Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you cite above are all very recent, very modern demographic trends...go back 100 years or so, and you will find that for eons and ages, ppl had operated on a fundamentally different wavelength on this.
Change is *not* always good, and can have unintended consequences...especially when society starts tinkering with the basics and (previously relatively standardized) precedents of the institution of marriage.
The reality is, on a biological level, young ppl were naturally designed to marry and procreate, at younger ages, and especially pre-30 for women (as their fertility goes down considerably at that age, and the risk for birth defects increases). The advent of the pill and modern birth control changed that, albeit artificially, and against the natural order. Later marriage in life is thus an evolutionary aberration...
ETA: Modern birth control is an irreversible trend that was a grave mistake, IMO...it has trivialized and made a practical joke out of the institution of marriage, as a whole.
If "the way it was" were really that great, all those people wouldn't have rushed to divorce as soon it became socially acceptable in the 70s, and women wouldn't have cried tears of happiness over the introduction of the birth control pill.
The fact is for some people the old structure worked fine, but for many others it did not. There were many many people who married because they felt they had no choice to do otherwise, and stayed marred and miserable for the same reason. Also keeping people in marriages meant, in part, keeping women dependent on men, and that wasn't so great a prospect for millions of women either. Women also had they lives controlled by sex and childbrith. Not to mention, many men felt forced into role of "provider" for kids and wives they didn't want and in career paths they didn't enjoy. Again, for some people that was great, but for many others it was hellish.
People who want to marry early and stick together come hell or high water are still free to do that. If other people want to do differently they can. I think it's better this way.
But the stats do not take into account different USA-based geographical regions, do they? For example, Southwest vs. South vs. Mid-West vs. Mid-Atlantic vs. Northeast Corridor? I know I for one would be very interesting in seeing a stats breakdown that omits the Southern demographics from the picture (which I believe more heavily skews and propels younger marriages into the negative territory), and which I would assume constitutes a much larger number of younger marriages than the Mid-Atlantic or the Northeast USA...
Did you actually write that? That is the dumbest thing you could ever bring to an argument. Skew the data to suit your agenda.
When you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.
This isn't 100 years ago. This isn't the 50s. Those notions are not fitting or suitable for this day. That isn't always bad.
Knight I don't care if you respect my opinion or not. You have yet to even come close to providing even a remote compelling reason why younger marriage is a good idea. Not a single good reason.
Did you actually write that? That is the dumbest thing you could ever bring to an argument. Skew the data to suit your agenda.
When you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.
This isn't 100 years ago. This isn't the 50s. Those notions are not fitting or suitable for this day. That isn't always bad.
Knight I don't care if you respect my opinion or not. You have yet to even come close to providing even a remote compelling reason why younger marriage is a good idea. Not a single good reason.
The Southern demographic already skews the data relative to the rest of the USA, because the South already has significantly more younger marriages to begin with...so it's not *me* skewing it; it's the stats we already have on file...that's why I wanted to see data that specifically omits it...
FWIW, those directly promoting older marriages have just as much as an agenda as I do, btw. Ppl can't have it both ways...for that matter, whoever decided that older marriages are automatically "good" and younger marriages are "bad", to begin with? I say there is no harm done in questioning authority...those who simply accept what is given to them by default (older marriage) should have a viable alternative (younger marriage), if they so choose or elect. Older marriage is *not* for everyone, nor should it be...
ETA: regarding your last paragraph above above, you will note that I never once said that your own opinion was "no good", "dumb", etc. -- and that's the difference between us apparently, because I can agree to disagree, and disagree politely. You will never find me advocating a "my way or the highway" approach to anything.
The Southern demographic already skews the data relative to the rest of the USA, because the South already has significantly more younger marriages to begin with...so it's not *me* skewing it; it's the stats we already have on file...that's why I wanted to see data that specifically omits it...
FWIW, those directly promoting older marriages have just as much as an agenda as I do, btw. Ppl can't have it both ways...for that matter, whoever decided that older marriages are automatically "good" and younger marriages are "bad", to begin with? I say there is no harm done in questioning authority...those who simply accept what is given to them by default (older marriage) should have a viable alternative (younger marriage), if they so choose or elect. Older marriage is *not* for everyone, nor should it be...
ETA: regarding your last paragraph above above, you will note that I never once said that your own opinion was "no good", "dumb", etc. -- and that's the difference between us apparently, because I can agree to disagree, and disagree politely. You will never find me advocating a "my way or the highway" approach to anything.
How is excluding information is NOT shewing the data? Honestly. You think that excluding the south would somehow support your idea? On what basis? Where are your facts to support that? It is YOU who is trying to skew the data.
Don't try to agree to disagree... You want to go back the days of no electricity, no understand of medicine, or technology that makes transportation and communication possible? Go right ahead. That means no computer or limited access to telephone. You can ride your model T. Don't patronize me with your agree to disagree bit, I find that offensive.
You stated the extremely obvious when you say older marriage isn't for everyone. There are cases where no marriage is best. Most often the case marrying younger is stupid.
What agenda do those pushing older marriage have? Really? There is not a single damn thing wrong with completing an education, starting a career, heading out on an adventure. Majority of the time those in their 20s are smart enough to see that and make the decision on their own. Hardly an agenda. Older people advising the younger to do that is hardly an agenda. Usually the older have experience on their side.
As I stated a few posts back, with people living longer lives the rush to get married and start a family is not needed, nor a luxury. People have the means and choice to decide to wait. Those that do wait until they are a bit older have a better chance of a successful marriage the first time around as confirmed by several studies.
Once again you show no reason at all to rush the whole notion of marriage.
How is excluding information is NOT shewing the data? Honestly. You think that excluding the south would somehow support your idea? On what basis? Where are your facts to support that? It is YOU who is trying to skew the data.
Don't try to agree to disagree... You want to go back the days of no electricity, no understand of medicine, or technology that makes transportation and communication possible? Go right ahead. That means no computer or limited access to telephone. You can ride your model T. Don't patronize me with your agree to disagree bit, I find that offensive.
You stated the extremely obvious when you say older marriage isn't for everyone. There are cases where no marriage is best. Most often the case marrying younger is stupid.
What agenda do those pushing older marriage have? Really? There is not a single damn thing wrong with completing an education, starting a career, heading out on an adventure. Majority of the time those in their 20s are smart enough to see that and make the decision on their own. Hardly an agenda. Older people advising the younger to do that is hardly an agenda. Usually the older have experience on their side.
As I stated a few posts back, with people living longer lives the rush to get married and start a family is not needed, nor a luxury. People have the means and choice to decide to wait. Those that do wait until they are a bit older have a better chance of a successful marriage the first time around as confirmed by several studies.
Once again you show no reason at all to rush the whole notion of marriage.
Sigh...OK fine I give up; you win by default SD...there are you happy, at last??
I think there is some confusion as to what most people are recommending. Nobody is saying that a young couple madly in love at 22 shouldn't marry each other - should break up and marry someone else when they are in their late 20's or early 30's. I think what people are saying is that there is no harm in waiting a few years - there may actually be some good in it. What's the rush? So a couple is in love at 22 - well, if they are really meant for each other - they will still be in love at 28. Why not wait until they are 28 to get married? When they are 28 - they will either want to get married still or they will have broken up. Nobody is saying that people can't fall in love when they are young - it happens all the time. But why not wait for a few years just to make sure.
yeah absolutely. In this day and age, younger people (20-30) just go through so many changes socially and financially that it becomes extremely difficult to maintain any degree of permanancy in their lives. The stability and maturity just isn't there in most relationships.
Older folks (30+) tend to be more on cruise control or in a "what you see is what you buy" type of situation. And I think most of them understand that and work with it, which probably lessens the likelyhood of a divorce by comparison.
If "the way it was" were really that great, all those people wouldn't have rushed to divorce as soon it became socially acceptable in the 70s, and women wouldn't have cried tears of happiness over the introduction of the birth control pill.
The fact is for some people the old structure worked fine, but for many others it did not. There were many many people who married because they felt they had no choice to do otherwise, and stayed marred and miserable for the same reason. Also keeping people in marriages meant, in part, keeping women dependent on men, and that wasn't so great a prospect for millions of women either. Women also had they lives controlled by sex and childbrith. Not to mention, many men felt forced into role of "provider" for kids and wives they didn't want and in career paths they didn't enjoy. Again, for some people that was great, but for many others it was hellish.
People who want to marry early and stick together come hell or high water are still free to do that. If other people want to do differently they can. I think it's better this way.
Unless you retitle it, your house that you acquired PRIOR to marriage is YOURS.
Nice try. It's called keeping her in the style to which she has become accustomed. Either, she lives in "your" house or you provide a replacement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For example, Southwest vs. South vs. Mid-West vs. Mid-Atlantic vs. Northeast Corridor? I know I for one would be very interesting in seeing a stats breakdown that omits the Southern demographics from the picture (which I believe more heavily skews and propels younger marriages into the negative territory), and which I would assume constitutes a much larger number of younger marriages than the Mid-Atlantic or the Northeast USA...
