Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Thousands Of Mail-Order Brides Killed Every Year!
By their own husbands! Well, not thousands. Well, not even hundreds. In the last 10 years, CNN reports that three were killed by their spouse. Luckily, that hasn't stopped Representative Rick Larsen (D-Virginia) from, in Ken Layne's words, "presenting a bill to end the bloodshed":

One of the provisions of the bill would require that brides be informed of their husbands' criminal records.

...Assuming the average over the past decade is in the middle, there have been about 100,000 mail-order marriages over the past decade. This means one in 33,333 MOBs have been murdered since 1995.

According to the American Institute on Domestic Violence, 1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner. So roughly, 12,320 women have been killed by their "intimate" over the past decade. From 1994 to 2003 there was roughly 23,127,000 marriages in the U.S. This works out to one murder per 1,878 marriage. So "legitimate" marriages are about 18 times more likely to end in murder.

But, they're probably much less likely to end in headlines for Congressmen. It's always interesting when you see the rare person in the news biz draw out the reality of the statistics.

Posted by aalkon at November 8, 2005 8:43 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/767

Comments

I don't have a problem with women (especially those coming from another country to marry who probably don't have much of a social support network here) being informed that their husband-to-be has a criminal record, especially a history of abuse. Sure, the congressman is engaging in hyperbole, but I'm all for someone entering into what is partly a relationship, partly a business transaction, to have available to them full disclosure about their future partner's history. People are required to disclose criminal convictions when filling out job applications, so I don't see a problem with this law unless someone has something to hide.

Posted by: deja pseu at November 8, 2005 6:36 AM

I'm in.

Posted by: everybody hates chris at November 8, 2005 6:37 AM

My nextdoor neighbor married a mail-order bride. She's from somewhere in the Phillipines. I don't believe he beats her although he does wear "wife-beater" t-shirts which reveal his "muscles"! Looks so cute w/his toupee. He seems to have a whole new lease on life; I believe he's in his early 50's, not sure if he was married before. His wife is a very pretty maybe 20-year-old. They now have an 8-month-old baby boy and get together quite frequently with other couples who have a similar arrangement.
They seem quite happy. Still, I see nothing wrong with passing this law either.

Posted by: Claire at November 8, 2005 11:02 AM

If the people are in a business relationship, government should butt out at let the buyer beware. After all, we don't force McDonald's to list the number of dyspepsia cases on the sign underneath Billions Sold.

Both cases of mail-order bridery that I've seen up close ended pathetically. But then, foreign women in poverty and comfortable men in lonliness are both sort of sad conditions to begin with.

Posted by: Crid at November 8, 2005 12:33 PM

A few days ago you were talking about phone numbers. You seem to be listed at Zabasearch.com. Amy M. Alkon, or is that somebody else?

Posted by: everybody hates chris at November 8, 2005 12:59 PM

That's not my middle name, nor can I be ordered by mail.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 8, 2005 4:44 PM

Anything to distract from forced the forced prostitution and abortions going on in Saipan, which has the whole-hearted support of the GOP.

Posted by: Patrick at November 9, 2005 8:34 AM

Y'know Patrick, it depends on how you count. Some people think meaningful socialization has only been going on for two millenia. Most regular folks would say 12 millenia. Many scientists offer an opening bid at one hundred thousand years, and back before that, the sky's the limit.... There are addled religious superfreaks (of the Tom Cruise type) who say this has been going on for billions of years.

But in all that time --all of human prehistory-- has there ever been a guy as pissed-off, feelings-hurt, sensitivities-wounded, posture-accusatory and rectum-puckered as you?

Didn't think so.

Did someone hurt your feelings or something?

Posted by: Crid at November 9, 2005 9:48 PM

Crid, when you have to resort to an ad hominum attack, that means you've lost the argument.

(Not to mention the fact that your post looks like a non sequiter - wrong thread, perhaps?).

Posted by: Melissa at November 10, 2005 5:43 PM

thanks for bringing some light to this subject Amy.. What many may not know about the ne "International Marriage Broker Act" (it sounds terrible but the name is designed to make you think of selling women) is very interesting..

There are many small websites like mine that let foreign nationals post their profile and picture for free... it is free because they could never pay.. the guys do pay a little for the ladies address and this is how we stay running...

well, according to the new law I am now a "marriage broker" and all website that do what we do are marriage brokers... (post ladies picture profiles)

what does it mean for the american guys? well you are now deemed a potential spouse abusers and required to provide me with your complete criminal backround, marital backround, how many children you have and their ages, and every place you have lived in the past 15 years.. i then have to run you through a sexual predator screening process... and all of this is just so i can give you the ladies email address..

also, i am required to give all of this information to the lady before you can ever even email her or send a letter.. what will she do with your information? who knows because you have never spoken to her

whether you think marrying a foreign national is bad or not, try not to let it cloud your judgement.. this is about privacy and the government has effectively found a way to make it more difficult for men to marry a foreign national. Shouldn't you have the right to marry anyone you want?

i am referring to H.R. 3402 Subtitle D which was snuck into the Violence Against Women Act by the great Senator of Washington... i have read how this all took place and it was about special interest (N.O.W) and an election year...

just another sorry example of your right to free speech being taken away

Posted by: steve at January 20, 2006 1:40 PM

Leave a comment