.
Quote: WizardSadly, for me, I agree.
It's most men. We don't want to get
laid as much as we want the approval
of attractive women. When they
reject us, we take it personally. Some
men develop a thick skin, good for
them.
Quote: EvenBobBelieve me, if you had just shook it
off you would have got laid all the
time. I've seen ugly guys with nothing
going for them do it. You have to
be aggressive. No matter what women
say, a lot of them like aggressive men
that keep on trying.
There is more to it than that. I knew confident outgoing guys, like Howard on the Big Bang Theory, who also had a hard time getting the time of day from women. While other friends of mine got it right and left without even trying. I think women must go on smell or something. If someone manages to put that smell in a bottle, he will make billions.
Quote: WizardThere is more to it than that. I knew confident outgoing guys, like Howard on the Big Bang Theory, who also had a hard time getting the time of day from women.
That's because it's not real confidence.
Real confidence says I don't care if
you say yes or not. Desperate confidence
just smells, well, of desperation.
I knew a guy who always had sex going
with 3 different women, and he was
very average looking. He had this
way about him that he really didn't
care about anybody. Some women
are very attracted to that.
Think Fonzie. He had that trait, not caring,
and women were all over him.
Why is society not 98% ok with this ?Quote: EvenBob...I knew a guy who always had sex going
with 3 different women, and he was
very average looking...
rephrased,,,society should be 98% ok with this.
Quote: petroglyphWhy is society not 98% ok with this ?
I didn't say it all went smoothly. He was always
in trouble with at least one of the three, and
the juggling act he did was impressive. I
think part of the equation was I heard he
was hung like Secretariat. Those kind of
guys always have something to prove..
Women love to lie and say size doesn't
matter. Enough of them have told me,
oh yeah, it matter a lot..
"Don't let your meat loaf."
You never see a "small" strap on.Quote: EvenBobWomen love to lie and say size doesn't
matter. Enough of them have told me,
oh yeah, it matter a lot..
Quote: petroglyphYou never see a "small" strap on.
You got me to chuckle out loud at
that one. No 5" strap-on's for sure.
Quote: Zcore13The 50% figure is a little misleading for thos that are not married yet. First marriages fail somewhere around the 30% mark. Second marriages are like 50%. Third and higher are around 75%. If you are not yet married you have a 70%+ chance of staying that way.
ZCore13
Aye, there's the rub. Assuming your numbers are correct, first marriages do okay. (Although, with a "house edge" of 30% it's still a big gamble.) Then the odds skyrocket for each marriage after the first. So much for love being happier the second time around I guess.
It's interesting that in cultures with arranged marriages, the divorce rate seems to be in the 4-6 percent range. So what do you think? Are parents really that good at matchmaking? Or, in such cultures, is the fear of losing face or dishonoring the family name keeping couples together?
Quote: GialmereOr, in such cultures, is the fear of losing face or dishonoring the family name keeping couples together?
The culture tends to shun divorced
people, just like ours did at one
time. 100 years ago a divorced
woman was a pariah, she was
shunned by all her married
friends and had a hard time
finding a descent husband,
Unless she was beautiful, of
course. Then she good find third
and fourth husband if she needed to.
Ugly divorcee= pariah
Attractive divorcee= misunderstood and needs 3rd 4th opportunity.
Way of the world. Shows the depth of "love".
