Dr. Phil Show Attacks International Marriages Friday

[chivo]

I just watched the show also and I thought it wasn't so bad. Just the usual schlock on TV these days in America. Matter of fact, taking into account much of what I read in this thread before I saw the show, I thought it would be much worse. Not "Springerish" by any stretch, but not exactly 60 minutes either.
 
These people were representative of my experience in meeting some guys (maybe the majority) here in Russia looking for a wife. I will say that the one negative was that they could have been a little more balanced depicting the situation. IOW more success stories.
 
As far as the term "MOB", well good luck changing people's minds about that. You might get some sympathy from "normal' guys with foreign wives, but the rest of America could careless about what anyone says positively and will always view it this way. And you shouldn't care what they think as well. Live your life as you see fit, period. People's opinions only carry weight in your life if you allow it.  What is that saying, something about "accepting the things I cannot change". Yes, that's it.

[BC]

Yes, You CAN argue with that logic - and you should!

HE SAYS WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT WITH THE MEN REPRESENTED ON YESTERDAY'S PROGRAM AND YOU SAY YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH THAT?  ARE YOU SERIOUS??? 

I'll say it again:

• 400 pound guys spends $100,000 on a lung transplant for his girl then she dumps him - different boat
• Top one-tenth of 1% control freak treats his wife like a slave (Dr. Phil description and guy admits) - different boat
• Woman marries a man who makes her pay for heat in her own home - different boat

Anybody here in their boat?  I'm not.

It's like saying, "hey, we're all human.  Child molesters - wife beaters - all human.  Right?"  Wrong.

VERY DIFFERENT BOAT

This forum is not composed of the kinds of men portrayed in that show and yet this is how THEY want the world to believe WE are!  And you're ok with being thrown into the boat with the kinds of men they paraded on stage?  I'm not! 

I felt wounded by this episode. I think all good Catholics feel the same way when the media pounces on a priest who is accused of molesting a child. Most Catholics are good people. Most priests sacrifice their lives for a noble cause and never cause harm to anyone their entire lives. But they are all muddied by the association of these molestation stories.  With every media story on "Mail Order Brides" we are thrown in the mud with these stereo-typical bad men.

We are the people who treat our wives with care and sensitivity and value what we have - and don't want to see it spit upon.

I don't ascribe to a 'good boat' or 'bad boat' theory as it does not reflect the overall state of affairs within a group.


I will agree though that in any group there will be 'bad apples', but the crux of the difficulties you have seems to be related to the definition of MOB itself.  How do you define 'MOB'?


To me, the term MOB applies to those with premeditated intent to find a partner outside their peer group for the explicit purpose of marriage. 


This board has members that acted both with and without intent, so in essence represents two groups.. those that followed typical MOB approaches to finding a marriage partner and those that did not.  The defining line in the sand seems to be 'premeditated intent'.  A significant number of men and women here simply crossed paths with a woman (or man) from another country and subsequently married.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that there may be different 'boats' involved but that good or bad boats don't exist. 

[GoodOlBoy]

Put it this way, take someone that's a complete stranger to the MOB scene, point them at RWD, RUA and RMP for a couple of days and my guess is that their overriding impression would be no different than the impression they'd get from seeing that Dr Phil show. Those that perceive themselves as being more "normal" may want to disassociate themselves with that reality but I'm sorry, it is what it is.

Good post SJ, but then most of your posts usually are. 
 
I would like to expand on your statement SJ and "put it another way" and challenge Dan (if that's OK with you?).
 
Dan, please allow poor old dysfunctional GOB    some latitude here...OK?
 
Lets say you and Mark are both so outraged at Dr. Phil that you decide to contact him personally. Dr. Phil listens to your laundry list of complaints about the unfairness of his show and decides to do another show on the MOB industry (men seeking FSUW).

Dr. Phil asks you (Dan), to sift through your membership here at RWD and send him what you consider a "fair and balanced" group of single men and married couples to represent RWD on the DR. Phil show.

Dr. Phil tells you that he will pay all airfare (First Class ) and hotel accommodations (5 stars in Manhattan  ) for your choices, but NO pocket money  .
 
Now the easy part (to me anyway) would be picking the married couples to send to Dr. Phil for his show.
We seem to have a very LARGE pool of perceived "normal" married couples to choose from: GQ, BC, SJ, Misha, OlgaH, FP, Hitech, Vaughn, Groov, etc. etc. etc.

The list for decent married couples seems endless.
 
I purposely left out TG (sorry TG you seem like a nice guy), because of the HUGE age disparity between he and his FSU wife. But then on the other hand Dan, we do want to be "fair and balanced" don't we? So maybe TG should be included in the mix.
 
Then you turn your attention to the single men here chasing FSUW.
 
Oh my.....well, here we go.
 
Keeping in mind that you want to remain "fair and balanced" and NOT pull a "DR. Phil", we have to look at the full spectrum of candidates at RWD:
 
Here is "candidate" number one. He believes it is OK to bring a box of "dildos" to the FSU when meeting his women, instead of a box of sweets and a bottle of champagnski........interesting chap. 
 
Next we have candidate number two. He believes that contacting 16 year old FSU girls for companionship is OK. He sees nothing wrong with this, as a matter of fact, he is proud of it and posts it on public forums. 
 
I could go on and on Dan, but I think you can see the picture I am painting here and it ain't pretty.
 
Moving on and constantly reminding yourself that you want to be "fair and balanced" (you wouldn't want to be accused of being like Dr. Phil...correct?), we come to the next category:
 
RWD members who are divorced from an FSUW and are "looking" again in the FSU.
 
Oh my...here we go again.
 
I'll stop here at this point and not name names, BUT you know who they are Dan. 
 
Dan, my whole point in this psychotic driveling post is exactly what I have stated before.
 
You and Mark may not like your "shipmates", but we are all in the same boat.
 
GOB
 

[Mark Davis]

Good ol Boy:

I totally get your point.  Your contention is that there are just as many "messed up" people represented here on this forum as were represented by the show - and that they did represent the "norm".  Nuf sed.  Got your point.


My original contention was that the show did not represent the majority of us who found wives in the FSU.  Your contention is that it did.  OK.   I also get your point that you see the FSU marriages to be no better than the average Western marriage in divorce rates or any other aspect.


Then I'm not sure why we're here.


I'm here because finding my wife has been one of the most amazing things I could have imagined and I'd never considered going outside of my country to find a spouse before six years ago - and I'd like for every Western man to at least consider it as a viable option - because I personally think it's a superior option.  It was easily worth the time and expense to me.  I must be a magnet for the rare other men who have had similar experiences as mine, which may not the norm represented here.


GoodOlBoy, if  you feel that the results are going to be the same as finding a girl on Match.com or the local bar scene why would they spend the time and money to go?


I may be reaching to conclusions you did not intend, so I wanted to ask.

[Muzh]

Now the easy part (to me anyway) would be picking the married couples to send to Dr. Phil for his show.
We seem to have a very LARGE pool of perceived "normal" married couples to choose from: GQ, BC, SJ, Misha, OlgaH, FP, Hitech, Vaughn, Groov, etc. etc. etc.

Didn't make the cut. Yay!
 
I'll just
         

[Mark Davis]

OMG! Muzh you kill me!  Just about rolled on the floor laughing!

[GoodOlBoy]

Then I'm not sure why we're here.

GOB is here to help newbies.
If it were not for the old RWG forum, I would have never gone to Russia in search of a wife.
If the old RWG forum was still around, I would be there to give back something.

GoodOlBoy, if  you feel that the results are going to be the same as finding a girl on Match.com or the local bar scene why would they spend the time and money to go?

Honest answer:
Because in the FSU they can do, what they can't do here in the GoodOl' USA...... date and marry women out of their league (much younger and slimmer).
 
GOB

[Daveman]

Good ol Boy:

I totally get your point.  Your contention is that there are just as many "messed up" people represented here on this forum as were represented by the show - and that they did represent the "norm".  Nuf sed.  Got your point.

Yeah, I understand the point he's trying to make as well. The fallacy in the argument of "we're all in the same boat" is that it places the grouping on our end when the more plausible explanation is that we are viewed through a general perception lens colored by preconceived notions.  It goes back to the old adage "change the way you look at something, and what you're looking at changes". 


That was my problem with the show. I didn't see it as an attack or that they really had a responsibility to provide a balanced view, i.e., show an equal number of successes because the show was dealing with specific issues... that being said, i'll reiterate my qualm -- I do think they had a responsibility to challenge any inference or reference to "all".

My original contention was that the show did not represent the majority of us who found wives in the FSU.  Your contention is that it did.  OK.   I also get your point that you see the FSU marriages to be no better than the average Western marriage in divorce rates or any other aspect.

We all have one or two or ten dark skeletons in the psychological closet.  The show wasn't an expose' on the benefits of finding a foreign bride, or of healthy relationships (which still have a fair share of weird psych stuff anyway).  Basically "MoB" stuff is used as attention grabbers to get more viewers - using that general perception to their advantage.


According to the Divorce Survey, as referenced up thread, the divorce rate is approximately ten percent lower than the national average. 

Then I'm not sure why we're here.

Because... we're just damn cool... 

I'm here because finding my wife has been one of the most amazing things I could have imagined and I'd never considered going outside of my country to find a spouse before six years ago - and I'd like for every Western man to at least consider it as a viable option - because I personally think it's a superior option.  It was easily worth the time and expense to me.  I must be a magnet for the rare other men who have had similar experiences as mine, which may not the norm represented here.

I don't really think it is a superior option, but for various reason, it is a superior option for some who have the innate qualities to be able to survive the ordeal.. 

GoodOlBoy, if  you feel that the results are going to be the same as finding a girl on Match.com or the local bar scene why would they spend the time and money to go?


I may be reaching to conclusions you did not intend, so I wanted to ask.

Nah, they won't be the same..  the "results", even in the worst case scenarios, will be a younger, prettier woman if, perhaps, on a temporary basis...


I've looked at this a million ways (he's exaggerating) and the only real benefits I can find in this are:

• the women one can date/marry are generally younger
• the women one can date/marry are generally more attractive
• the women one can date/marry have a hellaciously sexy accent

The rest seems to be more or less a crap shoot.




edit: ahhhh, that's a little better looking

[wicheese]

Honest answer:
Because in the FSU they can do, what they can't do here in the GoodOl' USA...... date and marry women out of their league (much younger and slimmer).
 
GOB

+1
 
I'll second what GOB wrote, as there is no reason to go to the FSU to look for a wife unless you have intent to upgrade on what you can find locally.  No other reason really makes sense if we are being honest with ourselves (aside from those who are already in the FSU for work) because if we are not upgrading then we should accept what we can attract in our local market.

[Gator]

My opinion:
 
1.  A vast majority of RW-AM couples involve a man who is not as physically attractive as the woman; so why say your case is acceptable and another is not.  Let the two people involved sort out the issues and imperfections and make their own decisions. 
 
2.  Indeed, there are some men in this endeavor with significant psychological issues; OTOH, not all RW are pure and saintly (there are reasons why some of these women can not find a good RM and look to the West).
 
3.   Dr. Phil's show operated around the loneliness-desperation equation, something I don't identify with.  A vast majority of people outside the RW endeavor don't really care one way or the other.   Those who feel that shows such as Dr. Phil's perhaps taints their marriage need to develop more confidence about themselves.   
 

[Boethius]

According to the Divorce Survey, as referenced up thread, the divorce rate is approximately ten percent lower than the national average. 

But is it?

Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think
By DAN HURLEY
The New York Times April 19, 2005
 
How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and campaign speeches. The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In 2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates.

In fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that, with rates now declining, it probably never will.


The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say.

Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch downward. "At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M. Kreider, a demographer in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the Census Bureau.

Two years ago, based on a 1996 survey, she and another demographer at the bureau predicted that if trends then in place held steady, the divorce rate for some age groups might eventually hit the 50 percent mark. But in February, the bureau issued a new report, based on 2001 data and written by Dr. Kreider. According to the report, for people born in 1955 or later, "the proportion ever divorced had actually declined," compared with those among people born earlier. And, compared with women married before 1975, those married since 1975 had slightly better odds of reaching their 10th and 15th wedding anniversaries with their marriages still intact. The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 survey was 41 percent for men who were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same age group.


Researchers say that the small drop in the overall divorce rate is caused by a steep decline in the rate among college graduates. As a result, a "divorce divide" has opened up between those with and without college degrees, said Dr. Steven P. Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland. "Families with highly educated mothers and families with less educated mothers are clearly moving in opposite directions," Dr. Martin wrote in a paper that has not yet been published but has been presented and widely discussed at scientific meetings. As the overall divorce rates shot up from the early 1960's through the late 1970's, Dr. Martin found, the divorce rate for women with college degrees and those without moved in lockstep, with graduates consistently having about one-third to one-fourth the divorce rate of nongraduates. But since 1980, the two groups have taken diverging paths. Women without undergraduate degrees have remained at about the same rate, their risk of divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage hovering at around 35 percent. But for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first 10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and 1979.


About 60 percent of all marriages that eventually end in divorce do so within the first 10 years, researchers say. If that continues to hold true, the divorce rate for college graduates who married between 1990 and 1994 would end up at only about 25 percent, compared to well over 50 percent for those without a four-year college degree. "It's a big wow sort of story," Dr. Martin said. "I've been looking for two years at other data sets to see if it's wrong, but it really looks like it's happening."


Still, some researchers remain skeptical about the significance of the small drop in overall divorce rates. "The crude divorce rate has been going down," said Dr. Andrew J. Cherlin, professor of public policy in the sociology department at Johns Hopkins. "But whether the rates will ultimately reach 45 percent or 50 percent over the next few decades are just projections. None of them are ironclad." Dr. Larry Bumpass, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Demography and Ecology, has long held that divorce rates will eventually reach or exceed 50 percent. In an interview, he said that it was "probably right" that the official divorce statistics might fall below 50 percent, but that the rate would still be close. "About half is still a very sensible statement," he said.


What all experts do agree on is that, after more than a century of rising divorce rates in the United States, the rates abruptly stopped going up around 1980. Part of the uncertainty about the most recent trends derives from the fact that no detailed annual figures have been available since 1996, when the National Center for Health Statistics stopped collecting detailed data from states on the age, income, education and race of people who divorced. As a result, estimates from surveys have had to fill in the gaps. "The government has dropped the ball on data collection," said Dr. David Popenoe, professor of sociology and co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Joshua R. Goldstein, associate professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton's Office of Population Research, said the loss of detailed government data, coming at a time when divorce rates were at their highest, might have distorted not only public perception, but people's behavior. "Expectations of high divorce are in some ways self-fulfilling," he said. "That's a partial explanation for why rates went up in the 1970's." As word gets out that rates have tempered or actually begun to fall, Dr. Goldstein added, "It could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in the other direction."

[Faux Pas]

My opinion:
 
1.  A vast majority of RW-AM couples involve a man who is not as physically attractive as the woman; so why say your case is acceptable and another is not.  Let the two people involved sort out the issues and imperfections and make their own decisions. 
 
2.  Indeed, there are some men in this endeavor with significant psychological issues; OTOH, not all RW are pure and saintly (there are reasons why some of these women can not find a good RM and look to the West).
 
3.   Dr. Phil's show operated around the loneliness-desperation equation, something I don't identify with.  A vast majority of people outside the RW endeavor don't really care one way or the other.   Those who feel that shows such as Dr. Phil's perhaps taints their marriage need to develop more confidence about themselves.

I didn't see the "attack" on WM/FSUW relationship aspect as claimed by the OP. These guys had problems of a psychological nature. Of the 3 men, one was a control freak who happened to be married to a RW. The second struck me as needing someone, anyone would do and the third was willing to suffer to any degree as long as he could snag some young hottie.


GOB makes a valid point. Most of us will and are going to be "lumped" together on different venues just because we date or marry FSUW. Good, bad or indifferent, that's just the way it is and highly self-serving to those who control the venue.

[Daveman]

But is it?

Well, honestly my answer is:


 "I personally do not know.  While I do not accept this data as an absolute end all answer to the question of certainty, I am swayed, based upon this research which seems to be the most comprehensive of its kind, that the answer would appear to be yes and thus I iterate 'yes' with the reservation to change my opinion at any future moment if/when I am swayed by a preponderance of evidence I deem reliable enough to do so."


            

[BC]

My original contention was that the show did not represent the majority of us who found wives in the FSU.  Your contention is that it did.  OK.   I also get your point that you see the FSU marriages to be no better than the average Western marriage in divorce rates or any other aspect.

......


GoodOlBoy, if  you feel that the results are going to be the same as finding a girl on Match.com or the local bar scene why would they spend the time and money to go?


I may be reaching to conclusions you did not intend, so I wanted to ask.

Mark,


These TV shows are built on the concept of extremes..  I haven't seen the show yet (inet was too slow and choppy) but will get to it.  The 'par for the course', not too bad reaction of some members here that did see the show seems pretty fair.


In you shoes I would not feel slighted. 

[Boethius]

No, Dave, it doesn't.  Based on the NYT article, the divorce rates are about the same.  Based on more recent statistics (see link below), and if comparing apples to apples (well educated women), the divorce rate of WM-FSUW marriages may, in fact, be higher than U.S. marriages, and that is using Dan's study as the "definitive" study in the area.

The US rate of divorces per married couple: 1.94 % in 2008. This means one out of every 52 couples divorced that year. The lowest was North Dakota with 1.43%. The highest was DC at 3.45% (although it has recently had the LOWEST raw per capita divorce rate.) Most states, though, generally seem at first glance to be higher on this scale if they have higher raw per capita divorce rates, and vice versa. The US per capita rate, in contrast, was 0.72% of the population divorcing every year, or 0.36 divorces for every 100 people. (It's now down to 0.68%, or 0.34 divorces, etc.)

[Daveman]

No, Dave, it doesn't.  Based on the NYT article, the divorce rates are about the same.  Based on more recent statistics (see link below), and if comparing apples to apples (well educated women), the divorce rate may of WM-FSUW marriages may, in fact, be higher than U.S. marriages.

http://www.familylaw.typepad.com/statsorce_stats_us/

Boethius, you are drawing your conclusions (as am I and others) based upon your interpretations of others' interpretations of extrapolations of various data sources.  Unless one has a "red phone" connected to the Planetary Relationship & Marriage Intelligence Office Of Omniscience Hotline --  there's no "is" or "isn't" but rather suggestions of plausible probabilities. 


  

[Boethius]

The U.S. divorce rate has never been 50%.  That's my only point.

[BC]

But is it?

Boethius,


Also heard that since the economic crash that divorce rates are sliding south.. could be a plus or minus to your viewpoint but it is a good example of the many, many variables involved.


Statistics as you know are very difficult to 'drill down' as the further you drill the less accurate the results become.


The basis of the statistics Dan provided were fairly high level, International / Intercultural relationships.  I do believe the results are very valid but do leave a wide berth for interpretation at lower levels.  It might be the same for the interpretation you quoted.  I wonder what base data they are using to derive their results.


FWIW

[Boethius]

I'm not suggesting Dan's numbers are incorrect, though I honestly don't know.  But, in my preceding post, if we take the numbers in his study as absolutely ironclad, we still end up with similar divorce rates (and that is before factors such as educational levels are considered).

All of the data quoted comes from U.S. government agencies.  However, since about 2006, many states have stopped collecting divorce data.  So, the numbers in the NYT piece would be fairly accurate, as all states still collected data at the time that piece was written.  If anything, those numbers are even higher than now.

The problem with the data when often quoted is it is raw data - total number of divorces divided by total number of marriages in a particular year.  That data, which gives the "accepted" 50% divorce rate, ignores the total number of existing marriages.

Data on divorces per 1,000 is also flawed, as it includes the entire US population, including children, the elderly, gays. 

I believe the 41% statistic in the article I linked addressed both of these concerns.

I, too, have read that divorce rates are dropping because of the economic uncertainty in the U.S.

Of all the reasons to go abroad to find a spouse, enhanced marital stability is probably one of the most specious arguments one can present.

[Rubicon]

My opinion:
 
1.  A vast majority of RW-AM couples involve a man who is not as physically attractive as the woman; so why say your case is acceptable and another is not.  Let the two people involved sort out the issues and imperfections and make their own decisions. 
 
2.  Indeed, there are some men in this endeavor with significant psychological issues; OTOH, not all RW are pure and saintly (there are reasons why some of these women can not find a good RM and look to the West).
 
3.   Dr. Phil's show operated around the loneliness-desperation equation, something I don't identify with.  A vast majority of people outside the RW endeavor don't really care one way or the other.   Those who feel that shows such as Dr. Phil's perhaps taints their marriage need to develop more confidence about themselves.

No. 3 is very important!!  develop more confidence about yourself!!  who cares what somebody else thinks!!

[Daveman]

...
Of all the reasons to go abroad to find a spouse, enhanced marital stability is probably one of the most specious arguments one can present.

Well, I do, at least, want to marry within my species...  though before this is over I just may need to expand that horizon as well...


I don't recall attempting present that specific argument in this (or any) thread. 


As far as education levels being taken into account -- I'd have to go back and find the references, but I've read a couple of different conclusions which assert that the highest divorce rates are linked with the highest education levels (when both partners are highly educated), followed by the lowest education levels (those with no college), with the lowest rate of divorce being those couples where one has a higher education and the other has some college but no degree, or both have some college an no degree.   Now, statistically that may very well be true but that would also be a misleading stat as generally there are specific personality or psychological conditions which are prevalent in individuals falling in those groups.. so is it the education level itself or the traits which lead to it? 


The same could be argued about this international marriage deal.  What is related specifically to international marriage and what is related to (if anything) the possible commonality of traits (if any) inherent in the nutbags who do this?   


BC's point about the drill down in data is quite valid. 




My personal opinion is that divorce rates all over the world are 100%, but some people just don't live long enough to get there... 

[Rubicon]

7 year itch!!  I am amazed when a marriage lasts longer than that. 

[Admin]

Dan, both of the studies I read about were written in Russian.  I read about them in utro.ru, which also had a link to the journals in which they appeared.  I may be wrong about the date, it could be earlier, but I know it was after the 1990's.  I know that one of the studies was fairly significant, well over 1500 couples were interviewed. 

Dave, I went back and listened to Rachel's comment, to ensure you and I were referring to the same person.  We were not.  However, Rachel's comments were about the first guest in particular.  She called him a misogynist and a control freak and frankly, she was spot on, even polite.  Dr. Phil called him controlling as well.
The "truth" Dr. Phil was exploring had nothing to do with AM-foreign women marriages.  It had to do with why these particular men were pursuing foreign marriages, and in none of the cases were the reasons, at least superficially, healthy.

Now, on divorce stats.  The 50% divorce rate is overstated.  First, it includes all divorces.  Second marriages have a higher rate of divorce than first marriages.  Third marriages have a higher rate of divorce than second marriages.  And, the statistics merely divide the number of marriages in a given year by the number of divorces.  They don't include married couples.  Here are some explanations, in the links below -

http://familylaw.typepad.com/stats/2010/05/new-book-debunks-50-divorce-stat-unpacks-it-by-age-education.html
http://familylaw.typepad.com/stats/divorce_rates_us/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

Boe,

I have no doubt that you are correctly recalling the stats you read. My only points are:

* We spent weeks (maybe months) combing the internet looking for relevant stats pertaining to cross-cultural marriage - and except for the INS 1996 report referenced earlier, we could not find anything.

* In terms of COMPARATIVE stats - the Survey of Cross-Cultural Marriage and Divorce was conducted at a point in time. It was never intended to be a longitudinal study - although we recognized the value and did what we could to position the results to be available to be used for subsequent studies.

To the extent possible, the Survey of Cross-Cultural Marriage and Divorce sought to address questions that have been the subject of endless debate and argument on RWD and her predecessors for decades. In the absence of facts and data - which had been the case prior to our study - we are left with hollow, though very LOUD, arguments from those whose passions are the greatest and internet 'voice' the loudest seeking to assert their OPINIONS. Now, with the stats we produced, at a very minimum there is a basis for improving upon that study and addressing the issue with facts and statistics.

I continue to welcome ANYONE in their desire to either; (a) more deeply analyze the data we collected, and/or (b) build on what we started and improve upon it. To this point, there have been only a couple of small requests and those were some time ago. It seems that most would rather criticize what was done (presumably, so they can continue with their over-loud assertions of opinion) rather than make a sincere effort to discover the real facts and truth of the matter.

- Dan

[Admin]

Dan, I didn't just wake up one day with this idea from nowhere in my head. That conclusion has formed from reading very many posts on several forums (Russian women ones included) and seeing several TV documentaries on the subject. Even the Mark Davis' of this forum will admit I'm sure (and have done in various threads) that the majority of people pecking away at their MOB site keyboards are philanderers, liars, cheaters, keyboard Romeos and dysfunctional guys with extraordinarily unreal expectations. These are the majority and, as far as I can tell, Dr Phil's guests were very much their representatives.

Now, you and others can try to distance yourself as much as you want but as GOB so bluntly points out, you are associated in the eyes of the world by the very nature of the relationship you have with your wife as is everyone else explicitly searching for a FSUW.

If you can in some way show me some magic stats that show the majority of men are closer to you in their attitudes and behaviour then I'll gladly reassess my conclusions and admit I was wrong.

FWIW, out of the 5 WM/FSUW couples we know personally (besides ourselves) at least 2 of them could be Dr Phil material.

Ade,

I never accused you of a snap judgment. I merely pointed out that you, like everyone else, is entitled to your opinion - even if/when that opinion is not supported by reason or sound judgment.

Now, you stake out a pretty strong position in your post that I do not think you, or anyone else, can support with rational objective evidence. In terms of forming and holding a personal opinion, that is OK to use irrational data or an unreasoned position - just do not expect others to follow along without challenge.

In reference to the point GOB was trying to make - what you refer to as "bluntly" - I would refer to as both "crudely" and now as evasive. I wish he were "bluntly" trying to make his point because then it *might* be clear what that point really is.

It seems that you, like GOB, are interpreting something I wrote as trying to "distance" myself from some kind of "association." I remain curious as to exactly what YOU (and GOB if he ever chooses to answer my question) see as the characteristics of whatever "association" it is you perceive.

And BTW - be careful with placing ME as the contextual basis for determining if people are dysfunctional or not. I assure you my ex-wife would be happy to cast me as Satan-incarnate (and she does - every chance she gets).

- Dan

[BC]

The problem with the data when often quoted is it is raw data - total number of divorces divided by total number of marriages in a particular year.  That data, which gives the "accepted" 50% divorce rate, ignores the total number of existing marriages.

Data on divorces per 1,000 is also flawed, as it includes the entire US population, including children, the elderly, gays. 

I believe the 41% statistic in the article I linked addressed both of these concerns.

I, too, have read that divorce rates are dropping because of the economic uncertainty in the U.S.

Boethius,


Certainly all thoughts to ponder and not ignore.

Of all the reasons to go abroad to find a spouse, enhanced marital stability is probably one of the most specious arguments one can present.

Now this I can agree to not 75, 80, 99... but 100%