# Marriage statistics are misleading!



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Many people are quick to throw out statistics of how over 50% of marriages fail BUT don't realize that higher is the number of "Married but miserable" marriages. In my opinion "married but miserable" marriages are really not a marriage. Why isn't this studied by the so called "Experts"? 
This makes me question the very notion of "experts"


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, they are technically still a "marriage" because of the legal tie-which is what a marriage is at its bases level-a contract that you sign. 

So happy or miserable, if there hasn't been a dissolution of that contract/the signed legal document, then it's still a valid marriage.

Whether it's good or not is another issue entirely...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I read on marriage builders that there are only about 20% of marriages that are happy so he must have done some research there. I agree that it's important. Simply still being married isn't a measure of success.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

aston said:


> Many people are quick to throw out statistics of how over 50% of marriages fail BUT don't realize that higher is the number of "Married but miserable" marriages. In my opinion "married but miserable" marriages are really not a marriage. Why isn't this studied by the so called "Experts"?
> This makes me question the very notion of "experts"


Because married/divorced are binary choices that are easy to quantify with a simple search of public records. 

Married and miserable is certainly studied, though. Just spend a little time with googling unhappy marriage. The so called "experts" are researching the problem, the chip on your shoulder notwithstanding.


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Well, they are technically still a "marriage" because of the legal tie-which is what a marriage is at its bases level-a contract that you sign.
> 
> So happy or miserable, if there hasn't been a dissolution of that contract/the signed legal document, then it's still a valid marriage.
> 
> Whether it's good or not is another issue entirely...


Correct, I just get a bit uncomfortable when people throw around the "over half of all marriages fail" card. I know more married but miserable people who stay for various reasons (which I call excuses...to be candid). Isn't a miserable marriage where both parties are checked-out and the only tie is financial (or other reasons not related to both spouses wanting to be together) already a failed marriage? Shouldn't that count?


----------



## John Lee (Mar 16, 2013)

But the 50% statistic is also misleading in the other direction. (1) It's one of those numbers that has just been repeated ad infinitum over the last few decades with no source whatsoever. It's not clear if it's valid or if it was ever valid. (2) It doesn't account for any variables. E.g. once you adjust for age at which the couple got married, income, education level, etc. the odds can start to look much better of your marriage surviving.


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Cletus said:


> Because married/divorced are binary choices that are easy to quantify with a simple search of public records.
> 
> Married and miserable is certainly studied, though. Just spend a little time with googling unhappy marriage. The so called "experts" are researching the problem, the chip on your shoulder notwithstanding.


chip? why the personal attack? Your contribution is welcome but the personal attack is not.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

I think if you factored in folks who are staying together for financial or family reasons the divorce rate would be closer to 75%. I honestly think marriage is not for everybody. 

I don't agree with Pat Robertson on most issues but I honestly think his comment to "Ana" was spot on. 

Pat Robertson Tells Divorcee She's Just Not Marriage Material - YouTube

Pay no attention to the commentators, listen to Pat. 

I think only a small percentage of humankind is marriage material.


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

John Lee said:


> But the 50% statistic is also misleading in the other direction. (1) It's one of those numbers that has just been repeated ad infinitum over the last few decades with no source whatsoever. It's not clear if it's valid or if it was ever valid. (2) It doesn't account for any variables. E.g. once you adjust for age at which the couple got married, income, education level, etc. the odds can start to look much better of your marriage surviving.


AMEN:lol:


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Sanity said:


> I think if you factored in folks who are staying together for financial or family reasons the divorce rate would be closer to 75%. I honestly think marriage is not for everybody.
> 
> I don't agree with Pat Robertson on most issues but I honestly think his comment to "Ana" was spot on.
> 
> ...


The stench of truth is often unbearable! :iagree:


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

aston said:


> Correct, I just get a but uncomfortable when people throw around the "over half of all marriages fail" card. I know more married but miserable people who stay for various reasons (which I call excuses...to be candid). Isn't a miserable marriage where both parties are checked-out and the only tie is financial (or other reasons not related to both spouses wanting to be together) already a failed marriage? Shouldn't that count?


Yes, but how to count? The divorce statistics thrown around can be wrong or misleading. It's more like 30-40% that end in divorce. You are right that far more are unhappy to miserable and have "failed" in that sense, but not to the extent of becoming part of the divorce statistics.

I have seen some of the long-term studies of marriages that last 20+ years, and no more than 20% of those are truly happy where the couple is happy with each other. Given that many marriages end in divorce well before 20 years, and the overall percentage of really good marriages could be about 10%. Of course, those shorter failed marriages could have been very good for some or most of the time they lasted, but that's not the goal, is it? The goal is a long-term happy relationship, and that's truly a rare and precious thing.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

I'd also point out that marriage is a measurable, quantifiable variable. You either have a marriage certificate or a divorce degree. Check Yes or No. "Miserable" is much more qualitative and variable from day to day. I know even during the good parts of my marriage, there were days I wanted to just throttle him. If you surveyed me on that day, versus a regular random day, you'd have a very different data point in the study.

Could a study be devised to measure misery in marriage? Sure. And they have been. But those kinds of studies won't ever result in the same kind of pithy headline.


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

Sanity said:


> I don't agree with Pat Robertson on most issues but I honestly think his comment to "Ana" was spot on.
> 
> Pat Robertson Tells Divorcee She's Just Not Marriage Material - YouTube.


Pat aside, one of the commentators came out with a nice catchphrase, to explain why people make the same poor choices in picking partners:

"If you don't make the darkness inside of you conscious, it appears externally as fate"

He says it's Jung.

Worth watching !


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

aston said:


> chip? why the personal attack? Your contribution is welcome but the personal attack is not.


You said the 'so called "experts"'.

If that doesn't imply that you don't respect their studies, qualifications, findings, or methods, then I misread it. That was an implicit attack, and certainly made me think you have an unstated issue with them.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

Sandfly said:


> Pat aside, one of the commentators came out with a nice catchphrase, to explain why people make the same poor choices in picking partners:
> 
> "If you don't make the darkness inside of you conscious, it appears externally as fate"
> 
> ...


I agree but there are some folks out there that will for years put on an Oscar worthy performance and pounce once they get their fangs in and/or they get bored. 

Having said this I think that if people (myself included) researched our potential partners as much as we research buying a car, there would be many NPD's and BPD's single and not bothering people.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> Yes, but how to count? The divorce statistics thrown around can be wrong or misleading. It's more like 30-40% that end in divorce. You are right that far more are unhappy to miserable and have "failed" in that sense, but not to the extent of becoming part of the divorce statistics.
> 
> I have seen some of the long-term studies of marriages that last 20+ years, and no more than 20% of those are truly happy where the couple is happy with each other. Given that many marriages end in divorce well before 20 years, and the overall percentage of really good marriages could be about 10%. Of course, those shorter failed marriages could have been very good for some or most of the time they lasted, but that's not the goal, is it? The goal is a long-term happy relationship, and that's truly a rare and precious thing.


Great point hence why I believe if those in unhappy/miserable marriages were allowed to just walk away with no drama the divorce rate would be north of 75% overnight.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Sandfly said:


> Pat aside, one of the commentators came out with a nice catchphrase, to explain why people make the same poor choices in picking partners:
> 
> "If you don't make the darkness inside of you conscious, it appears externally as fate"
> 
> ...


Well, that is profound.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

COGypsy said:


> I'd also point out that marriage is a measurable, quantifiable variable. *You either have a marriage certificate or a divorce degree.*


Call me Dr. Jelly!


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

Sanity said:


> Having said this I think that if people (myself included) researched our potential partners as much as we research buying a car, there would be many NPD's and BPD's single and not bothering people.


Correct... but that's not how attraction works, as you know.

The car-purchase model... logic! 

I suggest the chocolate purchase model for relationships:

Chocolate is bad. It makes you fat. But it feels so good when you break into that first piece! You can drink it, slurp! You can crunch it, mmm dark chocolate, so crispy. You can nibble it. You melt it and dip fruit in it. It's that velvety feeling on the middle of your tongue and the roof of your mouth, and the way your muscles just relax. It goes great with a nice hot cup of tea, and feet up... or with a glass of red wine. All this thinking about chocolate is making me want chocolate. 

Want some chocolate? Let's get some chocolate.

That torrent of babble is an actual representation of how your sub-conscious convinces you to do things you know you shouldn't. Sometimes you can hear your subconscious clearly when you are between waking and sleep...


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> Yes, but how to count? The divorce statistics thrown around can be wrong or misleading. It's more like 30-40% that end in divorce. You are right that far more are unhappy to miserable and have "failed" in that sense, but not to the extent of becoming part of the divorce statistics.
> 
> I have seen some of the long-term studies of marriages that last 20+ years, and no more than 20% of those are truly happy where the couple is happy with each other. Given that many marriages end in divorce well before 20 years, and the overall percentage of really good marriages could be about 10%. Of course, those shorter failed marriages could have been very good for some or most of the time they lasted, but that's not the goal, is it? The goal is a long-term happy relationship, and that's truly a rare and precious thing.



I'm with you! Maybe there should a Quinnipiac poll of some sort where the participants are married but results are anonymous....just throwing some ideas around. But your analysis is spot-on.


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Sanity said:


> I agree but there are some folks out there that will for years put on an Oscar worthy performance and pounce once they get their fangs in and/or they get bored.
> 
> Having said this I think that if people (myself included) researched our potential partners as much as we research buying a car, there would be many NPD's and BPD's single and not bothering people.


I wish there was a "Carfax / MarriageFax / Marriage Blue book" of some sort to research partners before marriage lol.
Perhaps a DNA analysis bank that tells you prone behaviors (temperament, substance abuse, libido etc)....ok I'm being silly but you get the point.:smthumbup:


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Sanity said:


> Great point hence why I believe if those in unhappy/miserable marriages were allowed to just walk away with no drama the divorce rate would be north of 75% overnight.


Overnight? More like within the hour :lol:. I've hears reasons from financial, health, kids, just plain being sorry for the abusive spouse, fear of change, friends, family inlaws, image (yes Image was one), fear of having their sexual proclivities played out in a court room / public....I've heard some really silly reasons people "stayed", one even went as far as to say she knows he's gonna get collared for insider trading and go to jail so she's just bidding her time. It's laughable at times....and yes he did get collared and went in 4 yrs. She cleaned out and moved west.


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Call me Dr. Jelly!


Nope Mrs. Bean


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

That's Ms. Bean to you.



I haven't been a Mrs. for awhile now.


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Sandfly said:


> Correct... but that's not how attraction works, as you know.
> 
> The car-purchase model... logic!
> 
> ...


But if you have a condition that requires the avoidance of any substance with caffeine in it e.g. manieres which sends you into seizures upon contact with caffeine (which includes chocolate) then that defeats the purpose .


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

aston said:


> But if you have a condition that requires the avoidance of any substance with caffeine in it e.g. manieres which sends you into seizures upon contact with caffeine (which includes chocolate) then that defeats the purpose .


I couldn't live without cups of tea  

I lose my balance quite often. I end up horizontal for hours at a time and I lose consciousness !


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Sandfly said:


> I couldn't live without cups of tea
> 
> I lose my balance quite often. I end up horizontal for hours at a time and I lose consciousness !


I have manieres.....no coffee, tea (except the herbal caffeine free ones), chocolates (I know terrible right)?, among many other things....I can't remotely come near anything with caffeine in it. 
Lose balance, nausea, wooziness, seizure....sends the central nervous system into over drive. For a 34 yr old guy it's not cool at all! Worst is when flying and the smell of coffee mid flight! or wandering around Europe and not being able to have some of those delicious cakes that's god chocolates etc on them...or M&M's / twix etc in the car etc....


----------



## aston (Oct 24, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> That's Ms. Bean to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been a Mrs. for awhile now.


OK I'll wait till you buy a mini cooper, flannel coat, and a turkey over your head  hehehe:rofl:


----------

