onlide "dating:" interesting article

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duckman, Blarg essentially proved your point. I have lived with girls that I would never marry. I don't think that many people are able to understand the need to do this. If there was enough pressure applied, I may have taken the dive. This didn't happen to me, but those who fall into a miserable marriage, this is likely what has happened, and their marriage is effectively bound for failure. It is not the fact that they lived together that they are divorced earlier, it is the fact that on person had no initial desire to me married, and they did. It would seem that this is a better statement than saying that because they lived together, they are less likely to make it, though this does prove your argument, but not for the reasons you are presenting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.
I gave no "reasons" for the agrument I am presenting. I am making an assertion that I have not seen any statistical relationship linking length of time in relationship and marriage duration. This was Blarg's inital assertion. Since this is not my field of expertise I am open to Blarg or any oneelse showing me statistical support for this assertion.


[/ QUOTE ]

? You're the one who brought that up, not me.

[ QUOTE ]
OTH I have seen statisical data showing that those people who lived together prior to getting married have higher divorce rates than those who don't.
While this is addmitedly not exactly the same as Blarg's contention I do think it is not much of a stretch to gather that couples that live together on average get married later than couples that don't. (The reasons for this should be obvious). Personally, I know of no couple in a long term committed relationship that does not live together.

In others word I think the data I have seen acts as a PROXY that finds against Blarg's assertion.

Finally the (admittedly short) search I did found no mention length of relationship prior to getting married as a variable in determining divorce outcomes.


[/ QUOTE ]

This does seem something vital.

[ QUOTE ]
Now for some possible reasons:
Anecdotely, I grew up as a Mormom. (I no longer am one) Lots of Mormons get married after a short courtship in large part b/c having intercourse premartially can get you excommunicated. Mormons have lower than national average divorce rates. I would expect this is true of many "conservative" relgions Christain or otherwise. I suspect these types of people make up a relatively large percentage of the people that get married earlier than the "Britney Spears" type that get married on a whim after a short courtship.

I am however open to evidence to the contrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

You also have to count that especially religious people often have many strictures against divorce, from pressure within the family and community to their interpretations of their religion. This can keep people together long after a relationship would be considered, by most others, thoroughly dead and loveless. The length of a marriage doesn't necessarily have much to do with how good the relationship is or whether many would feel comfortable calling it truly a success.

[ QUOTE ]
From an informational perspective I guess I am not sure that there is much to be gained from longer courtship. How long does it take for you to determine whether someone has the same values and priorites as you do? I don't think those who have gone out for 5 years have that much better information than those that went out for 5 months.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone can be on their best behavior for a few months, and you don't really get to know too much about people from their good behavior. There's a saying that goes something like, "Happy families are all alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The real test of someone is how he functions under duress(including the duress of habituation and boredom), and the same can be said of a relationship. It's whether we find each other still just as worthwhile when the chips are down or the party's over that matters. Sooner or later, someone's facade is going to drop -- even if it's the one you think they don't have -- and then you are going to see them for who they are. I doubt you'll be able to see much in five months. Plenty of people could do five months standing on their heads. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

However, that doesn't mean moving in with them is the only way to find out more about them, either.

[Stagger_Lee]

I'm not seeing the correlation between the article in the OP and "internet dating".

It is more like a super-troll VS someone who, for whatever reason, is vulnerable to fall for it. One of the big assets the troll has is that the victim has their guard down. If Audrey was on a dating site, maybe she would see the warning signs, be alert for dangerous situations and not have become a victim.

[Stagger_Lee]

Now women who hook up with violent criminals, as mentioned by Blarg - that is another perplexing subject. Along with the woman who fell for Richie Ramirez (forget about his personal presentation - look at the crimes the guy did) was the woman who fell for Bianchi, one of the Hillside Stranglers. He convinced this woman, who he had only met since his conviction, to take a condom of semen out of jail. The plan was for this woman to kill another girl and plant the semen - making it appear if the real perpetrator was stil out there. Now this never eventuated, but the plan had commenced. Weird stuff.

[SoloAJ]

I am way too tired to respond to about 5 of the 20 new posts that I'm reading, unfortunately. However, I am really enjoying and engaged in this thread and the sentiments/ideas being discussed.

So, before bed, I at least wanted to commend daveT on a fascinating thread idea.

[soah]

Funny timing on this, and the car stuff, as I just met a girl on Friday that I've known online for a while. It wasn't really a date as much as just hanging out for a day, but I was a bit surprised at how trusting she was when considering we'd never met before and only even talked on the phone for literally 20 seconds. She had no qualms at all about letting me drive her around. I spent some time wondering whether she was being too reckless - from my perspective I obviously know that I wasn't planning anything sinister, but from her POV I'm not sure how confident she should be in that. (To be fair though, almost all of the other details of our meeting were favorable to her security.)

I also wondered if *I* was crazy for letting her into my car with me.

[Dominic]

I've used Match.com in the past and it as almost always been a good experience.

You write a profile and send notes to people who interest you, and vice versa. If there's a mutual attraction you meet for drinks or something and go from there.

I would never want to, or tell people they should, write back and forth many times or talk on the phone for months without meeting - that's just silly and bound to disappoint.

Online dating is simply a facilitator for meeting people. that's it.

I met a few women I actually dated this way. Heck, I met my ex-fiancee thru Match.com and we were together over four years.

You can't go into something like this thinking you're doing anything but meeting someone that first time. that's it. It's not even a date (or, it shouldn't be) How can you have a date with someone you don't even know?

I used online dating as just another way to meet women...not as an end-all be-all in trying to find my soul mate or something.

[ChipWrecked]

While the article was entertaining reading, I've given more thought to the picture published along with the article.

I've decided the article is probably a fictional account written around the photo.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not seeing the correlation between the article in the OP and "internet dating".

It is more like a super-troll VS someone who, for whatever reason, is vulnerable to fall for it. One of the big assets the troll has is that the victim has their guard down. If Audrey was on a dating site, maybe she would see the warning signs, be alert for dangerous situations and not have become a victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true.