I've noticed a few comments about how divorcees may be the best choices for us when looking for a new relationship, as they have had the experience of marriage and should be better at it the second time around...

I'd like to take a moment to point out that the statistics of remarriage do not bear this out at all.

Some stats:
90% of Americans marry, in spite of the fact that about 50% of marriages fail. Of the 50% who divorce, about 70% remarry at some point. And 60% of those marriages fail.

Here is a very interesting article about remarriage:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/remarrying.html

Statistics have to make sense, or they are of little value, we all know that of course...the problem with those statistics is they don't differentiate between those who "learn" and those who don't.

The statistics also include all the serial cheaters, narcissists, sociopaths, BPD, bi-polar, addicts of all stripes...and much more...unfortuneately one needs not pass any kind of functionality/competentcy test to marry, so many of these people marry repeatedly (as they are left by the unfortunates who married them, but wised up finally). If you control the statistics by following those who learned the lessons of a failed marriage, corrected their own shortcomings, learned solid relationship skills, and then chose well (meaning avoided all the above, as well as needy, conflict avoiders, etc. ....I suspect the success rate approaches 90%. The key to not being one of the sad statistics, is to get smarter. It makes much more sense that people capable of wiseing up, are much better equipped for a 2nd marriage...and in fact...they are. I'd bet the best marriages over all are found amongst 2nd marriages where two motivated people found each other, and did it right.

Well, considering that the dysfunctional do not wear signs, I'd say that the statistics make perfect sense.

You can't just choose which people you want to look at when you do a population study... all the dysfunctional people are still part of the population.

Knight, you tend to cite a lot of information as fact - are you trained in psychology or research? Just curious.

T

quite well trained, you could also say the average life span is statistically 75 (I am not sure, is not important to my point), and therefore plan to die at 75. However, if you only follow those who practice better life skills (don't drink, don't smoke, learn to deal with stress, eat according to healthy nurtrition principles, practive preventitive medicine, exercise properly), then you will find their average lifespan is higher than the population in general.

People don't need to wear signs, dydfunctional people are fairly easy to recognize....IF, IF you make the effort to learn how, is an accessible skill. But there is more, and that means working on yourself, and recognizing that trait in another (they are successfully working on themself)...there will still be failures, but the odds are greatly increased...simple logic says people who improve their perception skills, and their relationship skills will be more successful in marrying...you don't agree that makes sense?

And yes, you certainly can choose what subset of a populations study you want to look at, thousands of such studies are done every year....such studies have to pass muster by their peers as to validity of results, and methodology obtaining the data...but studying the average death rate, or divorce rate of a population is absolutely useless information for the individual making choices....is only of some value for large societal policy making...usually by governments. For example, this statistic suggests we are doing a poor job of seeing to the education of the population in regard to mate selection, and from that observation come up with means to mitigate this. If we do so successfully, the statistics will change.

Tell me terri, aside from curiosity (I too find the statistic curious), of what value is the statistic to you except to motivate you to take specific actions that increase your likelihood of success...and therefore increase the likelihood you will fare better than the statistic...and don't forget, the statistic also says 40% of 2nd marriages work....that's a lot of success...isn't it?

My point in posting these is to make others think and step carefully instead of just assuming that a divorcee will automatically be better equipped to handle a second marriage. That's all.

My next question to you is this: What is your story, Knight? I note that you are a recent addition to MB, at least with this username, and you have not really mentioned anything about your "back story" ... most of the people that I've seen posting here have readily accessible posting histories that we can look at, or have summarized their stories here, yet we really don't know much about you. I know that I, for one, would be much more apt to accept your contributions at face value if I knew more about what your reasons are for being here.

T

terri...My point in posting these is to make others think and step carefully instead of just assuming that a divorcee will automatically be better equipped to handle a second marriage. That's all.

knight...I agree. My thought was (and based on experience dating 50 year never msrrieds.. all who had significant problems related to being unmarried that long), at least one has common ground with someone who has been married. One cannot possibly understand the nature and conflict of marriage without experienceing it directly. So as a "filter" is a good one initially, vs confining yourself to someone never married (not to mention that category is very small for middleaged daters. However, assuming someone who has been through a divorce has learned and grown, would be a huge mistake. One of the things I assess early on in dating someone, is what kind of marriage (and other significant relationships) one has had, how/why they ended, and have they learned the appropriate lessons (or are still just acting the same way).

re your question. I am a 53yo male, married once, divorced long ago. I am interested in dating and healthy relationships, a search gives many sites, many very sexually oriented, this one seemed more interesting (although there certainly seems to be a lot of support for promiscuity), and I find the marital theories useful. Not sure what you mean by backstory, and how would someone new know anything about the other posters? I can see from the dates by the names some people have been registered a very long time, surprising actually, but I notice also something like 30,000 members, surely most do not know each other? As for contributions, no offense terri, but I learned long ago can't please everyone. I am not running for public office,and don't really much worry about who agrees with mr or not...those who can listen, will...and those who cannot won't...and those who are nore concerned about arguing with someone over how they talk, then the content have bigger problems than I care to deal with. The point is (and tell me if you agree terri). Who suffers more, the person who ignores good advice just cause they don't like/approve/whatever the speaker...or the speaker?

You say you would be much more "apt" to consider info if you "approved" (I assume that is the point) of the speaker...why? You are free to ignore anything anyone says, maybe that's good or maybe thats bad (depending on the advice), either way, you will not escape the consequences of your choice, right? So what difference does it make whether you approve of how the information was communicated? No offense terri, I am just curious about people who do that. Seems like not a good life strategy.

Please read more carefully, and try not to put words in my mouth. I said:

I certainly do not need to "approve" of anyone - that is not what I said, nor is it what I meant. I meant pretty much exactly what I stated: that I might be more apt to accept that you are posting here as a divorcee who wants to discuss dating if I had some idea of what your story was. When we (forum members) are curious about what might be driving another member's behavior, we will look for a little biographical info in the signature or the bio, and we will generally use the search feature to find that person's previous posting history to get a "feel" for what the person's history is. New forum members have the same options to see what the histories are of those around them, and it's normally what I'd advocate if someone asked me how they could get to know more about the people with whom they are engaging in discussion. When most people enter a culture or community that is new to them, they generally try to find out more about that culture or community before they attempt to change it... and that would be the expectation of the members of said culture or community.

We've had our fair share of "trolls," those who think it's an amusing little jaunt to come here and stir things up, as well as pretty much bona fide nut cases, and a few researchers who thought that it was ok to do their research on us by participating as if they were members. Many of us posted previously in different but specific areas of the forums here at Marriage Builders - and we have gotten to know one another, actually. Of the 30,000 registered members, I'd be willing to bet that less than half of them ever post. Of the rest, some of them posted once or twice and never returned, some of them left the forums because their reasons for being here no longer existed, some are really the same person posting as two or three (or more), and I'm sure that a few have been banned for inappropriate behavior on the forums. I'm thinking that the actual active membership is significantly less than 30,000 ... and, as I said before, many of us know each other. Because of that, we understand a little more about each others' backgrounds and where we each are coming from. And we watch out for one another when we can. This is a little "anonymous" community.

Therefore, when someone simply appears and starts posting as an expert, as you have been doing, we like to know more about them.

As for support of promiscuity - I wouldn't say there is a "a lot" of it at all. I'm actually surprised by the number of people who believe in abstinence. It's not common among people in my age group and location. And please tell me what "promiscuous" means to you... At dictionary.com (powered by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), the definition is: 1) Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. 2) Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate. 3) Casual; random.

I don't see "a lot" of support for behavior that is described by any of the above definitions here.

You've been very patronizing of me here and on another thread, and I think of many others here - perhaps, to give you the benefit of the doubt, you don't realize that is how you come across. The thing that I take issue with is the way you present your opinion as inarguable fact - there is nothing in relationships or psychology or life that is absolute, regardless of how highly trained you may be. There are a billion shades of gray - not just black and white. And a whole lot of other colors, as well. Your assumption has been that if we disagree with you, we are somehow damaged, broken, dysfunctional or just plain wrong. In the subjective world that is relationships, not everyone is wrong simply because they approach things differently than you believe is the best way. And while it's certainly true that you can't please everyone, sometimes it is a good idea to take a minute and look at why some others are unhappy with you - there might just be something YOU can learn from that experience.

Your assumption appears to be that everything you say constitutes "good advice" ("The point is (and tell me if you agree terri). Who suffers more, the person who ignores good advice just cause they don't like/approve/whatever the speaker...or the speaker?")- but not everyone agrees. If I ignore you, you are certainly entitled to think that I am ignoring good advice, but I may be ignoring you because I don't think you've given me good advice. And I might be right - for ME.

T

terri, all I can say is WOW, you must have a lot of time on your hands, your response was curious (in an obsessive sort of way), only thing I can address (and didn't you say something about putting words in someones mouth?) is I have not claimed any professional credentials...and in fact, mostly have quoted dr harley's (or others who I have noted) research...or my own opinions which are just as valid as your "expert" opinions. YOU purposefully asked if I had any training (or some such, can't remember your exact words), I did you the courtesy of a reply, as well as what I said in last post to your question. I really don't know what else to say to you. Perhaps you could focus more on discussing the issues we face in dating after divorce.

Now tell me THAT reply is not condescending and patronizing...

I respond to your inaccurate quotations and tell you what my thoughts are - and you judge that I have "time on my hands" and call me obsessive?

I never said you had claimed professional credentials - I pointed out that you present your opinions as fact. I have also never claimed any "expertise" nor denied you the right to your opinions - I've just objected to way you address people when they disagree.

I've been discussing the issues facing us regarding dating after divorce. And you have confronted me, refuted what I say based on no FACTS - just your opinion, and patronized me at several different junctures here. THIS discussion started because you simply could not accept at face value the statistics I posted here.

People have time and again noted that they wish people they meet could be honest with them - I've seen this again and again here. I'm being honest with you, in the hopes that you might actually take another look at some of the things you've said to me and to others and the way in which you've presented those things. You've completely overlooked all of the INFORMATION I posted in favor of making judgments.

I wish you luck in your endeavor to find the perfect woman - I fear that there isn't likely to be one perfect enough, however.

T

btw promiscuous (in my usage) is any pre-marital intercourse, regardless of frequency...but I am open to a better descriptive word. also, think you said something about patronizing, that's your personal opinion, and welcome to it...but I assume you, as do most people communicate as you see fit, and let the chips fall where they will...so do I. It is not necessary you like me, or anyone like anyone for the purpose of discussing stuff. I don't really worry much about how I am percieved, and I am not sure why you are either. I wonder though, would you change your style if I commented unfavorably on it? Maybe I choose to be speak as I do for a reason terri, but I will assume your observation was well-intended, just be assured I am aware of how I talk.

ok agreed terri, we would not date each other, different personalities...funny though, we both have (based on your commnents) lots of opposite gender friends, and no problems dating.....wonder how that could be?

We could do this tit for tat indefinitely, you are plenty patronizing yourself, as well as using innuendo and other manipulative verbiage. I did not ask you to analyze me, you assumed it was ok, it was not. But feel free to differ with me and say so on anything I post...but I am not really all that worried about whether you like me or not. I used to worry about such things, and be whatever someone thought I should, didn't work well....life has been much better since I started being me.

btw again, re facts...anyone is free to label something as a fact if it is their understanding it is so...right? If they are mistaken others are free to refute it. I do say when something is an opinion, or even just a theory, but I am very sure of many things, and so I indicate that appropriately.

I know my style tends to the pedantic, and this has occasionally caused me to wonder if I come across as arrogant. So...

Somebody please tell me if I ever come across as "condescending and patronizing" as knight50. And seriously, Sir 50, terri's assessment is quite correct: you have been at least as guilty of distorting others' words as anyone you have accused of doing the same here. Furthermore, your ad hominems reflect back more on you than on anyone you direct them toward. I confess that I am almost embarrassed when I agree with you, because I don't want the image you are creating for yourself to become associated with me.

I submit that most people who actually want to communicate attempt to do so in a way which will not close the ear of the hearer. Deliberate abrasiveness results in your "communication" being just posturing or noise, because it is a rare person who can see past that to any message that might be hidden behind the attitude.

There is a huge difference between basing one's identity on how one is perceived, and taking reasonable measures to earn the respect of others - in part by showing respect for others.

thx for your comments gnome, I am ok with how I talk...and have not distorted anyones anything, I respond to what I think they said, they are free to correct me if I misunderstood (as do I)...and you sir, are now guilty of assgning a motive to me, that I distort (which usually means on purpose), how do you know that? So there we go, worried about how people talk instead of what they say. I don't know what an ad hominen is (probably not good, judgeing by context), but whatever reflection it is, so what? I don't know anyone on-line (usually), will never see or interact with them in any way, so why be concerned about how a given person percieves me? Better to just be yourself, and have your say. I find lots of people prefer direct talk, I sure do, I prefer people be passionate about what they believe, and be able to articulate it...rather than spend alot of time complaining about the delivery. And I would disagree, I have shown nothing but respect for everyone I have talked too... and the few who have chosen to take me personally to task, I have responded to in kind.

There is a difference between respecting a person, and respecting an opinion. There is no need to respect an opinion, and those who take offense at having their opinion disagreed with have a personal issue. I have little patience for such. Maybe that is a character defect of mine, who knows, but I am ok with it. I can't help it if someone feels bad if I disagree strongly with their opinion, nor am I responsible for others feelings, we all have to own our own, no one can make us feel anything. If somone feels patronized by something I say, I can assure you someone else will not, will be energized and enjoy the exchange....you seem like a smart guy gnome, what should one do about that? I woild suggest nothing, just be civil, that's about it....and far as I can see, everyone here (including me) has been civil..who cares whether someone is partronizing or not? I find it sad you have asked a board of people to tell you how you talk. You do have your own style, and I find some of it annoying, but I would never suggest you change it, then wouldn't be you...right?

I prefer to see people as they are, not behind a facade. What I find interesting is my approach tends to bring people out fromn behind their facade, and you get a real look at them, as I have with terri. She has been aggressive and overbearing (IMO), as well as taken liberties in assuming she can take me to task for being me...her, a total stranger, presumes that degree of right...I suspect she is like this in real life too, when she is annoyed, and someone rejects her chastisement. You on the other hand have posted a somewhat needy, peacemaking post (IMO), I suspect you act like that in real life too. Anyways while this is all very interesting, I am more interested in dating, I have learned much since my divorce, I was very ignorant of such matters, maybe we can get back to that? And value the fact we are not all the same?

I'm curious. You said that you're "more interested in dating, I have learned much since my divorce..." and talked about getting back to that.

Are you wanting to share the benefit of what you've learned about dating with others on this site, and/or are you wanting to learn more about what others on this site are learning and experiencing about dating after divorce?

both

Knight,

Not one person here has disrespected your opinion, or your viewpoints on dating and relationships.

I can respect that you have made certain decisions and will stick with them, it is honorable and decent.

The point that is being made by others and myself is that you have taken it upon yourself to degrade, belittle, disrespect, condescend, assume, pass judgement, pursue ad hominem attacks, use homilies as fact to discount anyone that doesn't agree with you.

I welcome differing opinions, different perspectives, ideas that make me think of alternatives. It is exhilerating and exciting to discover a new way of thinking, a new way of perceiving the world around me.

What is not interesting to most folks is being called a scumbag and moronic for not agreeing. When somebody takes it upon themselves to pass extremely disrespectful judgements on others without taking equal time to consider THEIR point of view. Nobody is asking you to accept it, just respect it.

Believe it or not Knight, most of us in this forum have been through the wars and have the t-shirt to prove it. We are BS's and WS's that did everything in our power to restore our marriages. We've lived through the darkest days and come out stronger for it.

We've bent over backwards, fought the good fight, explored our own identity, struggled with our truths and put all the pieces of our scattered puzzles together in a way we can live with, in a way that is acceptable to us.

You have found a path you are comfortable with, I respect that and admire those that can stick with their principles. It is comforting when folks are willing to stick with their principles, you know what to expect, you know how they will react, you know their bounderies.

What the problem here is that you have decided that all in disagreement with you are worm food, repugnant, lacking in basic decency and morality when the truth is we are allowed a differing opinion on what is right for ourselves, what we are comfortable with, and as adults what we are allowed to pursue.

I think you would find that you and I have much in common with how we conduct ourselves. I think you would find that you have much in common (other than DNA) with others on this board. The thing is we will never find that common ground for discussion while you stand on Mt. Olympus tossing lightening bolts on our heads.

I only want to mention one thing about your disgust with pre-marital sex because that seems to be your high water mark on whether we are worm food or worthy.

Not one person on this board has said that pre-marital sex was the way to go. No one has said, not one person, that you were an idiot for not test driving a potential mate. Nobody here is touting SF as the way to know whether or not you are compatible, and no one person here is discussing how it is better to sleep with as many partners as you can.

It is just the opposite. Most here are worried about making mistakes (myself included). Most of us here are extremely concerned about making the good and proper choices. THis is a good and decent group of people that I have grown to love and admire over the last 18 months and I would be proud to call anyone of them "friend". I am a BS but I include WS's here because they were big enough and good enough to see that they were better than a "label".

So nobody is stifling your opinion, many here agree with your basic premise. Heck I agree with many of the things you believe in and post here but no one will care as long as you present yourself the way you are now.

I welcome you to post as you please, but just know that how you are presenting yourself and the manner in which you post is not acceptable in an adult conversation.

I want you to understand that it isn't your opinion that has people flumoxed, it is the lecturing as if we were 2nd grade pupils that is frustrating and disrespectful.

Good Luck either way Knight....

RebornMan

Knight50, this is exactly the kind of distortion I was thinking of when I wrote my post. I am not aware that "distort" implies deliberate intent, and I certainly didn't mean to imply deliberate intent, but because to you - at least in the context you read it - the word suggested intent, you have not only misunderstood my meaning, you have jumped to an accusation: you claim that I assigned a dishonest motive to you.

If I understand you correctly, you don't think I have sufficient grounds to draw such a conclusion. Well, I would agree with you there, and yet you have repeatedly used what appear to me to be straightforward attempts at communication as a basis for psychoanalyzing people. You did it with terri, and you did it again with me right here in the same post where you took me to task for doing that very thing! You said that I "posted a somewhat needy, peacemaking post" and then suggested that I "act like that in real life too." That's quite a leap to make, I'd say.

By the way, an "ad hominem" argument is one which is "marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" (to pick one of the definitions from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). When you say something like "WOW, you must have a lot of time on your hands, your response was curious (in an obsessive sort of way)" you are doing nothing to further the debate on its own merits. And since, ironically, your own responses have been rather numerous and lengthy, this approach is making you look more foolish than your targets.

You say you prefer direct talk, but when you were given what to me seemed exactly that, you interpreted it as "aggressive and overbearing." While admittedly this lends support for your own argument that what one person finds patronizing another will not, your inability to see what you are doing is going to have an inevitable negative effect on how seriously people will take your arguments (and I submit that if you really don't care about that, you wouldn't bother making them in the first place). Some of that may come from an irrational (though not surprising) ad hominem-type emotional response. But there is also the consideration that any position which discounts the role of emotional intelligence is suspect in the world of relationships.

You have made a number of comments revealing your impression that what you infer from people's online presence reflects their character "in real life" also. Leaving aside your peculiar attitude that the reason you aren't concerned about how people here perceive you is that you "will never see or interact with them in any way" - when here you are interacting with us! - people here are going to make the same sort of assumption: that your emotional intelligence "in real life" is not appreciably different than it is here.

A theory of relationships is all well and good, but its value lies in how well it works in application. Emotional intelligence is necessary to make accurate evaluations of such application.

We all filter our perceptions according to our personality and beliefs and backgrounds, and it is often valuable to understand something of the filter applied by other posters. This is why terri brought up the matter of researching the history of other posters. In matters of relationships, experience is both a valuable source of insight and a potent source of distortion. For example, when someone new comes along with a story of a spouse who has left or has withdrawn, he or she often claims to be sure that "there's no one else" - no infidelity. A lot of people here were once in the exact same position, with the exact same confidence, only to find out as time went on that, actually, there was someone else. These people are often quick to urge the newcomer to explore that possibility more carefully. And why not? According to their experiences it is a very sensible thing to do. And yet, it is also possible that something else is going on, and that infidelity is not involved. Each of us zeroes in on the details of the story which most resonates with ourselves, and it is only reasonable for the newcomer to consider why those points of resonance might exist.

One last thing. You said that you find it sad that I have asked people to tell me how to talk. This is baffling to me, because it seems to me that like so many other skills in life, learning to communicate better requires the feedback of other people. How on earth can it be "sad" to avail oneself of such assistance? Usually I am grateful for opportunities to learn, and I am sad when I can find no teacher.

Knight50, I suspect that you have some helpful insights to impart. I hope that you will learn how to impart them successfully.

There is a great deal of truth in the statement that "it's not what you say, but how you say it" that's important. (Actually, they are both important.)

Gnome,

Pedantic, yes. Wordy to extreme, sometimes. Over-cautious, too careful, often...

Condescending or patronizing - NEVER.

I enjoy reading your posts - they are well written, grammatically perfect and informative. Keep on, man!

T

terri:

Knight's responses, extensive use of ellipses, and ability to give me a headache when reading his posts remind me of a troll who's been here before---but my brain has put his former alias in the dustbin. You may remember the guy; his wife was here too and he was having an affair.

Now---it might not be the same person, but I think it wouldn't hurt for the admins to check IP addresses and find out.

I can see I was wasting my time over in Emotional Needs. This is a much more vibrant forum, particularily with Knight50 posting. Especially when he makes personal remarks about others but complains that others are getting personal to him and should stick to issues!!

To others who have very eloquently debated him, good job but not sure worth the effort. It falls on deaf ears, I'm afraid.