11 ms·

The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On (2014)

75 points by philangist 8y ago

sli 8y ago
Article is from 2014, that should probably be in the title.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 8y ago
  Updated, thanks!
carbocation 8y ago
Contrary to the title, the chart at the top of the page pretty convincingly shows that the divorce rate is constant across decadal marriage cohorts.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  This chart shows that for example, someone married for 10 years in the 2000s experiences a ~15% rate of divorce compared to those in the 70s and 80s who faced a ~20% rate of divorce at the 10 year mark. The trend I see looking at the 10 year mark is that the 60s had the lowest. The 70s and 80s were the highest, the 90s subsided, and the 00s are lower still, heading back to 60s levels. That seems like a surge that is over to me, no?
- LukeShu 8y ago
  That chart is pretty suspect: - It doesn't go a good job of presenting the data that it is. - The data it's presenting isn't clearly related to the data discussed in the article. - It cites the SIPP as the source of the data, but makes no mention of which Panel/Wave(s) (years) it's referencing.
magduf 8y ago
It's not a myth. The article even points out what's really going on, but they only dedicate at most a paragraph to it: people aren't getting married as much. The overall marriage rate has fallen, and people are waiting longer than ever to get married, if they even do. The percentage of the population that's single is higher than ever. So sure, the divorce rate has fallen, but if your goal is a society where people are in stable marriages, we're farther from that goal than ever. Traditional marriage is slowly dying as an institution. Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way. I agree entirely with this, but just as civil rights and legalizing recreational drugs took forever (and is still ongoing), it's going to be decades of effort to dismantle the societal expectations of marriage while still enabling the benefits that come/came along with traditional marriage (legal, financial rights). Relationships are hard enough with just two people, adding more people doesn't make it easier, so you have to provide resources to help cultivate that stability society wants to express (insert diatribe about lacking mental health funding here). EDIT: Regarding raising kids in a poly family, "it takes a village" [+]. [+] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village
  - rarec 8y ago
    Genuinely curious, if you want an open and polyamorous relationship with a group of people, why wouldn't a structure similar to an LLC or similar business group not be roughly sufficient (as far as a framework goes)?
    - berbec 8y ago
      Same argument was made for homosexual "civil unions". If you can't call it marriage, the group denied that right is second class, full stop.
jpeg_hero 8y ago
>“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women,” said William Doherty, a marriage therapist and professor of family social science at University of Minnesota, “so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”
- curo 8y ago
  Or cost of divorce, property laws, custody laws, no fault laws — seems like a lot of variables to consider
- ovulator 8y ago
  I think this statistic doesn't say a whole lot. It means that they were the legal petitioner asking for the divorce. It doesn't mean they were the one who wanted out of the marriage. My ex-wife had an affair and said she wasn't happy in our marriage. I was the one who did the legal paper work even though I didn't want the divorce, or initiate it in the relationship, but I was the one who initiated it legally.
  - influx 8y ago
    So you “think” it doesn’t say a lot, but the only evidence you offer against a statistic is anecdotal. What do you “think” it says then?
    - vilmosi 8y ago
      Actually, that's a good point. The initiator of the divorce shouldn't be assumed to be the cause.
- ForRealsies 8y ago
  Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.
curo 8y ago
Why is the first cohort from the 1960s? Is that a good baseline for determining whether the divorce surge is over?
dalbasal 8y ago
So... another example where the relationship between real trends and statistics and the ones people hear/believe are basically estranged. Pun intended, I sincerely apologize. Beyond that.., i still have not heard a narrative that rang true to me. In some nontrivial senses, I think the instinctive conservative explanations are probably true. Society did unravel, as women's liberation and other big cultural shifts happened. Some of this is very simple, financial independence of both people changes what a marriage is and makes divorce possible. A lot of this was probably down to feedbacks. Divorce became more common, more normal than it had been This made it an option, where it hadn't been. I suspect that the "people just got flakier" narrative is mostly "kids today" BS, but who knows. The way coupled get together has been totally rattled every generation for 4-5 generations now. In any case, it's interesting that the trend is reversing. My general instictive guess is quasi-femenist. The nature of gender relations & marriage completely changed, starting in the 50s (or maybe the 20s). This basically broke marriage, as an institution. Maybe we've been putting it back together in our generation. This is pretty vague though. I'm still waiting to stumble across a sociological narrative that tickles my "ah, that makes sense!" nerve. It's an interesting question.
- felipellrocha 8y ago
  Don't apologize for the pun. It was a beautiful pun. Be proud of it.
- msla 8y ago
  One of the big specific changes was the fact marriage got redefined with the end of coverture. "Coverture" isn't even in Firefox's spell-check, which I suppose points to how obscure it is these days. It used to be part of what marriage was: It was the fact that a married couple was a single legal person for many purposes, that person being the husband. Wives couldn't own property in their own names, couldn't have bank accounts in their own names, and, to a large extent, couldn't exist in their own names, but had to rely on their husband to function as an adult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture > Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert. An unmarried woman, a feme sole, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. Coverture arises from the legal fiction that a husband and wife are one person. [snip] > After the rise of the women's rights movement in the mid-19th century, coverture came under increasing criticism as oppressive towards women, hindering them from exercising ordinary property rights and entering professions. Coverture was first substantially modified by late 19th century Married Women's Property Acts passed in various common-law legal jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by subsequent reforms. Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States. Quoting Blackstone: > By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage. Same-sex marriage wasn't a redefinition of marriage: Same-sex marriages are exactly like all other modern marriages, by which I mean post-coverture marriages, in terms of the rights and abilities of the married persons and how they relate to each other legally. However, same-sex marriage is flatly impossible in any system with coverture: There couldn't be two males in a marriage, because there could only be one legal person, and there couldn't be two females in a marriage, because there had to be a legal person. It was as if the law was asking "Which one of you is the husband?" and expecting an answer.
pimmen 8y ago
I think later marriages is a big contributor to stabilizing divorce rates. I got married at age 24 and after a very tumultuous time for us with economic hardships, a more hectic schedule (she was working two jobs at a time while I was doing my masters and working), death in the family, extended medical leave because of clinical depression aggravated by the death in the family, returning to school after her medical leave we grew into different people after just six years together. We decided to split. Now that I have a stable job and I've experienced more of life, I know myself more. I know more about the type of person I would love to spend my life with and what type of person makes me miserable. And, of course, what makes me a difficult person to be with and what I can change about that. I believe there is no such thing as a dream person cut out for everyone of us. I believe successful marriage is about honesty, expectations and compromises but I also believe that if we know ourselves better and are less shallow when we decide to commit to relationships they have a much higher probability of success.
PrimalDual 8y ago
On the other side of the polyamory issue, I am not sure the weakening of marriage is all that good. Single parenthood doesn’t seem to be that good for the children and I also dont see how polyamory solves the issues of paternal responsability. I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Polyamory also seems to ignore certian aspects of human sexual competition that aren’t really compatible with civilization. I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society.
- _dczq 8y ago
  ==I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Would you say the same about prostitution?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Would you say the same about prostitution? We haven't exactly messed with it too much over the millennia. It's acceptableness to society and the way prostitutes are treated by society has remained roughly constant after you adjust for the baseline trend of increasing personal freedom and decreasing violence.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      not really. Prostitution has been regarded in VASTLY different manners depending on the time period and/or place you were in. Life was much different for a Greek Heteara than it was for a woman working in an Aztec Cihuacalli. (But both lives were pretty good truth be told. One was elite and rich, the other would be considered a soccer mom by today's standards. Not rich, but definitely upper middle.) And then life is different still for the average american streetwalker or escort. (Some can be rich, but majority are very poor. And they are all scorned by society. At least the holier than thou types in society.) In today's America, or even in ancient and contemporary China, prostitutes have nowhere near the status of the Hetaera, or even the women working in the Cihuacalli's. Life for contemporary American prostitutes is probably pretty hard at the mean. So societal acceptance and society's treatment of prostitutes very much depended, not surprisingly, on which society or culture you were talking about.
SARAJACOB 8y ago
I AM SO HAPPY GIVEN THESE TESTIMONY AND I AM TELL EVERYONE THE GOOD WORK OF Dr mack AND WHAT HE DID FOR MY FAMILY,,MY NAME IS MRS MARIA GREGORY AND I AM FROM USA AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I WAS VERY HAPPY WITH MY FAMILY ME AND MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN MARRIED FOR THE PAST 15YEARS AND WE WERE A HAPPY FAMILY AND TILL ONE SUDDEN DAY WHEN MY HUSBAND CAME BACK FROM WORK AND I GREETED HIM HE DID NOT ANSWER ME AND I NOTICE SO I WHEN TO HIM AND ASK HIM WHAT IS THE MATTER AND SUDDEN HE STARTED BEATING ME AND I CRIED AND HE DID NOT STOP,SO THE NEXT MORNING HE LEFT THE HOME AND DID NOT COME BACK AGAIN I AND MY KIDS WERE TRYING TO FINE HIM BUT NO RESULT TILL I SAW HIM WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IN A SHOPPING MOORE AND I WAS SO IN PAIN AND I STARTED LOOKING FOR HELP AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH SO MANY SPELL CASTER BUT THEY COULD NOT HELP ME AND I EVEN DID NOT BELIEVE IN SPELL AGAIN TILL A FRIEND OF MY IN THE OFFICE INTRODUCE ME TO A MAN CALLED DR MACK AND WHEN I CONTACTED HIM HE TOLD ME THAT HE IS GOING TO HELP ME AND I DID NOT EVEN BELIEVE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEIR ALWAYS SAY BUT I JUST TRUST TO MY GREATNESS SURPRISE WHEN I WAS IN THE HOUSE I SAW MY PHONE RINGING AND WHEN I CHECK IS MY HUSBAND BEGGING ME THAT I SHOULD FORGIVE HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE TO ME AND I FORGIVE BECAUSE THE DR TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD FORGIVE HIM AND LOVE HIM AGAIN SO I AM TELLING YOU NOW THAT I AM THE HAPPIEST WOMAN ON EARTH FOR THE GREAT HELP Dr MACK DID FOR ME AND IF YOU WANT TO GET CONTACT WITH HIM VIA EMAIL IS dr_mack@ yahoo. com AND IF YOU ARE IN ANY PROBLEM I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT HE CAN ALSO SOLVE IT OKAY,,

75 points by philangist 8y ago

sli 8y ago

Article is from 2014, that should probably be in the title.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sctb 8y ago
Updated, thanks!

carbocation 8y ago

Contrary to the title, the chart at the top of the page pretty convincingly shows that the divorce rate is constant across decadal marriage cohorts.

ModernMech 8y ago
This chart shows that for example, someone married for 10 years in the 2000s experiences a ~15% rate of divorce compared to those in the 70s and 80s who faced a ~20% rate of divorce at the 10 year mark. The trend I see looking at the 10 year mark is that the 60s had the lowest. The 70s and 80s were the highest, the 90s subsided, and the 00s are lower still, heading back to 60s levels. That seems like a surge that is over to me, no?
LukeShu 8y ago
That chart is pretty suspect: - It doesn't go a good job of presenting the data that it is. - The data it's presenting isn't clearly related to the data discussed in the article. - It cites the SIPP as the source of the data, but makes no mention of which Panel/Wave(s) (years) it's referencing.

magduf 8y ago

It's not a myth. The article even points out what's really going on, but they only dedicate at most a paragraph to it: people aren't getting married as much. The overall marriage rate has fallen, and people are waiting longer than ever to get married, if they even do. The percentage of the population that's single is higher than ever. So sure, the divorce rate has fallen, but if your goal is a society where people are in stable marriages, we're farther from that goal than ever. Traditional marriage is slowly dying as an institution. Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if we adopted open and polyamorous relationships in a large way. They're better for resource-sharing and avoid the problem with thinking that your partner has to satisfy you in every way. I agree entirely with this, but just as civil rights and legalizing recreational drugs took forever (and is still ongoing), it's going to be decades of effort to dismantle the societal expectations of marriage while still enabling the benefits that come/came along with traditional marriage (legal, financial rights). Relationships are hard enough with just two people, adding more people doesn't make it easier, so you have to provide resources to help cultivate that stability society wants to express (insert diatribe about lacking mental health funding here). EDIT: Regarding raising kids in a poly family, "it takes a village" [+]. [+] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village
- rarec 8y ago
  Genuinely curious, if you want an open and polyamorous relationship with a group of people, why wouldn't a structure similar to an LLC or similar business group not be roughly sufficient (as far as a framework goes)?
  - berbec 8y ago
    Same argument was made for homosexual "civil unions". If you can't call it marriage, the group denied that right is second class, full stop.

jpeg_hero 8y ago

>“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women,” said William Doherty, a marriage therapist and professor of family social science at University of Minnesota, “so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”

curo 8y ago
Or cost of divorce, property laws, custody laws, no fault laws — seems like a lot of variables to consider
ovulator 8y ago
I think this statistic doesn't say a whole lot. It means that they were the legal petitioner asking for the divorce. It doesn't mean they were the one who wanted out of the marriage. My ex-wife had an affair and said she wasn't happy in our marriage. I was the one who did the legal paper work even though I didn't want the divorce, or initiate it in the relationship, but I was the one who initiated it legally.
- influx 8y ago
  So you “think” it doesn’t say a lot, but the only evidence you offer against a statistic is anecdotal. What do you “think” it says then?
  - vilmosi 8y ago
    Actually, that's a good point. The initiator of the divorce shouldn't be assumed to be the cause.
ForRealsies 8y ago
Men are romantics pretending to be realists, women are realists pretending to be romantics.

curo 8y ago

Why is the first cohort from the 1960s? Is that a good baseline for determining whether the divorce surge is over?

dalbasal 8y ago

So... another example where the relationship between real trends and statistics and the ones people hear/believe are basically estranged. Pun intended, I sincerely apologize. Beyond that.., i still have not heard a narrative that rang true to me. In some nontrivial senses, I think the instinctive conservative explanations are probably true. Society did unravel, as women's liberation and other big cultural shifts happened. Some of this is very simple, financial independence of both people changes what a marriage is and makes divorce possible. A lot of this was probably down to feedbacks. Divorce became more common, more normal than it had been This made it an option, where it hadn't been. I suspect that the "people just got flakier" narrative is mostly "kids today" BS, but who knows. The way coupled get together has been totally rattled every generation for 4-5 generations now. In any case, it's interesting that the trend is reversing. My general instictive guess is quasi-femenist. The nature of gender relations & marriage completely changed, starting in the 50s (or maybe the 20s). This basically broke marriage, as an institution. Maybe we've been putting it back together in our generation. This is pretty vague though. I'm still waiting to stumble across a sociological narrative that tickles my "ah, that makes sense!" nerve. It's an interesting question.

felipellrocha 8y ago
Don't apologize for the pun. It was a beautiful pun. Be proud of it.
msla 8y ago
One of the big specific changes was the fact marriage got redefined with the end of coverture. "Coverture" isn't even in Firefox's spell-check, which I suppose points to how obscure it is these days. It used to be part of what marriage was: It was the fact that a married couple was a single legal person for many purposes, that person being the husband. Wives couldn't own property in their own names, couldn't have bank accounts in their own names, and, to a large extent, couldn't exist in their own names, but had to rely on their husband to function as an adult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture > Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert. An unmarried woman, a feme sole, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. Coverture arises from the legal fiction that a husband and wife are one person. [snip] > After the rise of the women's rights movement in the mid-19th century, coverture came under increasing criticism as oppressive towards women, hindering them from exercising ordinary property rights and entering professions. Coverture was first substantially modified by late 19th century Married Women's Property Acts passed in various common-law legal jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by subsequent reforms. Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States. Quoting Blackstone: > By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage. Same-sex marriage wasn't a redefinition of marriage: Same-sex marriages are exactly like all other modern marriages, by which I mean post-coverture marriages, in terms of the rights and abilities of the married persons and how they relate to each other legally. However, same-sex marriage is flatly impossible in any system with coverture: There couldn't be two males in a marriage, because there could only be one legal person, and there couldn't be two females in a marriage, because there had to be a legal person. It was as if the law was asking "Which one of you is the husband?" and expecting an answer.

pimmen 8y ago

I think later marriages is a big contributor to stabilizing divorce rates. I got married at age 24 and after a very tumultuous time for us with economic hardships, a more hectic schedule (she was working two jobs at a time while I was doing my masters and working), death in the family, extended medical leave because of clinical depression aggravated by the death in the family, returning to school after her medical leave we grew into different people after just six years together. We decided to split. Now that I have a stable job and I've experienced more of life, I know myself more. I know more about the type of person I would love to spend my life with and what type of person makes me miserable. And, of course, what makes me a difficult person to be with and what I can change about that. I believe there is no such thing as a dream person cut out for everyone of us. I believe successful marriage is about honesty, expectations and compromises but I also believe that if we know ourselves better and are less shallow when we decide to commit to relationships they have a much higher probability of success.

PrimalDual 8y ago

On the other side of the polyamory issue, I am not sure the weakening of marriage is all that good. Single parenthood doesn’t seem to be that good for the children and I also dont see how polyamory solves the issues of paternal responsability. I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Polyamory also seems to ignore certian aspects of human sexual competition that aren’t really compatible with civilization. I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society.

_dczq 8y ago
==I would also argue for caution when messing with an institution that has been established on every successful civilization. Would you say the same about prostitution?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Would you say the same about prostitution? We haven't exactly messed with it too much over the millennia. It's acceptableness to society and the way prostitutes are treated by society has remained roughly constant after you adjust for the baseline trend of increasing personal freedom and decreasing violence.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    not really. Prostitution has been regarded in VASTLY different manners depending on the time period and/or place you were in. Life was much different for a Greek Heteara than it was for a woman working in an Aztec Cihuacalli. (But both lives were pretty good truth be told. One was elite and rich, the other would be considered a soccer mom by today's standards. Not rich, but definitely upper middle.) And then life is different still for the average american streetwalker or escort. (Some can be rich, but majority are very poor. And they are all scorned by society. At least the holier than thou types in society.) In today's America, or even in ancient and contemporary China, prostitutes have nowhere near the status of the Hetaera, or even the women working in the Cihuacalli's. Life for contemporary American prostitutes is probably pretty hard at the mean. So societal acceptance and society's treatment of prostitutes very much depended, not surprisingly, on which society or culture you were talking about.

SARAJACOB 8y ago

I AM SO HAPPY GIVEN THESE TESTIMONY AND I AM TELL EVERYONE THE GOOD WORK OF Dr mack AND WHAT HE DID FOR MY FAMILY,,MY NAME IS MRS MARIA GREGORY AND I AM FROM USA AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I WAS VERY HAPPY WITH MY FAMILY ME AND MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN MARRIED FOR THE PAST 15YEARS AND WE WERE A HAPPY FAMILY AND TILL ONE SUDDEN DAY WHEN MY HUSBAND CAME BACK FROM WORK AND I GREETED HIM HE DID NOT ANSWER ME AND I NOTICE SO I WHEN TO HIM AND ASK HIM WHAT IS THE MATTER AND SUDDEN HE STARTED BEATING ME AND I CRIED AND HE DID NOT STOP,SO THE NEXT MORNING HE LEFT THE HOME AND DID NOT COME BACK AGAIN I AND MY KIDS WERE TRYING TO FINE HIM BUT NO RESULT TILL I SAW HIM WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IN A SHOPPING MOORE AND I WAS SO IN PAIN AND I STARTED LOOKING FOR HELP AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH SO MANY SPELL CASTER BUT THEY COULD NOT HELP ME AND I EVEN DID NOT BELIEVE IN SPELL AGAIN TILL A FRIEND OF MY IN THE OFFICE INTRODUCE ME TO A MAN CALLED DR MACK AND WHEN I CONTACTED HIM HE TOLD ME THAT HE IS GOING TO HELP ME AND I DID NOT EVEN BELIEVE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEIR ALWAYS SAY BUT I JUST TRUST TO MY GREATNESS SURPRISE WHEN I WAS IN THE HOUSE I SAW MY PHONE RINGING AND WHEN I CHECK IS MY HUSBAND BEGGING ME THAT I SHOULD FORGIVE HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE TO ME AND I FORGIVE BECAUSE THE DR TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD FORGIVE HIM AND LOVE HIM AGAIN SO I AM TELLING YOU NOW THAT I AM THE HAPPIEST WOMAN ON EARTH FOR THE GREAT HELP Dr MACK DID FOR ME AND IF YOU WANT TO GET CONTACT WITH HIM VIA EMAIL IS dr_mack@ yahoo. com AND IF YOU ARE IN ANY PROBLEM I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT HE CAN ALSO SOLVE IT OKAY,,