Official California Divorce Figures

[Jaycee]

Figures Derived from the Official Records of the State of California:

Divorces Figures for California:

Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%

Average Divorce Rate: 75.54%**

**Reference: Court Statistics Reports for 1996-2004.

[Crash Street Kidd]

In article <QoDde.3940$***@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Jaycee
says...

Post by Jaycee
Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%
Average Divorce Rate: 75.54%**

You don't even understand why you are
incorrect in your assertion that the
average divorce rate is 75%.

Crash Street Kidd

Post by Jaycee
**Reference: Court Statistics Reports for 1996-2004.

[Doug Laidlaw]

Post by Crash Street Kidd
says...

Post by Jaycee
Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%
Average Divorce Rate: 75.54%**

You don't even understand why you are
incorrect in your assertion that the
average divorce rate is 75%.
Crash Street Kidd

Post by Jaycee
**Reference: Court Statistics Reports for 1996-2004.

But if the percentage column is a Statistician's figure, it is hellishly
high, even allowing for Hollywood. Reno isn't in Calif, is it? I would
like to see the official average length of a marriage. Must look up the
Aussie figures. Here, both marriage laws and divorce laws are Federal, so
there are no States with "easy exits."* Saw a stat recently that soon
single-parent families will exceed two-parent ones.

Here is what I found in a quick search:

REGISTERED MARRIAGES

Number registered

In 2002 there were 105,400 marriages registered in Australia, an increase of 2,300 (2%) when compared with 2001 and a decrease of 11,800 (10%) on 1982.

Downward trend

While marriage rates per 1,000 unmarried population (aged 15 years and over) are not yet available for 2002, the marriage rate trend since 1981 shows that marriage is declining. Marriage rates for the unmarried population fell in 2001 to 31 per 1,000 unmarried men and 28 per 1,000 unmarried women from 35 and 32, respectively in 2000 and 55 and 53, respectively in 1982.

Doug L.


*But I still recall that a Family Court Judge who loved to go on circuit to
Shepparton, where I practised for a while, was welcomed by our Law
Association President as "keeping the divorce rate here down," because he
was well known to throw out a divorce applic for the slightest error, where
other Judges would give leave to amend.

[Lee]

Oh, get over yourself. You don't have a copyright on the state of
California's public records. All you did was type them up. Big deal.

The fact is that part of the table JayCee posted as hisr own work is
from the California Courts Reference Page:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/3_stats.htm

and part is from the NVSS, CDC page on marriage and divorce:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mardiv.htm

and the analysis, data entry, spreadsheet creation, subtotals,
percentages and formatting are my work:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/a07cf14a41963faa?dmode=source
http://forum.dearingfilm.com//index.php?showtopic=7218&view=findpost&p=92649

[Lee]

Post by Crash Street Kidd

Post by Jaycee
Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
1999 153,298 36,025 215,510 71.13%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%
Avgs:158,785 37,742 212,532 74.71%
Data Format © ­® 2005 leraconteur

You don't even understand why you are
incorrect in your assertion that the
average divorce rate is 75%.

Point out the exact nature of the incorrect assertion you believe to be
claimed.

There are several constraints on my data and conclusions.
1) Enough years of collection to extrapolate the trend to all marriages
in California.
2) The fact that no government entity in the US collects data on the
'Divorce Rate''; the best we can do is calculate the number of divorces
per the number of marriages.

It is very unlikely that data collection will ever be performed to make
a valid conclusion that 'the real Divorce Rate is X%' as it is in the
interest of the government to promote marriage.

My table shows the total number of divorces from 1996 - 2003, and the
total number of marriages from 1996 - 2003. This is a substantial
recent sample, and if one were to get married today and your wife were
to file within 10 years, and the average marriage lasts less than 10
years nowadays, one could safely and accurately conclude that the
chance of you getting divorced in the state of California within 10
years was 74.7%.

The numbers for 2004 look to be more of the same. As of Oct 2004,
there were 145,360 marriages in California. November and December have
each averaged 10,000 per year for the past 5 years. This would result
in an estimated 2004 total of 165,000 marriages. With the last 8 years
averaging 158,785 divorces in California, the rate of Div/Mar. may well
be 97.2%.

[John Fereira]

Post by Lee

Post by Crash Street Kidd

Post by Jaycee
Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
1999 153,298 36,025 215,510 71.13%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%
Avgs:158,785 37,742 212,532 74.71%
Data Format © ­® 2005 leraconteur

You don't even understand why you are
incorrect in your assertion that the average divorce rate is 75%.

Point out the exact nature of the incorrect assertion you believe to be
claimed.

The figures that you quote do not take into account anyone that got married
prior to or during the time span that remained married. The percentage
figures only compare the number of divorces vs. marriages which occurred
during the same year. The marriage rate (number of marriages per 1000
people) has dropped significantly since 1970. Even if the number of
divorces remained consistant the percentage of divorces to marriages would
increase simply because fewer people are getting married.

Post by Lee
There are several constraints on my data and conclusions.
1) Enough years of collection to extrapolate the trend to all marriages
in California.
2) The fact that no government entity in the US collects data on the
'Divorce Rate''; the best we can do is calculate the number of divorces
per the number of marriages.
It is very unlikely that data collection will ever be performed to make
a valid conclusion that 'the real Divorce Rate is X%' as it is in the
interest of the government to promote marriage.
My table shows the total number of divorces from 1996 - 2003, and the
total number of marriages from 1996 - 2003. This is a substantial
recent sample, and if one were to get married today and your wife were
to file within 10 years, and the average marriage lasts less than 10
years nowadays, one could safely and accurately conclude that the
chance of you getting divorced in the state of California within 10
years was 74.7%.
The numbers for 2004 look to be more of the same. As of Oct 2004,
there were 145,360 marriages in California. November and December have
each averaged 10,000 per year for the past 5 years. This would result
in an estimated 2004 total of 165,000 marriages. With the last 8 years
averaging 158,785 divorces in California, the rate of Div/Mar. may well
be 97.2%.

[Doug Laidlaw]

Post by John Fereira

Post by Lee

Post by Crash Street Kidd

Post by Jaycee
Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
1999 153,298 36,025 215,510 71.13%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%
Avgs:158,785 37,742 212,532 74.71%
Data Format © ­® 2005 leraconteur

You don't even understand why you are
incorrect in your assertion that the average divorce rate is 75%.

Point out the exact nature of the incorrect assertion you believe to be
claimed.

The figures that you quote do not take into account anyone that got married
prior to or during the time span that remained married. The percentage
figures only compare the number of divorces vs. marriages which occurred
during the same year. The marriage rate (number of marriages per 1000
people) has dropped significantly since 1970. Even if the number of
divorces remained consistant the percentage of divorces to marriages would
increase simply because fewer people are getting married.

Post by Lee
There are several constraints on my data and conclusions.
1) Enough years of collection to extrapolate the trend to all marriages
in California.
2) The fact that no government entity in the US collects data on the
'Divorce Rate''; the best we can do is calculate the number of divorces
per the number of marriages.
It is very unlikely that data collection will ever be performed to make
a valid conclusion that 'the real Divorce Rate is X%' as it is in the
interest of the government to promote marriage.
My table shows the total number of divorces from 1996 - 2003, and the
total number of marriages from 1996 - 2003. This is a substantial
recent sample, and if one were to get married today and your wife were
to file within 10 years, and the average marriage lasts less than 10
years nowadays, one could safely and accurately conclude that the
chance of you getting divorced in the state of California within 10
years was 74.7%.
The numbers for 2004 look to be more of the same. As of Oct 2004,
there were 145,360 marriages in California. November and December have
each averaged 10,000 per year for the past 5 years. This would result
in an estimated 2004 total of 165,000 marriages. With the last 8 years
averaging 158,785 divorces in California, the rate of Div/Mar. may well
be 97.2%.

I can accept that. You are saying that the people getting divorced are not
necessarily the people getting married, so we are not seeing very brief
marriages. But it does seem to say that the number of divorces per 1,000
of population is over 75% of the number of marriages per 1,000 population.
That, for me, is a cause for concern, when marriage is the basis of our
society. It was one of the early stages of weakening of Imperial Rome as
well. Jaycee and his friends will be gratified to know that then, as now,
it coincided with the rise of women's lib. The two should not be so
closely related, but in practice, they seem to be. I would hate to see the
status of women go back to the 19th century as the only way to keep
marriage in fashion. Augustus gave tax breaks to fathers of 3 children.

I suppose that the most significant figure is the percentage of people of
marriageable age who are married, but with those figures, marriage is not
very stable. Bringing up children with a succession of father-figures is
not good.

Of course, Jaycee probably picked California as the example most favourable
to his beliefs. The figures I seem to recall for Australia were about 50%,
which is bad enough.

Doug l.

[Lee]

Post by John Fereira
The figures that you quote do not take into account anyone that got married
prior to or during the time span that remained married. The

percentage

Post by John Fereira
figures only compare the number of divorces vs. marriages which

occurred

Post by John Fereira
during the same year.

Never in the history of US Divorce statistics, has the collection of
the data met with your requirements for validity.

That this has never been done leads me to believe that your criteria is
unreasonable.

In 1920, the collected divorce numbers did not vet for the year of
marriage cohort, and they don't now.

This stricture is imposed by the methodology that the government uses
to collect and disseminate the data.

It *would* be a simply matter to perform a survey of 10,000 married US
adults, correct for the year of marriage, duration of marriage, age at
marriage and age at divorce, frequency and occurrence of divorce, but
no one has ever done such a study.

So they don't do the study, and skeptics such as yourself will forever
be able to claim that one cannot know the 'true divorce rate'.

Perhaps they are using you to carry their water. This ommission is too
convenient.

Post by John Fereira
The marriage rate (number of marriages per 1000
people) has dropped significantly since 1970.

The number of marriages per 1,000 population has dropped since 1985.
The number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women 15 and older has
dropped since 1969.
The number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women age 15-44 has dropped
since 1969.

Every measure of marriage rates show a decline that is constant,
long-term and unending.

Post by John Fereira
Even if the number of
divorces remained consistant the percentage of divorces to marriages would
increase simply because fewer people are getting married.

There has been a rise in divorces at the same time that marriages
dropped.

Thus the occurrences of Divorce per occurrences of Marriage would
increase, which they have.

Thus the chances that a Marriage will end in Divorce increase, which
they have.

Lastly, there were fewer marriages prior to 1960 than post 1969.

Prior to 1960 there were approximately 1.5 million marriages per year.
This number had remained more or less the same for 25 years. Then a
spike from 1963 to 1974, and another spike from 1978 to 1986.

So using your 'logic' this smaller number of older marriages might by
skewing the current divorce rates, when there were 40% fewer marriages
then compared to modern numbers. Statistically it is more likely, from
a probability standpoint, that the larger number of marriages are
represented in recent divorces.

[John Fereira]

Post by Lee

Post by John Fereira
The figures that you quote do not take into account anyone that got
married prior to or during the time span that remained married. The
percentage figures only compare the number of divorces vs. marriages
which occurred during the same year.

Never in the history of US Divorce statistics, has the collection of
the data met with your requirements for validity.
That this has never been done leads me to believe that your criteria is
unreasonable.
In 1920, the collected divorce numbers did not vet for the year of
marriage cohort, and they don't now.
This stricture is imposed by the methodology that the government uses
to collect and disseminate the data.
It *would* be a simply matter to perform a survey of 10,000 married US
adults, correct for the year of marriage, duration of marriage, age at
marriage and age at divorce, frequency and occurrence of divorce, but
no one has ever done such a study.

Really? Try this link on for size. It was pretty easy to find. I just
went to the Census.gov web site and entered "What is the divorce rate" in
the ask box.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf

"In 2001, marital history data were
collected from men and women
15 years and older in approximately
30,000 households. In the sample,
56,574 people were asked
questions about the number of
times they had been married, and
the month and year of marital
events (including marriage,
divorce, widowhood, and the date
of last separation, if divorced) for
the first, second, and most recent
marriage. Since less than 1 percent
of adults have been married
four or more times, few events are
missed by using this approach."

Post by Lee
So they don't do the study, and skeptics such as yourself will forever
be able to claim that one cannot know the 'true divorce rate'.
Perhaps they are using you to carry their water. This ommission is too
convenient.

Post by John Fereira
The marriage rate (number of marriages per 1000 people) has dropped
significantly since 1970.

The number of marriages per 1,000 population has dropped since 1985.
The number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women 15 and older has
dropped since 1969.
The number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women age 15-44 has dropped
since 1969.
Every measure of marriage rates show a decline that is constant,
long-term and unending.

Post by John Fereira
Even if the number of
divorces remained consistant the percentage of divorces to marriages
would increase simply because fewer people are getting married.

There has been a rise in divorces at the same time that marriages
dropped.
Thus the occurrences of Divorce per occurrences of Marriage would
increase, which they have.

Thanks for proving my point. Because the number of marriages per 1000 people
has decreased, the perceived high divorce rate isn't as rampant as you'd
like us to believe.

The article I cited also contradicts your claim that the divorce rate is
increasing:

"Data from the National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
indicate that the divorce rate for
married women increased sharply
between 1970 and 1975, a period
when divorce laws were changing.
However, subsequent estimates
indicate that the divorce rate per
1,000 married women leveled off
at about 20 per 1,000 women in
the late-1970s and has stayed at
about that level through the mid-
1990s.4"

Post by Lee
Thus the chances that a Marriage will end in Divorce increase, which
they have.
Lastly, there were fewer marriages prior to 1960 than post 1969.
Prior to 1960 there were approximately 1.5 million marriages per year.
This number had remained more or less the same for 25 years. Then a
spike from 1963 to 1974, and another spike from 1978 to 1986.
So using your 'logic' this smaller number of older marriages might by
skewing the current divorce rates, when there were 40% fewer marriages
then compared to modern numbers. Statistically it is more likely, from
a probability standpoint, that the larger number of marriages are
represented in recent divorces.

According to the article:

"First marriages that end in divorce
last about 8 years, on average."

Given that 8 years is an average, a comparision of raw marriage and divorce
numbers for a short period to determine a percentage, and leading to a
conclusion that the number represents the divorce rate is flawed as it does
not account fo a large number of marriages which are still intact.

Look at the tables closely in the article I cited and I think you'll find
that the numbers aren't as high as you claim.

I'm not sure what you're goal is in all this. Getting married to someone is
a personal choice between two people. I was aware the the divorce rate was
relatively high when I got married but I wasn't marrying a set of
statistics. I married a person and plan on spending the rest of my life
with her. If you don't want to get married, don't, but it looks to me that
you're bending over backwards to justify why you, personally, might not be
married. I believe there's a fable about that.

[Lee]

The financial risk to a man of getting married is very high, and all
men should know the facts:

A 50% or 76% of divorce. This chance of failure is fine, if it doesn't
cause financial ruin.

But in the case of many, it does cause economic ruin to the man, and
this is why marriage has become unviable.

70% of divorces are filed by the wife. .7 x .5 = .35. .7 x .76 = .532

So a man has a 35% - 53% chance of his wife divorcing him, and he has
zero control over her decision. This probabilty exists independent of
any action he takes.

Those are odds I won't take, and many other men won't take them either.

These data sets support the conclusion that there are 76 divorces per
100 marriages in California, and personal anecdotal evidence (80% of my
married friends and acquaintences have gotten divorced), supports the
data as well. There is no data that contradicts this, only arguments
as to sample size, statistical validity and p-norms.

I stand by my statement.

The California Divorce Rate is 76%.

[Rambler]

Post by Lee
These data sets support the conclusion that there are 76 divorces per
100 marriages in California, and personal anecdotal evidence (80% of my
married friends and acquaintences have gotten divorced), supports the
data as well. There is no data that contradicts this, only arguments
as to sample size, statistical validity and p-norms.

'Course, it could just be the type of people you are drawn to. Birds of
a feather and whatnot ....

Rambler

[Lee]

'Course the statistics I post from The Superior Court of California,
and The US Census, have zero bearing on who I associate with.

[dizzy]

Post by Lee
The financial risk to a man of getting married is very high, and all
A 50% or 76% of divorce. This chance of failure is fine, if it doesn't
cause financial ruin.
But in the case of many, it does cause economic ruin to the man, and
this is why marriage has become unviable.

I know a couple guys who would just as soon be divorced, if not for
the financial hit that they would incur.

[John Fereira]

Post by Lee
The financial risk to a man of getting married is very high, and all
A 50% or 76% of divorce. This chance of failure is fine, if it doesn't
cause financial ruin.
But in the case of many, it does cause economic ruin to the man, and
this is why marriage has become unviable.
70% of divorces are filed by the wife. .7 x .5 = .35. .7 x .76 = .532

Since you didn't provide a source for this "statistic" I am curious if it
comes from California data. If it does it is worth noting that California,
like many other states has a no-fault divorce law. By definition, a no-
fault divorce is uncontested by both parties but only one of them can file
for the divorce. Even if the 70% divorces filed by women figure is accurate
a percentage of those are uncontested and it is unlikely that a man would
not contest a divorce with terms which would cause financial ruin.

Post by Lee
So a man has a 35% - 53% chance of his wife divorcing him, and he has
zero control over her decision. This probabilty exists independent of
any action he takes.
Those are odds I won't take, and many other men won't take them either.
These data sets support the conclusion that there are 76 divorces per
100 marriages in California, and personal anecdotal evidence (80% of my
married friends and acquaintences have gotten divorced), supports the
data as well. There is no data that contradicts this, only arguments
as to sample size, statistical validity and p-norms.
I stand by my statement.
The California Divorce Rate is 76%.

I'm happy that you've convinced yourself of this. So what are you going to
do about it other than whine on usenet?

[Annette M. Stroud]

Post by John Fereira
I'm happy that you've convinced yourself of this. So what are you going to
do about it other than whine on usenet?

Somehow I don't think even moving to another state will help.

Annette

[Lee]

This figure is common knowledge. I have posted the source a dozen
times over the past 3 years. This is a common Usenet tactic; tie up
the original poster in repeated documentation that bogs debate down in
minutae. I am not responsible for your ignorance. Go do some reading.

Here it is, again:

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd071900f.html
"At least two-thirds of divorce suits are filed by women."

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/stowell/ch3.html
"Women filed for divorce 139 times (63 percent) in Sangamon County, and
the court granted them divorce decrees in 110 of their petitions (79
percent). By comparison, men filed only eighty-one suits for divorce
(37 percent), and the circuit court granted them divorce decrees in
fifty-seven (70 percent) of those cases."

[This percentage has held up for over 125 years.]

http://www.aarp.org/research/reference/publicopinions/aresearch-import-867.html
"Approximately two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women..."
Their buzzwords (for what they gained) are "freedom," "self-identity,"
and "fulfillment."

[Annette M. Stroud]

Post by Lee
"Women filed for divorce 139 times (63 percent) in Sangamon County, and
the court granted them divorce decrees in 110 of their petitions (79
percent). By comparison, men filed only eighty-one suits for divorce
(37 percent), and the circuit court granted them divorce decrees in
fifty-seven (70 percent) of those cases."

Who files the divorce is not necessarily related to who initiates the
divorce. Anectdotally I know of several women who had spouses take off
with other women. The men may not have felt compelled to get a divorce --
as long as they don't have one they can't commit to the new woman either.
The women ended up filing. Someone has to file for even a mutually agreed
upon divorce.

Annette

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by Annette M. Stroud

Post by Lee
"Women filed for divorce 139 times (63 percent) in Sangamon County, and
the court granted them divorce decrees in 110 of their petitions (79
percent). By comparison, men filed only eighty-one suits for divorce
(37 percent), and the circuit court granted them divorce decrees in
fifty-seven (70 percent) of those cases."

Who files the divorce is not necessarily related to who initiates the
divorce. Anectdotally I know of several women who had spouses take off
with other women. The men may not have felt compelled to get a divorce --
as long as they don't have one they can't commit to the new woman either.
The women ended up filing. Someone has to file for even a mutually agreed
upon divorce.
Annette

Yeah, it's always the guy's fault. Even when the statistics say otherwise,
it's always his fault.


-- Steve, is there any proof in the world that backs up all this
speculation that Stroud's doing?
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[John Fereira]

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by Annette M. Stroud

Post by Lee
"Women filed for divorce 139 times (63 percent) in Sangamon County,
and the court granted them divorce decrees in 110 of their petitions
(79 percent). By comparison, men filed only eighty-one suits for
divorce (37 percent), and the circuit court granted them divorce
decrees in fifty-seven (70 percent) of those cases."

Who files the divorce is not necessarily related to who initiates the
divorce. Anectdotally I know of several women who had spouses take off
with other women. The men may not have felt compelled to get a divorce
-- as long as they don't have one they can't commit to the new woman
either. The women ended up filing. Someone has to file for even a
mutually agreed upon divorce.
Annette

Yeah, it's always the guy's fault. Even when the statistics say
otherwise, it's always his fault.

What part of the word anecdotally are you having trouble understanding?
Annette wasn't claming that it's always the mans fault. She said that she
knows several woman that had a legitimite reason for filing.

A divorce may be granted for many reasons, but the point is, who files for
the divorce may not be an indicator as to you may be faulted for the
dissolution. If a woman files for the divorce she may be doing so because
the husband has essentially left the marriage for a another woman, there may
be domestic abuse issues, or as in the case in California and several other
states with a "No Fault" divorce law it just be a matter of convenience for
the woman to file instead of the man. In the case of a No Fault divorce
neither party is at fault for the divorce (or both are), but neither party
is contesting that the divorce should occur or the terms of the divorce.

No fault divorce laws have been targetted as a significant reason of higher
divorce rates. For those that are so concerned about high divorce rates,
instead of blaming women, they would be more productive lobbying for the
elimination of No Fault divorces.

[Lee]

Post by John Fereira
No fault divorce laws have been targetted as a significant reason of higher
divorce rates. For those that are so concerned about high divorce rates,
instead of blaming women, they would be more productive lobbying for the
elimination of No Fault divorces.

No-fault divorce was the brainchild of the National Association of
Women Lawyers.

**************

http://www.abanet.org/nawl/about/history.html

The Uniform Divorce Bill
"The greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken" is the description
given by committee chair Matilda Fenberg to NAWL's pioneering work to
create a Uniform Divorce Bill. At the 1947 NAWL convention in
Cleveland, it was voted to draft and promote a bill that would embody
the ideal of no-fault divorce. A draft prepared by Fenberg, working
with NAWL past presidents Helen M. Cirese and J. Helen Slough, was
approved at the 1952 convention in Berkeley, California.

Although the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws
had attempted to produce such a bill since its founding in 1892,
Fenberg was informed that the Conference could receive bills or
suggestions only from the ABA. Fenberg-who had been the first woman
student at Yale Law School in 1919-then undertook a campaign to
convince the ABA to create a Family Law Section. Three years later, in
1955, the section was approved. Fenberg was appointed chair of the
Subcommittee on Migratory Divorce. In 1960 the bill was introduced to
the ABA, which sent it to the Conference.

In 1965, the Conference commenced the task of drafting, and in 1970
produced, the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (amended in 1971 and
1973). By 1977, the divorce portions had been adopted by nine states.
Following this, the momentum for uniformity waned, but the ideal of
no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reformof divorce laws
in the majority of states.

************

This idea was conceived of by women and lobbied for by women. That
men, in their usual demeanor of fairness and considering the grievances
of women, considered their petition and passed it as law is our
failing.

Men have always listened to the complaints of women when they mention
that they are being treated unfairly, and have usually enacted
legislation to redress the women's complaints. This is because men are
fair and aspire to equality. Now that the law has taken a turn in
favor of women, women's groups are silent or bitterly resist any and
all considerations that perhaps some of the current legal and social
canon demonstrates inequality in favor of women.

[Sharon B]

Post by Lee
Men have always listened to the complaints of women when they mention
that they are being treated unfairly, and have usually enacted
legislation to redress the women's complaints. This is because men are
fair and aspire to equality.

Explain Mark Soboloonski.
[ ] Mark is not a man.
[ ] Raping women, taking away their right to vote and travel is "fair"

If men are fair then why would there be a need for them to "aspire to
equality" or enact legislation to redress their unfair treatment and
subjugation of others (or enact any legislation at all). Were men (or
women) "fair" there would be no need for the innumberable tomes of
criminal law.

Too many steroids are rotting your brain.

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by Sharon B

Post by Lee
Men have always listened to the complaints of women when they mention
that they are being treated unfairly, and have usually enacted
legislation to redress the women's complaints. This is because men are
fair and aspire to equality.

Explain Mark Soboloonski.
[ ] Mark is not a man.
[ ] Raping women, taking away their right to vote and travel is "fair"

If Mark Sobolewski were the typical man there would not be laws against
rape, now would there?


-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by John Fereira

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by Annette M. Stroud

Post by Lee
"Women filed for divorce 139 times (63 percent) in Sangamon County,
and the court granted them divorce decrees in 110 of their petitions
(79 percent). By comparison, men filed only eighty-one suits for
divorce (37 percent), and the circuit court granted them divorce
decrees in fifty-seven (70 percent) of those cases."

Who files the divorce is not necessarily related to who initiates the
divorce. Anectdotally I know of several women who had spouses take off
with other women. The men may not have felt compelled to get a divorce
-- as long as they don't have one they can't commit to the new woman
either. The women ended up filing. Someone has to file for even a
mutually agreed upon divorce.
Annette

Yeah, it's always the guy's fault. Even when the statistics say
otherwise, it's always his fault.

What part of the word anecdotally are you having trouble understanding?
Annette wasn't claming that it's always the mans fault. She said that she
knows several woman that had a legitimite reason for filing.

And that's all she knows - women who, in her mind, have a legitimate reason
for filing for divorce.

It would take a lightning bolt from God with an attached note threatening
to send her and seven generations of her children to hell before she'd
admit women have some fault in this.

The endless boring monotony of "it's the men's fault" has yet to be broken
after **TEN YEARS** of dealing with male bashing on this newsgroup.


TEN
GOD DAMNED
YEARS!!!

Post by John Fereira
A divorce may be granted for many reasons, but the point is, who files for
the divorce may not be an indicator as to you may be faulted for the
dissolution. If a woman files for the divorce she may be doing so because
the husband has essentially left the marriage for a another woman, there may
be domestic abuse issues, or as in the case in California and several other
states with a "No Fault" divorce law it just be a matter of convenience for
the woman to file instead of the man. In the case of a No Fault divorce
neither party is at fault for the divorce (or both are), but neither party
is contesting that the divorce should occur or the terms of the divorce.
No fault divorce laws have been targetted as a significant reason of higher
divorce rates. For those that are so concerned about high divorce rates,
instead of blaming women, they would be more productive lobbying for the
elimination of No Fault divorces.

Then we'd have another set of problems, no doubt.

Such as women making up lies about men punching walls and threatening them
with shot guns in order to establish fault.

Gee, I wonder who might have done that in the past.


-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[Lady Veteran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by John Fereira

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by Crash Street Kidd
In article

Post by Lee
"Women filed for divorce 139 times (63 percent) in Sangamon
County, and the court granted them divorce decrees in 110 of
their petitions (79 percent). By comparison, men filed only
eighty-one suits for divorce (37 percent), and the circuit court
granted them divorce decrees in fifty-seven (70 percent) of
those cases."

Who files the divorce is not necessarily related to who initiates
the divorce. Anectdotally I know of several women who had
spouses take off with other women. The men may not have felt
compelled to get a divorce -- as long as they don't have one they
can't commit to the new woman either. The women ended up filing.
Someone has to file for even a mutually agreed upon divorce.
Annette

Yeah, it's always the guy's fault. Even when the statistics say
otherwise, it's always his fault.

What part of the word anecdotally are you having trouble
understanding? Annette wasn't claming that it's always the mans
fault. She said that she knows several woman that had a
legitimite reason for filing.

And that's all she knows - women who, in her mind, have a legitimate
reason for filing for divorce.
It would take a lightning bolt from God with an attached note
threatening to send her and seven generations of her children to
hell before she'd admit women have some fault in this.
The endless boring monotony of "it's the men's fault" has yet to be
broken after **TEN YEARS** of dealing with male bashing on this
newsgroup.
TEN
GOD DAMNED
YEARS!!!

And it is likely to continue because idiots cannot help but
generalize.

Sound familiar? See: SSFA. There are good and bad in every race,
gender and greed. I am so glad I can see the richness in this mosaic
called life.

Here is to ten more goddamned years...idiots never learn-all you can
do is use them for target practice.

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by John Fereira
A divorce may be granted for many reasons, but the point is, who
files for the divorce may not be an indicator as to you may be
faulted for the dissolution. If a woman files for the divorce she
may be doing so because the husband has essentially left the
marriage for a another woman, there may be domestic abuse issues,
or as in the case in California and several other states with a
"No Fault" divorce law it just be a matter of convenience for the
woman to file instead of the man. In the case of a No Fault
divorce neither party is at fault for the divorce (or both are),
but neither party is contesting that the divorce should occur or
the terms of the divorce.
No fault divorce laws have been targetted as a significant reason
of higher divorce rates. For those that are so concerned about
high divorce rates, instead of blaming women, they would be more
productive lobbying for the elimination of No Fault divorces.

Then we'd have another set of problems, no doubt.
Such as women making up lies about men punching walls and
threatening them with shot guns in order to establish fault.

Some women will.

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Gee, I wonder who might have done that in the past.

Duh. . . dunno Stev-o.....:-)

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

LV

- ------------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank and held a General's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

- - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
- ----------------------------------------
Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground.

- - -unknown
- ----------------------------------------
Yes, I have let myself go...Now I'm Free!!!

- - - unknown
- ----------------------------------------
If you are reading this in a group where the message
is cross-posted into more than three groups,it means
the idiot who started this thread is trolling me
or soc.support.fat-acceptance and I flamed his ass.
I consider the idiots I flame a waste of humanity
and deserving of all of the ill treatment I can
hand them. Idiots who ridicule fat people are worse
then vermin as far as I am concerned. If you don't
want to read my responses, trim the groups to where you want
he message to go and you will not hear from me.
- ----------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQozBycr91nvpayIKEQKdVwCgxkHSrrRDFg6bCcRQbX9a1r8guz0AoMbZ
bPwikRU8GY+uWtqbmMfFlxiP
=/tje
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[miguel]

Post by Lady Veteran
And it is likely to continue because idiots cannot help but
generalize.

Spot the irony.

miguel

[Lee]

Post by John Fereira
Thanks for proving my point. Because the number of marriages per 1000 people
has decreased, the perceived high divorce rate isn't as rampant as you'd
like us to believe.

The divorces that were occurring in 1975-1990, numbering 1,000,000 per
year or more since 1975, were from marriages that occurred in the
1930's - 1970's. There were far fewer marriages then, which would
suggest that the chance of divorce is much higher than you want to
believe.

The report you cite has 3 different figures, and never states a
definitive answer.

-There is the chance of divorce as one approaches 55, which appears to
be 43% or slightly higher for those born 1945-1949.
-There is the percentage of people who admit (self selection) to being
divorced at 21%, to 69% who admit to ever marrying. That results in a
31% divorce rate.
-There is the claim made in the report that 1 in 5 adults admit to
being ever divorced.

So we have 20%, 31% or 43% from just this report.
Current divorces to marriages rate at 56 to 100.
Current California divorces to marriages rate at 76 to 100.

If someone were to tell me that an investment I had that was originally
valued at $50,000 had a 20% chance of completely disappearing within 10
years, and that my broker would be calling the shots and I would have
no say in the sale, I would divest. That is what futures and options
have as a risk. This is gambling, and I don't gamble. Still too rich
for my blood. 5% would be an acceptable risk. Not 20% or 43%. The
risk of divorce prior to 1960 was 5%.

[notmL]

Post by Lee
If someone were to tell me that an investment I had that was originally
valued at $50,000 had a 20% chance of completely disappearing within 10
years, and that my broker would be calling the shots and I would have
no say in the sale, I would divest. That is what futures and options
have as a risk. This is gambling, and I don't gamble. Still too rich
for my blood. 5% would be an acceptable risk. Not 20% or 43%. The
risk of divorce prior to 1960 was 5%.

Without taking that risk, you still have choices!
1)stay single
2)cohabitate
3)prenup

[CAMAMagnet]

Post by John Fereira

Post by John Fereira
Thanks for proving my point. Because the number of marriages per 1000

people

Post by John Fereira
has decreased, the perceived high divorce rate isn't as rampant as

you'd

Post by John Fereira
like us to believe.

The divorces that were occurring in 1975-1990, numbering 1,000,000 per
year or more since 1975, were from marriages that occurred in the
1930's - 1970's. There were far fewer marriages then, which would
suggest that the chance of divorce is much higher than you want to
believe.
The report you cite has 3 different figures, and never states a
definitive answer.
-There is the chance of divorce as one approaches 55, which appears to
be 43% or slightly higher for those born 1945-1949.
-There is the percentage of people who admit (self selection) to being
divorced at 21%, to 69% who admit to ever marrying. That results in a
31% divorce rate.
-There is the claim made in the report that 1 in 5 adults admit to
being ever divorced.
So we have 20%, 31% or 43% from just this report.
Current divorces to marriages rate at 56 to 100.
Current California divorces to marriages rate at 76 to 100.
If someone were to tell me that an investment I had that was originally
valued at $50,000 had a 20% chance of completely disappearing within 10
years, and that my broker would be calling the shots and I would have
no say in the sale, I would divest. That is what futures and options
have as a risk. This is gambling, and I don't gamble. Still too rich
for my blood. 5% would be an acceptable risk. Not 20% or 43%. The
risk of divorce prior to 1960 was 5%.

With an investment, you give the money and then sit back and wait.
There is nothing you can do.

With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot. What
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a successful
marriage.

Toddly

[Doug Anderson]

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by John Fereira

Post by John Fereira
Thanks for proving my point. Because the number of marriages per 1000

people

Post by John Fereira
has decreased, the perceived high divorce rate isn't as rampant as

you'd

Post by John Fereira
like us to believe.

The divorces that were occurring in 1975-1990, numbering 1,000,000 per
year or more since 1975, were from marriages that occurred in the
1930's - 1970's. There were far fewer marriages then, which would
suggest that the chance of divorce is much higher than you want to
believe.
The report you cite has 3 different figures, and never states a
definitive answer.
-There is the chance of divorce as one approaches 55, which appears to
be 43% or slightly higher for those born 1945-1949.
-There is the percentage of people who admit (self selection) to being
divorced at 21%, to 69% who admit to ever marrying. That results in a
31% divorce rate.
-There is the claim made in the report that 1 in 5 adults admit to
being ever divorced.
So we have 20%, 31% or 43% from just this report.
Current divorces to marriages rate at 56 to 100.
Current California divorces to marriages rate at 76 to 100.
If someone were to tell me that an investment I had that was

originally

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by John Fereira
valued at $50,000 had a 20% chance of completely disappearing within 10
years, and that my broker would be calling the shots and I would have
no say in the sale, I would divest. That is what futures and options
have as a risk. This is gambling, and I don't gamble. Still too rich
for my blood. 5% would be an acceptable risk. Not 20% or 43%.

The

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by John Fereira
risk of divorce prior to 1960 was 5%.

With an investment, you give the money and then sit back and wait.
There is nothing you can do.
With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot.

What

Post by CAMAMagnet
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a

successful

Post by CAMAMagnet
marriage.

Good point. Also neither the investment nor the rewards in marriage
are primarily financial.

[Lee]

Post by CAMAMagnet
With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot. What
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a

successful

Post by CAMAMagnet
marriage.

I have found this to not be the case. I have been in relationships
where I worked very hard and busted my ass to be a terrific mate, lover
and companion. It didn't matter. I have no control over what she
does, what she feels or what she wants.

Post by CAMAMagnet
Also neither the investment nor the rewards in marriage
are primarily financial.

The risks in a marriage are both emotional and financial.

[Doug Anderson]

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by CAMAMagnet
With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot.

What

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by CAMAMagnet
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a

successful

Post by CAMAMagnet
marriage.

I have found this to not be the case. I have been in relationships
where I worked very hard and busted my ass to be a terrific mate, lover
and companion. It didn't matter. I have no control over what she
does, what she feels or what she wants.

Well, of course it is also necessary to exercise good judgement in
choice of a mate.

If the person you chose isn't interested in what you have to offer,
then there is no point in busting your ass over it.

So it sounds like you fell down on the first part of "increasing your
odds" which is to choose a mate who appreciates what you have to offer.

But it really doesn't come down to odds. Sure if you take a random
marriage then your odds say something. Nobody is in a random marriage.

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by CAMAMagnet
Also neither the investment nor the rewards in marriage
are primarily financial.

The risks in a marriage are both emotional and financial.

But they aren't primarily financial, as I said. Or if (for you) they
_are_ primarily financial, perhaps that again reflects poor judgement
in choice of a mate.

[Rambler]

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by CAMAMagnet
With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot. What
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a

successful

Post by CAMAMagnet
marriage.

I have found this to not be the case. I have been in relationships
where I worked very hard and busted my ass to be a terrific mate, lover
and companion. It didn't matter. I have no control over what she
does, what she feels or what she wants.

This is probably because that $50,000 tucked under the mattress was kind
of lumpy. Next time try a bank account and see how that works out.

Rambler

[CAMAMagnet]

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by CAMAMagnet
With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot. What
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a

successful

Post by CAMAMagnet
marriage.

I have found this to not be the case. I have been in relationships
where I worked very hard and busted my ass to be a terrific mate, lover
and companion. It didn't matter. I have no control over what she
does, what she feels or what she wants.

I don't think this is typical. If you are really tuned in to what she
wants and you look after those wants, she will reciprocate with looking
after your wants as well. It helps if you both want similiar things.


Toddly

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by CAMAMagnet
Also neither the investment nor the rewards in marriage
are primarily financial.

The risks in a marriage are both emotional and financial.

[the Danimal]

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by Lee

Post by CAMAMagnet
With a marriage, you have a great deal of control over success and/or
failure. Granted you don't have 100% control, you do have alot.

What

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by Lee

Post by CAMAMagnet
you do or don't do can greatly increase your odds of having a
successful marriage.

You exercise the most control by choosing who to marry.
After that, you exercise much less control over how things work
out.

It's like getting a job. The biggest factor in your success is
choosing the right job. Once you have the job, you can influence
your success by working harder and learning, but in some jobs
you would fail no matter what, whereas in other jobs you might
naturally excel.

If someone feels inclined to work on relationships, it would
make sense to invest the greatest efforts up front, to find
the partner with whom one is most likely to succeed. That's
where one has the potential to get the greatest return on
investment.

But how can you figure out which partner represents your best
bet, without actually marrying all of them and finding out?

Post by CAMAMagnet

Post by Lee
I have found this to not be the case. I have been in relationships
where I worked very hard and busted my ass to be a terrific mate, lover
and companion. It didn't matter. I have no control over what she
does, what she feels or what she wants.

I don't think this is typical.

It could be typical for Lee. Perhaps his failure to have much
control resulted from: (a) his choice of partners, and (b) his
choice of exactly what strategy he chose to be what he himself
considered to be "a terrific mate, lover and companion."

When dealing with other people, the first order of business is
to relax one's assumptions.

Have you ever known someone who tried to be generous, but gave
you inappropriate gifts? Did that person's attempt at generosity
hit the mark?

It's not enough to "work" or "make an effort" or try to be
whatever you think you need to be. The most important thing
is to figure out what your partner wants. That may be very
different than what you suppose.

In some cases, there might not be anything you can do which
will work. But before trying to be "a terrific mate, lover and
companion" the first order of business is to determine how
your partner, not you, defines those things. The best strategy
is to determine, if possible, what a potential partner really
wants before you strap on the ball and chain. That could be
difficult if she herself does not know.

Post by CAMAMagnet
If you are really tuned in to what she
wants and you look after those wants, she will reciprocate with looking
after your wants as well.

There is no guarantee she will reciprocate. She might be
all "take" and no "give." Perhaps she feels entitled, and
has no concept of going out of her way for you. Or she
might not realize you are making an effort that needs
reciprocation. Maybe she thinks whatever you are doing
is just the way you are.

Post by CAMAMagnet
It helps if you both want similiar things.

It helps if you both want whatever the other person is going
to do anyway.

A relationship that requires both people to sacrifice
much for each other is unlikely to succeed in the long term.

Relationships are a form of entertainment. People start
relationships because relationships make them feel good.
When relationships stop feeling good, they are in danger
of ending.

Having to work hard for years and years generally does not feel
good. In most cases, people only work hard when they get paid
well to do so. In relationships there is generally nothing like
a paycheck to keep both partners working hard at it. The
relationship itself is the only paycheck. Nobody wants to work
when the only reward is more and more work.

The best relationships are those which require the least work.
That is, when two people happen to like the way the other
naturally tends to behave, so there is little need to battle
one's natural tendencies forever.

Obviously that is a problem, because few people just naturally
tend to behave in perpetually endearing ways.

There is also the considerable problem that average people have
to settle for average partners, and few average people find
average people ideally attractive.

-- the Danimal

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by the Danimal

Post by CAMAMagnet
I don't think this is typical.

It could be typical for Lee. Perhaps his failure to have much
control resulted from: (a) his choice of partners, and (b) his
choice of exactly what strategy he chose to be what he himself
considered to be "a terrific mate, lover and companion."

The last woman I dated said to me that I was a "wonderful man." Her
treatment by me included home cooked romantic dinners on the candlelit
balcony, weekends at surprise hotels, poetry, cards, multiple orgasms
and weekly dates. Yet she still decided that she didn't want to
continue our relationship. She could give no reason, not a one, for
why she wanted to stop dating. Zero. Zip. If a woman who thinks me
to be wonderful decides to break it off for no reason at all, what
strategy could have countered this? None.

I was wonderful, she was undeserving. End of story.

[Robert A. Fink, M. D.]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
The last woman I dated said to me that I was a "wonderful man." Her
treatment by me included home cooked romantic dinners on the candlelit
balcony, weekends at surprise hotels, poetry, cards, multiple orgasms
and weekly dates. Yet she still decided that she didn't want to
continue our relationship. She could give no reason, not a one, for
why she wanted to stop dating. Zero. Zip. If a woman who thinks me
to be wonderful decides to break it off for no reason at all, what
strategy could have countered this? None.
I was wonderful, she was undeserving. End of story.

Same thing happened to me many years ago. The woman was beautiful,
very bright, in a similar profession, and if there ever was a
"perfectly complimentary" sexual relationship, that was one. We dated
for almost a year.

Suddenly (on Valentine's Day yet!), she announced to me that we "could
not be lovers anymore" and informed me that she was dating another
man. That man, whom I knew, was a depressed, extremely needy
individual who was a failure at work and who was still recovering from
a failed marriage.

The only way that I could rationalize the situation was that my former
lover wanted someone whom she could "take care of". She dated the man
for a year or so, and then moved in with him. After about 2 more
years, she married him. The marriage lasted about another year and
then she dumped him unceremoniously.

I am probably a lucky man, but I can't forget the quality of the
sex..... Best I ever had.


Best,

Bob

[No Spam Please]

you got off easy

Post by Robert A. Fink, M. D.

Post by l***@yahoo.com
The last woman I dated said to me that I was a "wonderful man." Her
treatment by me included home cooked romantic dinners on the candlelit
balcony, weekends at surprise hotels, poetry, cards, multiple orgasms
and weekly dates. Yet she still decided that she didn't want to
continue our relationship. She could give no reason, not a one, for
why she wanted to stop dating. Zero. Zip. If a woman who thinks me
to be wonderful decides to break it off for no reason at all, what
strategy could have countered this? None.
I was wonderful, she was undeserving. End of story.

Same thing happened to me many years ago. The woman was beautiful,
very bright, in a similar profession, and if there ever was a
"perfectly complimentary" sexual relationship, that was one. We dated
for almost a year.
Suddenly (on Valentine's Day yet!), she announced to me that we "could
not be lovers anymore" and informed me that she was dating another
man. That man, whom I knew, was a depressed, extremely needy
individual who was a failure at work and who was still recovering from
a failed marriage.
The only way that I could rationalize the situation was that my former
lover wanted someone whom she could "take care of". She dated the man
for a year or so, and then moved in with him. After about 2 more
years, she married him. The marriage lasted about another year and
then she dumped him unceremoniously.
I am probably a lucky man, but I can't forget the quality of the
sex..... Best I ever had.
Best,
Bob

[Doug Anderson]

Post by l***@yahoo.com

Post by the Danimal

Post by CAMAMagnet
I don't think this is typical.

It could be typical for Lee. Perhaps his failure to have much
control resulted from: (a) his choice of partners, and (b) his
choice of exactly what strategy he chose to be what he himself
considered to be "a terrific mate, lover and companion."

The last woman I dated said to me that I was a "wonderful man." Her
treatment by me included home cooked romantic dinners on the

candlelit

Post by l***@yahoo.com
balcony, weekends at surprise hotels, poetry, cards, multiple orgasms
and weekly dates. Yet she still decided that she didn't want to
continue our relationship. She could give no reason, not a one, for
why she wanted to stop dating. Zero. Zip. If a woman who thinks me
to be wonderful decides to break it off for no reason at all, what
strategy could have countered this? None.

Why _should_ she give a reason? She likes you but is "not that into
you." It is perfectly reasonable for her to want to break up with you
without having to justify it to you.

Consider perhaps that she may also have wanted to spare your feelings.

Post by l***@yahoo.com
I was wonderful, she was undeserving. End of story.

Maybe I begin to see the problem she had with you...

[Lee]

Post by Doug Anderson
Why _should_ she give a reason? She likes you but is "not that into
you."

Your mush-minded susceptibility to the latest femtrend is duly noted.

Post by Doug Anderson
It is perfectly reasonable for her to want to break up with you
without having to justify it to you.

Your assumption is incorrect. She did not say she liked me. She said
she loved me.

Post by Doug Anderson
Consider perhaps that she may also have wanted to spare your feelings.

This is a pathetic excuse to absolve those who use it of all
accountability. Spare my feelings, as in break up with someone for no
reason at all? My feelings were quite hurt by her obfuscation. I
appreciate direct honest communication to spare my feelings more than a
simple shrug of the shoulders and 'I dunno...'.

Women are relentless in the US with their constant requests for
communication, emotional openness and empathy.
When a man even suggests that a woman be held to this standard, which
my exe did not uphold, your reply is the type of opinion that first
pops up.

[Doug Anderson]

Post by Lee

Post by Doug Anderson
Why _should_ she give a reason? She likes you but is "not that into
you."

Your mush-minded susceptibility to the latest femtrend is duly noted.

Nothing to do with trends. She wanted to break up with you for reasons
she chose not to share. That is her right. The _fact_ that she broke
up with indicates that she simply isn't that into you. Your inability
to accept that fact erroneously leads you to the conclusion that she
was behaving irrationally.

Post by Lee

Post by Doug Anderson
It is perfectly reasonable for her to want to break up with you
without having to justify it to you.

Your assumption is incorrect. She did not say she liked me. She said
she loved me.

I've made no assumption. Let me repeat:

It is perfectly reasonable for her to want to break up with you without
having to justify it to you.

Post by Lee

Post by Doug Anderson
Consider perhaps that she may also have wanted to spare your

feelings.

Post by Lee
This is a pathetic excuse to absolve those who use it of all
accountability. Spare my feelings, as in break up with someone for no
reason at all? My feelings were quite hurt by her obfuscation. I
appreciate direct honest communication to spare my feelings more than a
simple shrug of the shoulders and 'I dunno...'.
Women are relentless in the US with their constant requests for
communication, emotional openness and empathy.
When a man even suggests that a woman be held to this standard, which
my exe did not uphold, your reply is the type of opinion that first
pops up.

I don't know what you are on about. It's got nothing to do with women
or men. If you are seeing a person, and wish to stop seeing them, then
you have every right to do that. You should do it politely, but you
do _not_ owe the person an explanation.

Maybe you've decided the person is a whiny adolescent. You aren't
required to tell him or her that. Maybe you've decided that the person
will argue with any explanation you give and that you aren't interested
in having the argument. That is also reasonable.

(Even more so if the person you are going to break up has made it clear
that he detests your entire sex!)

[Robert A. Fink, M. D.]

Post by Doug Anderson
It is perfectly reasonable for her to want to break up with you without
having to justify it to you.

True as far as it goes, but, after she has called the person a
"wonderful man" and expressed feelings of love, I think that she
"owes" the man an explanation.

Best,

Bob

[BDB]

Post by Doug Anderson
I don't know what you are on about. It's got nothing to do with women
or men. If you are seeing a person, and wish to stop seeing them, then
you have every right to do that. You should do it politely, but you
do _not_ owe the person an explanation.

Really? Have you ever actually dumped someone?

I've dumped several gals, and if you are at the "I love you" stage
as the other poster was, you most definitely have to give a reason
for dumping them. Of course you usually can't tell them the truth. You
have to make up some BS about different priorities, bad timing, etc. But
you've got to tell them *something*.

[Doug Anderson]

Post by BDB

Post by Doug Anderson
I don't know what you are on about. It's got nothing to do with women
or men. If you are seeing a person, and wish to stop seeing them, then
you have every right to do that. You should do it politely, but you
do _not_ owe the person an explanation.

Really? Have you ever actually dumped someone?
I've dumped several gals, and if you are at the "I love you" stage
as the other poster was, you most definitely have to give a reason
for dumping them. Of course you usually can't tell them the truth.

You

Post by BDB
have to make up some BS about different priorities, bad timing, etc.

But

Post by BDB
you've got to tell them *something*.

I don't understand by what principle you "have" to tell them lies.

You don't. You can say "I don't want to be in this relationship
anymore" and your obligations have ended there. They may want to know
more, and you may want to tell them, but you aren't obligated to, and
you especially aren't obligated to tell them BS!

[BDB]

Post by Doug Anderson
I don't understand by what principle you "have" to tell them lies.
You don't. You can say "I don't want to be in this relationship
anymore" and your obligations have ended there. They may want to know
more, and you may want to tell them, but you aren't obligated to, and
you especially aren't obligated to tell them BS!

I can't help but think you've never actually had to do this, or you'd
understand why you've got to say something. THink about it...you've just
broke it off and you've got a tearing up girl on your hands asking you
"Why?!?". What do you say, "Go away, I don't want to talk about it"?
This would be really painful for her to act as if you don't even owe her
an explanation. If the truth would also be painful then a little BS is
completely justified, and even expected and appreciated.

[Doug Anderson]

Post by BDB

Post by Doug Anderson
I don't understand by what principle you "have" to tell them lies.
You don't. You can say "I don't want to be in this relationship
anymore" and your obligations have ended there. They may want to know
more, and you may want to tell them, but you aren't obligated to, and
you especially aren't obligated to tell them BS!

I can't help but think you've never actually had to do this, or you'd
understand why you've got to say something. THink about it...you've just
broke it off and you've got a tearing up girl on your hands asking you
"Why?!?". What do you say, "Go away, I don't want to talk about it"?
This would be really painful for her to act as if you don't even owe her
an explanation. If the truth would also be painful then a little BS is
completely justified, and even expected and appreciated.

I'm not talking about what _I_ do, or what I would want to do. I'm
talking about obligation. One isn't obligated to BS. If you are
breaking up with someone and that person has made you too uncomfortable
to say why, you are perfectly justified in not saying why.

And I think that is better than BS.

[Robert A. Fink, M. D.]

Post by Lee
Women are relentless in the US with their constant requests for
communication, emotional openness and empathy.
When a man even suggests that a woman be held to this standard, which
my exe did not uphold, your reply is the type of opinion that first
pops up.

Typical of the double standard which is very much in vogue today.

Best,

Bob

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by Lee

Post by Crash Street Kidd

Post by Jaycee
Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
1999 153,298 36,025 215,510 71.13%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%
Avgs:158,785 37,742 212,532 74.71%
Data Format © ­® 2005 leraconteur

You don't even understand why you are
incorrect in your assertion that the
average divorce rate is 75%.

Point out the exact nature of the incorrect assertion you believe to be
claimed.
There are several constraints on my data and conclusions.
1) Enough years of collection to extrapolate the trend to all marriages
in California.
2) The fact that no government entity in the US collects data on the
'Divorce Rate''; the best we can do is calculate the number of divorces
per the number of marriages.
It is very unlikely that data collection will ever be performed to make
a valid conclusion that 'the real Divorce Rate is X%' as it is in the
interest of the government to promote marriage.
My table shows the total number of divorces from 1996 - 2003, and the
total number of marriages from 1996 - 2003. This is a substantial
recent sample, and if one were to get married today and your wife were
to file within 10 years, and the average marriage lasts less than 10
years nowadays, one could safely and accurately conclude that the
chance of you getting divorced in the state of California within 10
years was 74.7%.
The numbers for 2004 look to be more of the same. As of Oct 2004,
there were 145,360 marriages in California. November and December have
each averaged 10,000 per year for the past 5 years. This would result
in an estimated 2004 total of 165,000 marriages. With the last 8 years
averaging 158,785 divorces in California, the rate of Div/Mar. may well
be 97.2%.

Don't even bother debating divorce rates in soc.singles. The level of
denial about this is so thick here you'll eventually asphyxiate.

I'm kind of shocked that Crash, who is almost ALWAYS spot on about things,
is buying into this denial.


-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html