Lying with statistics

[NoIDidn't]

I love these wild claims by skin cream and cosmetic manufacturers... they make claims, then the small print at the base of the screen reads something like -

 

(78% of 50 women agreed....)

 

That's 39.

 

What about the other 21.....?

 

LOL. And here I thought that 50 - 39 was 11.

[Fieldsofgold]

If we put statistics apart, there are so many barriers/factors that explain why only a few APs/MAPs end up in a long-lasting relationship :

 

Single AP :

 

- Thrown under the bus, thus pain and resentment.

- No more trusting MM/MW thus no more wanting a R with them.

 

Married AP :

 

- No motivation to leave the M

- The guilt of leaving spouses and family overweights the love for OP.

- Wanting to give the kids a 2 parents family

- Preserving Lifestyle, standard of living.

- And if divorce, long process, indecisiveness and guilt.

 

Experience has shown that even those MAP who move out and go to live with their OP, are full of guilt, inconsistent feelings, go back and forth between BS and OP which makes life a hell to both. Some WS end up blaming the fOP for wrecking their marriage.

 

It is much more possible in reality that both MAP and OP end up finding someone else rather than settle together. Because it is easier to start a scratch new relationship that one with emotional baggage.

 

I have thought a lot about MW which I loved and I still miss. We hadn't a clear closure. She made me believe that if we weren't together it was my fault (distance) and that because her H is a good father.

She may as well end up divorced in 1 year or 2 and come to contact me but 1/ I don't know if I want her back, 2/ and I may be with someone else.

 

So that's why it is not impossible but it is very difficult that APs end up together. Statistics are not crazy

 

Excellent post, East7!!!

[OWoman]

Experience has shown that even those MAP who move out and go to live with their OP, are full of guilt, inconsistent feelings, go back and forth between BS and OP which makes life a hell to both. Some WS end up blaming the fOP for wrecking their marriage.

 

I think this should read:

Experience has shown that even some of those MAP who move out and go to live with their OP, are full of guilt, inconsistent feelings, go back and forth between BS and OP which makes life a hell to both.

 

as it clearly isn't valid in 100% of cases. Did my H feel guilt about "breaking up the family"? A little, initially, until he saw how happy the kids were with us. Were his feelings "inconsistent"? No. His IC helped clarify all that before the split. Did he go back and forth between xW and me? Not at all.

 

I'm sure that many, even most, MAPs experience conflict over leaving the M to be with their AP, but not all oscillate between the two to the extent you describe. If they're that conflicted, it suggests they're not really ready to leave, and could benefit from some good IC to help them find their way, one way or another.

 

It is much more possible in reality that both MAP and OP end up finding someone else rather than settle together. Because it is easier to start a scratch new relationship that one with emotional baggage.

 

Perhaps if you're not really that much in love with your AP. Perhaps if your A is an exit A. Or perhaps if you yourself are so anti-A that your disgust rubs off on how you view your AP... I'm sure there are scenarios where this is possible. But it is certainly not the rule.

 

If you fall in love with someone - proper love, not just enjoying how they make you feel - then that is the person you want to be with. Not someone else who comes along with fewer "bad associations" or someone your family might be more approving of. If you can transfer your "love" and emotional commitment and loyalty that easily from one to another, then it wasn't proper love.

[Fieldsofgold]

Please tell me you didn't just put homosexuality and childabuse in the same category????

 

Uh, yeah. Some amazing categorizing goes on around here. On another thread I saw people who don't condone divorce called religious nutters and put in the same category as Charles Manson and Son of Sam.

 

Religious nutters and murderers. Homosexuals and child molesters. Who's next?

 

But hey, the rest of us here - us "normal" ones - we demand respect, tolerance and support!

 

I know, I know, thread jack. Back to topic.

[OWoman]

Uh, yeah. Some amazing categorizing goes on around here. On another thread I saw people who don't condone divorce called religious nutters and put in the same category as Charles Manson and Son of Sam.

 

:lmao: :lmao: That has got to be one of the most extreme misreadings of a post ever, whether intentional or ignorant....! :lmao:

[Fieldsofgold]

:lmao: :lmao: That has got to be one of the most extreme misreadings of a post ever, whether intentional or ignorant....! :lmao:

 

What about the homosexuality and child abuse statement? Pretty extreme? Intentional, or ignorant?

[NoIDidn't]

:lmao: :lmao: That has got to be one of the most extreme misreadings of a post ever, whether intentional or ignorant....! :lmao:

 

Funny, I don't find this funny.

 

Not extreme in its interpretation at all. The poster (wonder who THAT was...) implied that "pro-marriage" people were that way because of their religious beliefs, hence the "religious nutters" reference. And we ALL know that Manson and Sam were "religious nutters".

 

And to think, some posters rail on others for their stereotypes (and use of statistics) all while displaying their ironic use of the same when it suits them.

[OWoman]

What about the homosexuality and child abuse statement? Pretty extreme? Intentional, or ignorant?

 

Another misreading. The poster said,

 

Homosexuality and child abuse are much more difficult to address than infidelity. That doesn't mean you give up and go home.

 

Nowhere did s/he equate the two. S/he simply cited them as two social phenomena that (s/he claimed; though I would contest that) are more difficult to identify with accuracy in statistical surveys.

 

If s/he had said, domestic violence and reading cheap romance novels, would people have equated the two (or accused her / him of having done so)? Nowhere did s/he claim they were related, the same, or anything other than two discrete categories with one thing in common - that they are difficult (more, is claimed, than infidelity) to identify in statistical survey contexts with any degree of accuracy.

 

Forgive me for paying attention to what somebody wrote. It seems to be counter to the norm, here.

[OWoman]

The poster (wonder who THAT was...) implied that "pro-marriage" people were that way because of their religious beliefs' date=' hence the "religious nutters" reference. And we ALL know that Manson and Sam were "religious nutters". [/quote']

 

Again, an attentive reading would show that that was not "implied" by the poster at all, but assumed by some readers. What the poster implied was that some people with divergent religious views used those views to support reactionary views with regard to the (legal, constitutional) choice that MPs have to D should they no longer wish to remain M. And that anyone can make any claim on the basis of their own personal "religious" views (hence the reference to Manson and Son of Sam) - just because someone claims that their god told them so, doesn't lend their claims any external validity.

 

I hope that clarifies the misunderstanding

[Fieldsofgold]

I think this should read:

 

as it clearly isn't valid in 100% of cases. Did my H feel guilt about "breaking up the family"? A little, initially, until he saw how happy the kids were with us. Were his feelings "inconsistent"? No. His IC helped clarify all that before the split. Did he go back and forth between xW and me? Not at all.

 

I'm sure that many, even most, MAPs experience conflict over leaving the M to be with their AP, but not all oscillate between the two to the extent you describe. If they're that conflicted, it suggests they're not really ready to leave, and could benefit from some good IC to help them find their way, one way or another.

 

Perhaps if you're not really that much in love with your AP. Perhaps if your A is an exit A. Or perhaps if you yourself are so anti-A that your disgust rubs off on how you view your AP... I'm sure there are scenarios where this is possible. But it is certainly not the rule.

 

If you fall in love with someone - proper love, not just enjoying how they make you feel - then that is the person you want to be with. Not someone else who comes along with fewer "bad associations" or someone your family might be more approving of. If you can transfer your "love" and emotional commitment and loyalty that easily from one to another, then it wasn't proper love.

 

Well, see, I don't think my xH would fit any of these descriptions. He divorced me to marry his OW. After 4 years of marriage to her, he tried to return to me. I declined, so he divorced his OW/W and married his then-current OW.

 

He was married to that OW for several years, and had a baby with her. (He tried to sleep with me while she was at the hospital delivering that baby. > ewwwwww I declined.) Later, he again tried to come back to me. I declined. He divorced that OW/W and married his then-current OW.

 

All told, he was married 7 times. Except for me, each time he married his then-current OW!

 

See, he didn't fit any of the descriptions mentioned. I think he was just f***ed up. I'd like to see a statistic on how many cheating spouses are like him - just f***ed up.

 

And yeah, I think the 3% figure is inaccurate, based on his track record alone. Heck, if you were HIS ow, you had 100% chance of him marrying you! Every

time! :laugh: :laugh:

[NoIDidn't]

Again, an attentive reading would show that that was not "implied" by the poster at all, but assumed by some readers. What the poster implied was that some people with divergent religious views used those views to support reactionary views with regard to the (legal, constitutional) choice that MPs have to D should they no longer wish to remain M. And that anyone can make any claim on the basis of their own personal "religious" views (hence the reference to Manson and Son of Sam) - just because someone claims that their god told them so, doesn't lend their claims any external validity.

 

I hope that clarifies the misunderstanding

 

I know what you mean, but that's not what you are saying. People are objecting to equating those two killers (who were religious nuts) to people that believe that marriage is sacred and holy. Its actually pretty insulting, and an oversimplification. Just because they were religious doesn't make all religious people equal to them.

 

They broke the law. Marriage is not against the law. Supporting marriage is not against the law. Supporting marriage is not the same as support murder. Why are you relating the two based on the tenuous link of "religion"?

 

Also, I'm sure you are using "constitutional" in terms of personal and inherent rights to individuals (adjective) and not the legal documents of states and nations. You know how Americans can get when they see that word. LOL. Its practically a religion to itself. Statistics too.

[Fieldsofgold]

I know what you mean, but that's not what you are saying. People are objecting to equating those two killers (who were religious nuts) to people that believe that marriage is sacred and holy. Its actually pretty insulting, and an oversimplification. Just because they were religious doesn't make all religious people equal to them.

 

They broke the law. Marriage is not against the law. Supporting marriage is not against the law. Supporting marriage is not the same as support murder. Why are you relating the two based on the tenuous link of "religion"?

 

Also, I'm sure you are using "constitutional" in terms of personal and inherent rights to individuals (adjective) and not the legal documents of states and nations. You know how Americans can get when they see that word. LOL. Its practically a religion to itself. Statistics too.

 

Very well said.

[East7]

I think this should read: Experience has shown that even some of those MAP who move out and go to live with their OP, are full of guilt, inconsistent feelings, go back and forth between BS and OP which makes life a hell to both.

as it clearly isn't valid in 100% of cases.

 

OWoman I agree, I should have said "many of those" instead, because I meant majority not 100%.

 

Perhaps if you're not really that much in love with your AP. Perhaps if your A is an exit A. Or perhaps if you yourself are so anti-A that your disgust rubs off on how you view your AP... I'm sure there are scenarios where this is possible. But it is certainly not the rule.

 

I don't want to be thread-jacking, but I was and still am deeply in love with my MW. It is not the A itself that disgust me (or maybe a little), it is more the fact that she chose to stay with her husband after telling me how crazy in love she was with me.

 

If you fall in love with someone - proper love, not just enjoying how they make you feel - then that is the person you want to be with. Not someone else who comes along with fewer "bad associations" or someone your family might be more approving of. If you can transfer your "love" and emotional commitment and loyalty that easily from one to another, then it wasn't proper love.

 

I totally agree !!! I have been struggling so much with my xMW who said she never loved someone like me, then my answer was why don't you do smth to be with me...? Actually between xMW and I it was more complicated than anyone else ! I live in Europe, she lives in US, we used to meet every 3-4 months and it lasted a little more than 1 year. Nevertheless I was always the one who wanted commitment and be with her, I would have left everything to be with her, she was just scared/not ready to change her life (typical).

[OWoman]

I know what you mean' date=' but [b']that's not what you are saying[/b].

 

I think I am the best judge of what I am saying. That might not be what you are hearing, but that problem may be on the receiving and not on the transmitting end.

 

Your interpretation remains your interpretation, which is not what I said.

 

Also' date=' [b']I'm sure [/b]you are using "constitutional" in terms of personal and inherent rights to individuals (adjective) and not the legal documents of states and nations.

 

And again, you might be sure, but you are wrong. I was using "consitutional" in the sense of, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I know nothing about the US constitution, if it even has one, but the stat constitutions that I do know all guarantee the right of an individual to choose whom they wish to marry, and equally the right to choose to terminate that marriage. Thus, divorce is a constitutional right - whether or not someone's personal religious persuasion feels that it ought to be.

 

You know how Americans can get when they see that word.

 

No, I don't. I'm no expert on Americana or Americans, and that's probably a good thing.

[Mimolicious]

No, I don't. I'm no expert on Americana or Americans, and that's probably a good thing

 

Probably THE most ignorant comment I have read on LS. What a shame.

[SidLyon]

Probably THE most ignorant comment I have read on LS. What a shame.

 

Err umm... I don't usually agree with OWoman on many things. I'm not American although I've been there.

 

I live in one country and was born in another on the opposite side of the world (neither are anywhere near America).

 

It's quite usual for non-Americans to not know very much about America. Just as I expect that most Americans here on LS know little of the laws and customs of my country (Australia).

 

In Australia our Constitution gives the regulation of marriage laws to the Federal authorities. Our individual State constitutions don't cover marriage at all. It is a secular thing although most religious marriages are recognised, including those from other countries (even apparently polygamous ones).

[Mimolicious]

Err umm... I don't usually agree with OWoman on many things. I'm not American although I've been there.

 

I live in one country and was born in another on the opposite side of the world (neither are anywhere near America).

 

It's quite usual for non-Americans to not know very much about America. Just as I expect that most Americans here on LS know little of the laws and customs of my country (Australia).

 

In Australia our Constitution gives the regulation of marriage laws to the Federal authorities. Our individual State constitutions don't cover marriage at all. It is a secular thing although most religious marriages are recognised, including those from other countries (even apparently polygamous ones).

 

 

I've lived in 6 different countries all very different in culture, religion, driving regulations and greeting etiquette. So?!

 

Not the first time I see this kind of comment thrown around. I honestly don't see anyone else calling nationalities out when it comes to measuring personal choices. So being of America seems to be highlighted as a 'disgrace' to some who take its constitution in consideration. Hilarious!

[NoIDidn't]

I think I am the best judge of what I am saying. That might not be what you are hearing, but that problem may be on the receiving and not on the transmitting end.

 

{snip}

 

And again, you might be sure, but you are wrong. I was using "consitutional" in the sense of, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I know nothing about the US constitution, if it even has one, but the stat constitutions that I do know all guarantee the right of an individual to choose whom they wish to marry, and equally the right to choose to terminate that marriage. Thus, divorce is a constitutional right - whether or not someone's personal religious persuasion feels that it ought to be.

 

And because you couldn't support your tenuous linkage of religion to murderers and marriage supporters, you didn't bring it up.

 

Why am I not surprised? (Rhetorical question here, lol)

 

There is no constitutional right to divorce in the US Constitution, by the way. Each state regulates that. The US Constitution prevents discrimination in marriage, but doesn't regulate divorce. I was trying to help you out here.

 

I'm surprised that someone like yourself that's constantly reminding the rest of us of their worldly knowledge and superior world view would be ignorant of the fact that the US has a Constitution.

[SidLyon]

I've lived in 6 different countries all very different in culture, religion, driving regulations and greeting etiquette. So?!

 

Not the first time I see this kind of comment thrown around. I honestly don't see anyone else calling nationalities out when it comes to measuring personal choices. So being of America seems to be highlighted as a 'disgrace' to some who take its constitution in consideration. Hilarious!

 

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I was referring to your comment that it was ignorant for someone not to know much about America. Implicit in your comment was the expectation that non-American people ought to know about it. Sorry if I misread.

 

Having studied constitutional law I probably know more than the average non-American about America's Constitution but I don't think it's especially important for non-Americans to know so much about it.

 

Edited to add: I really wish Australians knew as much about our Constitution as most Americans know about theirs.

 

By the way, having recently received my final results I can now call myself a lawyer.

Edited December 9, 2010 by SidLyon

[NoIDidn't]

I've lived in 6 different countries all very different in culture, religion, driving regulations and greeting etiquette. So?!

 

Not the first time I see this kind of comment thrown around. I honestly don't see anyone else calling nationalities out when it comes to measuring personal choices. So being of America seems to be highlighted as a 'disgrace' to some who take its constitution in consideration. Hilarious!

 

Actually, in fairness to OWoman, I was the one that brought up Americans. We Americans have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "constitution" and her usage of it in parentheses could have gone either way - as in personal constitution vs legal document outlining the rights affirmed for individuals by the government.

[NoIDidn't]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I was referring to your comment that it was ignorant for someone not to know much about America. Implicit in your comment was the expectation that non-American people ought to know about it. Sorry if I misread.

 

I kinda feel responsible for injecting this topic into the thread. Soooo...LOL....in fairness to Mimo as well, I think she was referring to a specific part of OWoman's statement that her ignorance of America and things American was "a good thing".

 

Ignorance about something is okay. Pride concerning that ignorance is not usually considered okay.

[OWoman]

And because you couldn't support your tenuous linkage of religion to murderers and marriage supporters, you didn't bring it up.

 

Why am I not surprised? (Rhetorical question here, lol)

 

I didn't bring it up because I had already clarified what I'd said, only to be told that that wasn't what I'd said. Which I read as, continuing such a discussion will be pointless because the person you are trying to converse with will keep telling you you don't know what you are saying, and only they do. It seemed like a waste of time.

 

Perhaps that wasn't what you had in mind as an answer to your rhetorical question, in which case, you'd have been wrong again. And if it was, bonus point for getting one right

 

There is no constitutional right to divorce in the US Constitution' date=' by the way. Each state regulates that. The US Constitution prevents discrimination in marriage, but doesn't regulate divorce. I was trying to help you out here.[/quote']

 

Cool, thank you. US Law is something outside of my expertise or experience.

 

I'm surprised that someone like yourself that's constantly reminding the rest of us of their worldly knowledge and superior world view would be ignorant of the fact that the US has a Constitution.

 

I've never claimed "worldly knowledge" or a "superior world view", simply a different (and equally valid) one. My knowledge is based on my exposure, and I've never visited nor studied the US.

[OWoman]

I kinda feel responsible for injecting this topic into the thread. Soooo...LOL....in fairness to Mimo as well, I think she was referring to a specific part of OWoman's statement that her ignorance of America and things American was "a good thing".

 

Ignorance about something is okay. Pride concerning that ignorance is not usually considered okay.

 

I didn't claim to be ignorant. That was injected by Mimo.

 

I claimed I was not an expert - which I'm not - and I do think that is a good thing (whatever anyone may feel about that). I don't think it's fitting for someone from outside who's never set foot in a place, and unlikely ever will, to claim to be an expert on it. I think that that would be ignorant!

[OWoman]

Edited to add: I really wish Australians knew as much about our Constitution as most Americans know about theirs.

 

It seems expats in Oz know more than Oz-born citizens, then - I've always been struck by how much people know, when I've visited. Minutiae of political processes and history and rights and responsibilities - whether they're midwives or professors or farmers!

 

By the way, having recently received my final results I can now call myself a lawyer.

 

well done!!!!! :bunny:

[SidLyon]

It seems expats in Oz know more than Oz-born citizens, then - I've always been struck by how much people know, when I've visited. Minutiae of political processes and history and rights and responsibilities - whether they're midwives or professors or farmers!

 

That's encouraging.

 

well done!!!!! :bunny:

 

Thank you.