Rebuffed By A Hot BBW Woman
Having dated such a wide variety of women, one of my co-workers suggested I try broadening my horizons and look to pick up a hot BBW woman. It's easy enough to find plenty of chicks if you got to any BBW dating site, but I wasn't looking for just any large woman for the sake of telling my colleague that I wasn't strictly into a certain kind of woman. I really do have an interest and an attraction to larger ladies.
Then again, many of the gals I've hooked up with in the past have been pretty fit, so it's a fair assumption on her part that I have a certain type. I was determined to prove myself and her wrong, but it's turned out to be harder than any of the other casual dating scenes I've been a part of in the past. First off, there's no real clear definition of what a BBW actually is. For the uninitiated, we're not talking about tall chicks here. Generally speaking a big, beautiful woman is overweight - though not necessarily obese. Also, just because a lady has a few extra pounds doesn't mean she qualifies either.
Everyone has their own definition I suppose and after perusing various profile pictures, this was confirmed. I came across so many chicks that one would probably never consider a BBW, so it just goes to show how subjective the term can be. It didn't take long for me to find a hot BBW woman, mind you.
The problem rested in the fact that it was so hard to get a response from any of them. Many of their profiles claimed they were "last active" on the site a few days after I had messaged them, so unless these were fake profiles, I couldn't help but feel pretty bad about myself. After all, I thought I had written a great description of myself and don't believe I'm an unattractive individual, but at this rate, it seems I'm more lucky with "regular-sized" women! Perhaps there's some sort of social/dating paradigm nobody informed me of.
Oscars and Razzies – Singles Category
Earlier in the year, following up on a great suggestion from Monica Pignotti, I invited readers to submit their recommendations for singles-friendly and -unfriendly establishments. Most were posted to the comments section of this post; others were e-mailed to me.
So, in celebration of Oscars night, here is the list of cheers and jeers I've gotten so far. (I haven't checked them out myself.) In this post, I'm just mentioning the names of the places, with only a few words about each. Discussions of the nominations were terrific - check them out here. That's also where you'll find the names of the people who suggested each of the establishments on the list below. (If you emailed your nominations, I've mentioned your name since it can't be found in the comments to that earlier post.)
This list includes mostly businesses. Because I'm invoking Oscar, perhaps we should start a list of movies that are enlightened or unenlightened about single life. Post your nominations to the comments section or email them to me.
In a previous post, Sharing the quirky love, I pulled together your nominations for blogs, websites, groups, and listservs that promote thoughtful and consciousness-raising perspectives on singles, or that engage in advocacy or education on behalf of singles. Check them out, and feel free to propose additions to that list, too.
It would be great if you could include a link with your recommendations. Also, if you want to send me an email address and/or a mailing address for a contact person for your nomination, I will try to find time to contact each one personally and thank them for their enlightened policies and practices. (Maybe I'll nudge the bad guys, too.)
GYM MEMBERSHIPS
The key issue here is that too many fitness clubs want singles to subsidize couples. They do so by making their memberships cheaper by the couple, while offering no comparable discounts for singles who may want to bring a friend or someone else with whom they are not having sex. Kudos also to the clubs that simply charge the same for everyone.
Oscar Nominations:
- LA Fitness (everyone pays the same)
- Bally's (offers a "friend or family member" discount)
Razzie Nominations:
- Snap Fitness (not only do they demand that singles subsidize couples, but they are proud of it!)
- Sports Clubs (they, too, are proud of their "couples membership" promotions, and didn't bother to answer an inquiry challenging them)
RESTAURANTS and HOTELS
Oscar Nominations:
- Lori's Diner, Union Square (CA)
- Carmelo's, Northern Wisconsin
Razzie Nominations:
- Howard Johnson's Hotel (rude and unaccommodating to a Living Single reader)
GROCERY STORES and SUPERMARKETS
Oscar Nominations:
- Trader Joe's (often offer small size portions, and without charging a higher per-unit price)
- Any grocer that offers individually wrapped products and small portions without a price mark-up
- Any stores with numerous checkout lines for people with a small number of items
- Any store with bulk offerings (prices are usually reasonable and everyone pays the same unit price, no matter how much or how little they buy)
Razzie Nominations:
Stores that offer "buy more, pay less" specials, especially on perishables (Singles who live solo couldn't use them up before they go bad, even if they did want to eat the same thing every day)
CAR INSURANCE
Oscar Nominations:
Are there any?
Razzie Nominations:
- Progressive (Have you seen those TV ads in which the salesperson and customer become ecstatic over the discount offered to homeowners? They also offer discounts to married people.)
AIRLINES
Oscar Nominations:
Are there any?
Razzie Nominations:
- Air New Zealand (offers beds for economy class, but only if you are traveling in a couple or a family)
EMPLOYERS
Oscar Nominations:
Nicky Grist e-mailed me these nominations of employers who recognize relationships beyond just married couples or same-sex couples:
- "[At] Georgetown University, the District's largest Catholic organization, ... an employee, whether gay or straight, married or not, receives full benefits for himself plus one legally domiciled member of his or her household."
- When the Kentucky Attorney General determined that the universities of Louisville and Kentucky had violated the state constitution ban on marriage-like recognition of same-sex and unmarried relationships by offering health insurance to domestic partners of their employees, he added the universities could be legally compliant if they provided insurance coverage to anyone who lives with an employee. Similarly, in response to the marriage discrimination amendment of the Michigan state constitution, state universities there stopped trying to provide DP benefits to same-sex couples and instead are offering "‘household benefits' for unmarried couples who have lived together for the last 18 months."
Razzie Nominations:
All the workplaces that offer access to health insurance and other benefits only for an employee's spouse. All the employers who expect their single workers to stay late or cover the less desirable travel or weekend assignments, or accept whatever vacation time is left because they think their married workers have a life and their single workers do not.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLACES
Oscar Nominations:
Nicky Grist nominated these places in her Brooklyn neighborhood for their open-mindedness:
- Jaya Yoga Center (for Valentine's Day, they offered a special for you and your loved one, specifying that the loved one could be a friend, parent, or child, and not just a partner)
- The Bag Fund (supports single parent artists)
Book review: How to Find a Woman…or Not
Imagine that you have an older divorced buddy who decided to throw himself into the world of dating. Imagine the same buddy going up on stage and delivering a comedy/advice show all about his dating adventures to you and all of your friends. If you can imagine that scenario, then you’ve imagined Gary Morgenstein’s new book, How to Find a Women…or Not.
Make no mistake, this book is highly targeted towards those who are in a situation similar to Gary: past a first marriage, a little older, and trying to get back into the dating game. If you happen to live in New York, you’ll also benefit from recommendations on where to take the older woman for a nice date.
The content delivery is exactly what you’d expect from a sarcastic standup comedian. There are few sentences that slip by without a parenthetical side commentary, which can make the book seem more stream-of-consciousness than it really is. The other thing you’ll find a lot of in this book is lists. Almost every page feature either a bulleted or numbered lists of things you should keep in mind. The downside of this approach is that it breaks up the flow of the book, so reading it straight through is a little bit tiring. The upside of this approach is that you don’t have to worry about getting lost if put down the book and pick it up later.
Where the book really shines is towards the middle, when Gary takes on Internet dating. Having been through the Internet dating experience and emerged with my own battle scars, I could really relate to this section. He deftly dissects the ins and outs of Internet dating and how to keep your sanity while making an attempt to meet someone interesting. I love the title of Chapter 10, “Online Dating and Other Surreal Experiences”.
Gary really explores all realms of dating, including the value of gay friends, how to avoid losing your job while dating at work, why getting setup with someone by friends isn’t always a good thing, how young is too young, and of course, sex. He moves swiftly from one topic to the next, peppering the text with “Morgy Rules,” Gary’s pieces of advice that you’ll want to write down and remember, such as:
Remember the woman always chooses. ALWAYS. They decide if we can touch their private parts, not us. If they deign, we sleep with them. If they don’t, we don’t.
Note that this book is not a step-by-step guide to dating, but rather a book-length comedic rant about dating in general with some words of wisdom sprinkled throughout. Being younger than Gary, I had a little bit of trouble relating to some stories (dating women with children, needing to pack the little blue pill just in case, etc.), but I can definitely imagine those older than me relating very well to this. How to Find a Women…or Not is recommended if you enjoy sarcastic/funny writing on the complex topic of dating and the adventures a 50-something year old divorcee can still have in the quest for love and happiness.
Book review: How to Find a Woman…or Not
Imagine that you have an older divorced buddy who decided to throw himself into the world of dating. Imagine the same buddy going up on stage and delivering a comedy/advice show all about his dating adventures to you and all of your friends. If you can imagine that scenario, then you’ve imagined Gary Morgenstein’s new book, How to Find a Women…or Not.
Make no mistake, this book is highly targeted towards those who are in a situation similar to Gary: past a first marriage, a little older, and trying to get back into the dating game. If you happen to live in New York, you’ll also benefit from recommendations on where to take the older woman for a nice date.
The content delivery is exactly what you’d expect from a sarcastic standup comedian. There are few sentences that slip by without a parenthetical side commentary, which can make the book seem more stream-of-consciousness than it really is. The other thing you’ll find a lot of in this book is lists. Almost every page feature either a bulleted or numbered lists of things you should keep in mind. The downside of this approach is that it breaks up the flow of the book, so reading it straight through is a little bit tiring. The upside of this approach is that you don’t have to worry about getting lost if put down the book and pick it up later.
Where the book really shines is towards the middle, when Gary takes on Internet dating. Having been through the Internet dating experience and emerged with my own battle scars, I could really relate to this section. He deftly dissects the ins and outs of Internet dating and how to keep your sanity while making an attempt to meet someone interesting. I love the title of Chapter 10, “Online Dating and Other Surreal Experiences”.
Gary really explores all realms of dating, including the value of gay friends, how to avoid losing your job while dating at work, why getting setup with someone by friends isn’t always a good thing, how young is too young, and of course, sex. He moves swiftly from one topic to the next, peppering the text with “Morgy Rules,” Gary’s pieces of advice that you’ll want to write down and remember, such as:
Remember the woman always chooses. ALWAYS. They decide if we can touch their private parts, not us. If they deign, we sleep with them. If they don’t, we don’t.
Note that this book is not a step-by-step guide to dating, but rather a book-length comedic rant about dating in general with some words of wisdom sprinkled throughout. Being younger than Gary, I had a little bit of trouble relating to some stories (dating women with children, needing to pack the little blue pill just in case, etc.), but I can definitely imagine those older than me relating very well to this. How to Find a Women…or Not is recommended if you enjoy sarcastic/funny writing on the complex topic of dating and the adventures a 50-something year old divorcee can still have in the quest for love and happiness.
I’d like to talk to Sam Lamott, too
“Lately I’ve been thinking about Sam Lamott, the son of best-selling author Anne Lamott…”
I recently stumbled across this blog post at the Silicon Valley Mom Blog that began with that line, and I had to keep reading. If you, like me, also dove into Anne Lamott’s book Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year early in motherhood, raise your hand! This is one of my favorite quotes from her memoir, which I read over and over when I was at my loneliest:
“Sometimes I’m so hungry for a partner, a lover. One thing I know for sure, though, is that when you are hungry, it is an act of wisdom each time you turn down a spoonful if you know that the food is poisoned.”
Isn’t it amazing to remember that Operating Instructions came out in 1993, way before blogging! Anne has inspired so many of us to put down our own experiences in blogs, baring it all. (You, too?)
“But I’ve been wondering how the Sam Lamotts of the world — kids who’ve literally grown up in print — really feel about all this,” wonders the Silicon Valley blogger, Cindy La Ferle.
Cindy says that she has struggled with how much to write about her own son, who’s in his 20s, in her blog. Sam Lamott must be around 20 years old by now, too. Wow.
I wonder what he’s up to these days. What is he passionate about? Does he write? Does he have any feelings about being the child “star” of such an incredibly popular memoir?
P.S. I realize that I haven’t been writing here as frequently — although things are rocking over at Singlemommyhood if you haven’t been by lately! Let’s just say there’s A LOT going on in my world these days. I’ll update all of you soon!
The Publication of “The Case for Marriage” Kicked Up an Ideological Storm
Previously, I've written here about a book called The Case for Marriage, comparing what the book claims about the implications of getting married to what the data actually do show. When the book was first published a decade ago, there was much controversy because Harvard University Press rejected it. Conservatives said this was just another example of liberal media bias.
I revisited the issue in an essay I published earlier in the week at the Huffington Post. Living Single readers already know what I think of the claims made by The Case, so I didn't post it here. On second thought, though, perhaps some readers would be interested in hearing the back story of the publication of that book, so I'm reprinting the first part of my Huffington Post essay below. As you will see, I think the focus on liberal vs. conservative media bias and ideology obscured the more fundamental point: The book misrepresented the science.
Harvard Press Was Right to Reject "The Case for Marriage"
A decade ago, Stanley Kurtz kicked off his own personal whinefest against that awful liberal media by taking on Harvard University Press in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Harvard Press, he railed, had rejected a book called "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially," which he described as "packed with scholarly evidence" and written "clearly and calmly." (The book was published by Doubleday.)
Over time, Kurtz got even more psyched about The Case for Marriage, calling it "a model of calm and cogent argumentation, backed up by carefully sifted facts" in the National Review in February of 2001, then "a lively, rigorous, path-breaking study of the advantages of marriage" on the same pages in November of 2001.
I'll give him this: The facts were carefully sifted. They were sifted so that those most favorable to Waite and Gallagher's case would make it into the book, and others would be sifted some more to make them seem to fit the case the authors were trying to build.
When I was doing the research for my book, Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After, I did something that I suspect that none of Harvard's reviewers, nor Doubleday's, did. Stanley Kurtz didn't either. I read the original journal articles that were cited, and checked them against the claims made in Waite and Gallagher's book. I read the relevant sections of their book line by line, and even scrutinized the claims slipped into the footnotes.
Kurtz scoffed at the person at Harvard Press who told a Crimson reporter that The Case for Marriage "was second rate and not worth publishing." I have news for Stanley Kurtz, the student reporter, and everyone else: The Case for Marriage was second rate and not worth publishing.
This is important, because The Case for Marriage continues to be cited uncritically, not just by the right-wing and the marriage movement, but even in academic publications, by people who should know better.
[In the rest of the post, I describe the ways in which the authors were not even-handed in making their case for marriage. I also review what the evidence really does show about the implications of getting married for getting sex, getting happy and healthy, getting to live longer, and getting to have more successful kids (already familiar to many Living Single readers).]
Another Mature Tease? Please!
I've been a member of Ashley Madison for a few weeks now and the closest I've come so far to hooking up with a married woman is this lady who just turned out to be a mature tease. Whether or not she joined the site because she's actually looking for an extra-marital affair or is simply flirting with the idea, I'm not sure. We've been sending emails back and forth and finally, I convinced her to meet up with me over the weekend. It didn't exactly go as planned - or at least not in the same way as it has in the past with women I've met on other sex dating sites.
For starters, she lives downtown and insisted we meet up at a bar on the edge of town for fear any of her husband's friends might spot her. He was out of town on business, so not only was I not worried about getting caught, but I assumed we would be able to hook up at the end of the night. Perhaps I was a tad too presumptuous. After all, I'm dating a married woman and I should have guessed it would take a little coaxing before anything physical started.
Relative to past experiences with casual sex dating, the date was a huge disappointment. Then again I can hardly complain given my luck in the past. I can't be that lucky all of the time! After having drinks and chatting for three hours, she gave me a peck on the cheek and we went our separate ways. I had been grasping for ideas on how to get her to come home with me and of course, on my way home, I thought of a great line. Then, I realized maybe she just wasn't that into me.
As it turns out, that's not the case. She sent me a text as soon as I got home and it was filled with all of the naughty things she wanted to do to me. Talk about a mature tease! We have indefinite plans to get together again, but I have a feeling she's just toying with me and the idea of cheating, with no real intention of doing so. Is there any way to tell if she's going to go through with it? I'm not really interested in going on date after date with no satisfying outcome. We get along wonderfully, but there has to be some way to speed up this "extra-marital affair" - if you can even call it that.
Another Mature Tease? Please!
I've been a member of Ashley Madison for a few weeks now and the closest I've come so far to hooking up with a married woman is this lady who just turned out to be a mature tease. Whether or not she joined the site because she's actually looking for an extra-marital affair or is simply flirting with the idea, I'm not sure. We've been sending emails back and forth and finally, I convinced her to meet up with me over the weekend. It didn't exactly go as planned - or at least not in the same way as it has in the past with women I've met on other sex dating sites.
For starters, she lives downtown and insisted we meet up at a bar on the edge of town for fear any of her husband's friends might spot her. He was out of town on business, so not only was I not worried about getting caught, but I assumed we would be able to hook up at the end of the night. Perhaps I was a tad too presumptuous. After all, I'm dating a married woman and I should have guessed it would take a little coaxing before anything physical started.
Relative to past experiences with casual sex dating, the date was a huge disappointment. Then again I can hardly complain given my luck in the past. I can't be that lucky all of the time! After having drinks and chatting for three hours, she gave me a peck on the cheek and we went our separate ways. I had been grasping for ideas on how to get her to come home with me and of course, on my way home, I thought of a great line. Then, I realized maybe she just wasn't that into me.
As it turns out, that's not the case. She sent me a text as soon as I got home and it was filled with all of the naughty things she wanted to do to me. Talk about a mature tease! We have indefinite plans to get together again, but I have a feeling she's just toying with me and the idea of cheating, with no real intention of doing so. Is there any way to tell if she's going to go through with it? I'm not really interested in going on date after date with no satisfying outcome. We get along wonderfully, but there has to be some way to speed up this "extra-marital affair" - if you can even call it that.
Avoid Stroke by Marrying? A Case Study in Misrepresentation of Marriage Findings
A recent set of posts here at Psych Today provide a case study in how findings about marital status and life outcomes get misunderstood and misrepresented, and then set off a chain reaction of false proclamations about the transformative powers of getting married. The myths get perpetuated, and the purveyors of bad social science writing can usually count on not getting called on it.
Not this time.
Matrimania Unleashed
PT bloggers Charles and Elizabeth Schmitz were so psyched. With exclamation points galore, they proclaimed what they understood to be the results of the latest study. "Get married and avoid a stroke!" That was the headline of their post. Start reading and you will find this: "So here's the deal, stay single or have an unhappy marriage, and increase the risk of having a stroke by 64%! Wow, is this an incentive for a happy marriage or what!!"
(Answer: "or what.")
With this unfortunate start as a lead in, they then go on to propagate many of the other myths about getting married - that people who get married live longer, have better health, and all the rest. Sometimes their claims are qualified - you have to have a happy marriage to get all the benefits. That's telling, too.
Another blogger quickly jumped in to cheerlead for marriage. He touted the finding, which he described as "remarkable," that 90% of people who are currently married say they would marry their spouse again. (If it is not immediately clear what's wrong with that claim, my critique is here.)
Then the comments started. James Littleton (I don't know if that's his real name) said he followed the link to the report of the stroke research, and declared that the Schmitz duo "stated the current research exactly correct!!!" (He's excited, too.) Based on his Google search, he added that "there are many findings from studies that report all of the other benefits stated in this article." He then thanked the Schmitz's for their "good job of reporting for their readers."
I wish the Schmitz's, the other blogger, and James Littleton were the only perpetrators of these false tales about getting married. But claims like this get posted and published all the time, setting off even more misinformation, more exclamation points, and just plain bad science reporting. The problem is, though, that if the basic research paradigm does not support causal conclusions (e.g., "get married and avoid a stroke"), it does not matter how many such flawed studies there are or how many exclamation points you add at the end of your false statements - they are still false.
What that Stroke Study Really Did Show
So let's see what the research really did show. First of all, your alarm system should go off as soon as you hear that the results were reported at a conference and not in a peer-reviewed journal article. The only thing online is an abstract (here and here) and a press release (and numerous pieces drawing solely from those documents). Readers of this blog know that I always want to read the original research report before I make claims about what the study showed.
I emailed both the author of the study and the person who was asked to comment on it at the conference, and asked for the published journal article. Both responded promptly. There is no published version, and no copy of the talk as presented at the conference was available either (or they just decided not to send it to me). I asked some specific questions, and the study author answered some of them right away.
So now let me tell you what I was able to learn about what the study really did show.
1. First, the men described as single included men who were divorced, separated, and widowed, as well as those who had always been single. So, as is typical in so much of the research touting the ostensible advantages of getting married (recall the title of the Schmitz-pair's post, "Get married and avoid a stroke!"), many of the men in the "single" group DID get married. They just hated it, and got unmarried. The always-single men were not analyzed separately from the previously married men. That matters quite a lot. In many studies, the always-single group does better than the previously married group, and very similarly to the currently married group (even though the latter group is a select subgroup including only those who got married and stayed that way).
2. Second, this was not a longitudinal study. The men were not studied at various points in time over the course of their adult lives, as they got married or unmarried or stayed single. So the findings that have gotten so much attention were based primarily on three things: the marital status of the men in the study in 1963; for the married men, their ratings of how successful their marriages were in 1965; and for all the men, how many had died of a stroke by 1997. (The abstract also reported the overall rates of death in 1997 for the two groups, but I haven't seen that mentioned in any of the media reports or commentary.) Again, as with point #1, the implication is that this study did not, and could not, tell us anything about the implications of getting married for stroke or anything else.
3. Third, about that 64%: Recall the Schmitz's statement: "So here's the deal, stay single or have an unhappy marriage, and increase the risk of having a stroke by 64%!" That sure sounds like a lot of stroked-out single men and unhappily married men. (The study is actually about fatal strokes only, not all strokes.) It sounds like a huge difference. I asked the author about the death percentages corresponding to the unmarried and married men, and to the unsuccessfully married and successfully married men. He did not respond to that question, but I can give you some idea by referring to what was reported in the abstract. Of the men who were currently married at the start of the study, 7.1 % had died of a stroke within the subsequent 34 years. Of the unmarried group (divorced, widowed, separated, and always-single), 8.4 % had died of a stroke within the same time frame. Probably not the sort of difference you imagined when you heard that 64% figure.
4. Fourth, what about rates of death from all causes? For the married men, 64.9% of them had died by 1997. For the group in which the divorced, widowed, separated, and always-single men were all glommed together, 69.7% had died by that time. Again, this is a difference, but probably not the one you expected when you heard that men could cut their risk of a fatal stroke by 64% if only they did not "stay single or have an unhappy marriage." And again, remember, that difference between 64.9 and 69.7 is NOT the result of getting married, because many of the men in the unmarried group did get married - and hated it and got divorced.
5. Fifth, notice the practice, so commonplace in studies of marital status, of looking closely within the married group to find the men with the best outcomes, while not doing anything comparable for the singles. So, the author compares the men who were most positive about their marriages to the men who were least positive. He finds that the ones with the more successful marriages were less likely to have a fatal stroke. He never compares the most happily single men with the least happily single men, or those who wanted to be single with those who did not. It is as if the goal were to find something great about marriage, rather than to apply the same even-handed scientific method to all groups.
The bottom line is this. Contrary to the title of the Schmitz's blog post, the research did not show that you can "get married and avoid a stroke." The very design of the study made that conclusion impossible to demonstrate.
Still More False Claims
Said the Schmitz's, "You see, the benefits of marriage are numerous." Actually, they are not. I've explained this so many times that I won't go over it all again here. I'll just refer you to other places where I did spell it out, such as in Singled Out, Single with Attitude, and posts such as this one on this Living Single blog.
Finally, thanks to Kath for the heads-up about the stroke study.
Added later: I looked up the Wendy Wood research mentioned by the Schmitz's. It is a review paper published in Psychological Bulletin in 1989. In it, the authors compared currently married people to all unmarried taken together (divorced, widowed, and always-single). So, just like all the rest, this work cannot be used to support the claim that getting married has some transformative effect.
What’s Wrong with the Claim that 90% of Married People Say They’d Marry Their Spouse Again?
A PT blogger recently seemed quite impressed with a CBS poll showing that 90% of currently married Americans said that they would marry their spouse again. He called those results "remarkable." He titled his post, "And they lived happily ever after." PT featured this question from him at the top of the blogger page: "Would you remarry your spouse?"
So what's wrong with that?
If the answer is not immediately obvious, consider this thought experiment. You are a parent, and your child Stephen comes home with the results of the test he took in school that day, joyfully boasting that he got a grade of 90. You look down at his marked-up exam and find that in fact, his grade was 54. Huh?
Turns out, Stephen simply set aside the first 40% of the questions he got wrong. (Let's say 40 questions out of a 100-item test.) Of the 60 questions that were left, he got 90% right. So he told his parents he got 90% right. The other 40 questions, he explained, weren't a good match with what he had studied, so it is clear that they should not have been included. So, as far as he was concerned, even though he only got 54 of the 100 questions right, his test score should be 90. Remarkable, indeed.
That's what's going on with the CBS poll. The people who are currently married do not include all of the people who ever got married. Most notably, more than 40% of people who marry get divorced. Obviously, the vast majority of those people would not marry that spouse again. So, at most, the currently married include just 60% of those who ever married. Of those, 90% would marry their spouse again. That's 90% of 60%, for a grand total of 54% who would marry their spouse again. Still impressed?
I remember hearing Larry King telling a guest, not too long ago, that his wife was The One. I'm sure that if asked, he would happily proclaim that he would marry her again. In fact, he actually did marry one of his wives again, but not the current one. The reigning Mrs. King is wife #7, in Marriage #8.
The blogger seems to consider himself covered by the first few lines in his post:
"The physical/mental health benefits associated with being married are clear to anyone who's experienced a successful bond... If you've never been married or if you found yourself mismatched then, of course, you wouldn't know."
That's a bit like the child Stephen telling his parents that those first 40% of the questions he got wrong should not count, because they were mismatched with what he knew.
I think the quote also shows the blogger's ascientific, or perhaps even anti-scientific mindset. Hey, if something seems clear to you, who cares what the data say? And the only way you can know about anything is to experience it yourself. Too bad, all you female scientists who have men in your studies, or all you whites who include a variety of races and ethnicities in your research or, I suppose, all you humans trying to study whales. How could you ever understand? The blogger's position is especially interesting in light of the fact that some people argue just the opposite - if you belong to a particular group, you cannot do research on that group because, of course, you would be biased.
Now about those supposed "physical/mental benefits associated with being married": They are mythical, as I've explained in Singled Out and here and in many other posts to this Living Single blog. But I'm going by the data and methodological expertise, not by what seems intuitively clear to me. As a scientist and a teacher, that's the approach I try to encourage.