Marry Young...or Marry Old...

[Misty_Morning]

Reading about the raid of the FLDS sect in Texas and reading another thread here has raised some questions in my mind.

What is the optimum age for individuals to enter into marriage?

My grandparents married young ...but that's what they did back in those days, and divorce wasn't really an option for most if something went wrong.

Look at whats going on in Texas with the FDLS....I'm not sure ANYONE that is not associated with that group would agree that 14 to 16 year old girls kept from society and "brainwashed" in their isolated beliefs, should be married, especially to much older men.

But then again that is not the norm.

However there are alot of young people rushing into marriages that last a year or two ...if that.

And alot of older folks do the same...with the same results.


I got married in my mid to late 20's and thought I had planned things well.

WRONG.

Then I think about one of my sisters as well as a neice that both married at the age of 16. Both are still happily married to their husbands. Both WANTED and not NEEDED to get married at such a young age.

Both of them wanted to get married young and have children so that when their children were adults, they could enjoy their grandchildren and still be young enough themselves to enjoy life. (which sounds great...but they still seem to always need help from my dad financially...but that's another story...but not really)


Anyways....is marriage at a young age destined to be a failure?


Just wondering....


What says you?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

We married when I was 21 and 4 days old. That was 40 years and 10 days ago.

 

[Gizzmotick]

Anyways....is marriage at a young age destined to be a failure?


Just wondering....

Marraige will be what the couple makes of it. A marraige cannot be dictated by social norms, or bound by religious philosophy... unless that is what the couple wants.

Some people want the fairy tale marriage.... no arguments, no disagreements, no bad moods... THAT SUCKS!!! I heard it once said, that if you aren't stepping on each other's toes... how do you know where the other is at?

Marraige at any age WILL fail unless the two people communicate. I don't care what people say about who is destined to be together or bound to break up... the key to a successful marraige is communication. Common goals are a close second.

Age should not play a factor..

Although personally, I think that 14-16 is a bit young to be getting married. I have been married for not quite 6 years now... and seen many people get married and divorced since I've been married. The one constant with every couple that has managed to stay together is that they talk to each other about how they feel.. and why. Some do it better than others and God knows, My wife and I are not perfect in this regard... but we constantly talk. In fact, that was one of our wedding vows.

Okay... I'll put away my soap box.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Marraige will be what the couple makes of it. A marraige cannot be dictated by social norms, or bound by religious philosophy... unless that is what the couple wants.

Some people want the fairy tale marriage.... no arguments, no disagreements, no bad moods... THAT SUCKS!!! I heard it once said, that if you aren't stepping on each other's toes... how do you know where the other is at?

Marraige at any age WILL fail unless the two people communicate. I don't care what people say about who is destined to be together or bound to break up... the key to a successful marraige is communication. Common goals are a close second.

Age should not play a factor..

Although personally, I think that 14-16 is a bit young to be getting married. I have been married for not quite 6 years now... and seen many people get married and divorced since I've been married. The one constant with every couple that has managed to stay together is that they talk to each other about how they feel.. and why. Some do it better than others and God knows, My wife and I are not perfect in this regard... but we constantly talk. In fact, that was one of our wedding vows.

Okay... I'll put away my soap box.

Sixteen would sem to be too young BUT my brother got married when he was 20, and his bride was 16. They recently celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary. Compatability, especially wanting the same things out of marriage would seem to be the most important thing. Certainly, age doesn't count for much.

BTW, I married my current wife when we were both 55. That was almost 14 years ago, and we are closer now than we were then.

 

[Gizzmotick]

BTW, I married my current wife when we were both 55. That was almost 14 years ago, and we are closer now than we were then.

Congratulations. Always happy to hear about a strong marraige.

 

[FunwithRyleigh]

I was 19 and we have now been married 18 years.

Funny part - we met and got married in a 4 month time span - we just knew we were the ones for each other.

He is older than me by almost 10 years - so for him - getting married a bit older was perfect. I think that once you are at the maturity level of an 'adult' - whatever age you want to put that - then it is really all about finding the right person and has little to do with age.

I would like to see both at least out of high school, though.

 

[matriarch]

There is no right age to get married that you can lay down for everyone.

Everyone's different, everyone wants and expects different things.

I do believe that what is needed in every case is a level of emotional maturity that allows both parties to understand just what they are committing too......that can be at 16....some never achieve it at 100.

We have laws that dictate the minimum legal physical age for marriage, so there's really no point in discussing ages lower than those.

Personally, I wasn't ready for marriage when I did it the first time at 21, although I stuck it for 32 years.....I was most definitely ready the second time.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Misty_Morning;26899545]Reading about the raid of the FLDS sect in Texas and reading another thread here has raised some questions in my mind.

What is the optimum age for individuals to enter into marriage?

My grandparents married young ...but that's what they did back in those days, and divorce wasn't really an option for most if something went wrong.

Look at whats going on in Texas with the FDLS....I'm not sure ANYONE that is not associated with that group would agree that 14 to 16 year old girls kept from society and "brainwashed" in their isolated beliefs, should be married, especially to much older men.

But then again that is not the norm.

However there are alot of young people rushing into marriages that last a year or two ...if that.

And alot of older folks do the same...with the same results.


I got married in my mid to late 20's and thought I had planned things well.

WRONG.

Then I think about one of my sisters as well as a neice that both married at the age of 16. Both are still happily married to their husbands. Both WANTED and not NEEDED to get married at such a young age.

Both of them wanted to get married young and have children so that when their children were adults, they could enjoy their grandchildren and still be young enough themselves to enjoy life. (which sounds great...but they still seem to always need help from my dad financially...but that's another story...but not really)


Anyways....is marriage at a young age destined to be a failure?


Just wondering....


What says you?[/QUOTE]



~~~~~

Most interesting questions Misty, thank you.

What with the militant feminist agenda and the male wannabees currying favor, it is a subject few can discuss rationally or quietly.

It further seems that everyone expects anecdotal or personal experience or knowledge of a subject to qualify for an opinion.

That is to say, that pure, objective, rational, logical discussion, at least on this forum is somewhat of an unknown.

Just suppose, for the purpose of conjecture, that a sizeable percentage of young girls might find happiness in marriage at an early age and desire only to have children and be housewives as a goal in life?

God forbid, I know, 47 avid feminists just keeled over in a dead faint.

But, just supposing that an appreciable number of young females had that desire?

Now the case can be made, and sure as hell, someone will make it, that the girls in the SLDS compound had no choice, we kept ignorant and basically uneducated and their marriage partners were chosen for them and much older. Also, someone will no doubt raise the issue of historical significance that women of past ages were unable to support themselves and thus marriage, at an early age, was the only option available to them.

But the question raised was not about 1800 or the closed community of a cult group, but a general question concerning the 'optimal age of marriage', and that is what I think should be addressed, without the political overtones and undertones.

There was and is in reruns, I imagine, a series of Hallmark Channel presentations, one of which "Love's Enduring Promise", the only title I recall at the moment, in which very young girls married and began a family on the frontier, a very difficult and dangerous life.

Since the lore is that girls mature earlier than boys and since practicality insists that a young girl marry a young man capable of providing for her and future children, it is logical that the male will be somewhat older, eh?

Thus far, you can't yell at me or call me a pedophile, as of yet I have given you no reason to do so.

Perhaps, in this one instance, I shall not. Perhaps just provide a fertile ground work for further supposition upon the 'optimum age' for marriage, sans the political and religious dogma surrounding?

we shall see...


chuckles...

amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

[QUOTE=Misty_Morning;26899545]Reading about the raid of the FLDS sect in Texas and reading another thread here has raised some questions in my mind.

What is the optimum age for individuals to enter into marriage?

My grandparents married young ...but that's what they did back in those days, and divorce wasn't really an option for most if something went wrong.

Look at whats going on in Texas with the FDLS....I'm not sure ANYONE that is not associated with that group would agree that 14 to 16 year old girls kept from society and "brainwashed" in their isolated beliefs, should be married, especially to much older men.

But then again that is not the norm.

However there are alot of young people rushing into marriages that last a year or two ...if that.

And alot of older folks do the same...with the same results.


I got married in my mid to late 20's and thought I had planned things well.

WRONG.

Then I think about one of my sisters as well as a neice that both married at the age of 16. Both are still happily married to their husbands. Both WANTED and not NEEDED to get married at such a young age.

Both of them wanted to get married young and have children so that when their children were adults, they could enjoy their grandchildren and still be young enough themselves to enjoy life. (which sounds great...but they still seem to always need help from my dad financially...but that's another story...but not really)


Anyways....is marriage at a young age destined to be a failure?


Just wondering....


What says you?

~~~~~

Most interesting questions Misty, thank you.

What with the militant feminist agenda and the male wannabees currying favor, it is a subject few can discuss rationally or quietly.

It further seems that everyone expects anecdotal or personal experience or knowledge of a subject to qualify for an opinion.

That is to say, that pure, objective, rational, logical discussion, at least on this forum is somewhat of an unknown.

Just suppose, for the purpose of conjecture, that a sizeable percentage of young girls might find happiness in marriage at an early age and desire only to have children and be housewives as a goal in life?

God forbid, I know, 47 avid feminists just keeled over in a dead faint.

But, just supposing that an appreciable number of young females had that desire?

Now the case can be made, and sure as hell, someone will make it, that the girls in the SLDS compound had no choice, we kept ignorant and basically uneducated and their marriage partners were chosen for them and much older. Also, someone will no doubt raise the issue of historical significance that women of past ages were unable to support themselves and thus marriage, at an early age, was the only option available to them.

But the question raised was not about 1800 or the closed community of a cult group, but a general question concerning the 'optimal age of marriage', and that is what I think should be addressed, without the political overtones and undertones.

There was and is in reruns, I imagine, a series of Hallmark Channel presentations, one of which "Love's Enduring Promise", the only title I recall at the moment, in which very young girls married and began a family on the frontier, a very difficult and dangerous life.

Since the lore is that girls mature earlier than boys and since practicality insists that a young girl marry a young man capable of providing for her and future children, it is logical that the male will be somewhat older, eh?

Thus far, you can't yell at me or call me a pedophile, as of yet I have given you no reason to do so.

Perhaps, in this one instance, I shall not. Perhaps just provide a fertile ground work for further supposition upon the 'optimum age' for marriage, sans the political and religious dogma surrounding?

we shall see...


chuckles...

amicus...[/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody would ever say there was a "best" age to get married, since it depends on the individuals involved. I pointed out the youth of my brother and his bride, compared to the seniority of me and my wife to illustrate that point. My parents married young, and the marriage lasted over 60 years, and only ended on the death of my father. As with your grandparents, youthful marriafge was the norm in the thirties.

I believe another reason for wives being younger than husbands is because of menopause. Past a certain age, women can no longer bear children, and that used to be considered more important than it is now. There is no upper limit to the age at wihch men can sire children.

 

[3113]

I think we have to remember that as you get older, the difference between what you were and what you are gets smaller. There is a shocking difference, in most cases, between someone who is 16, living with their folks, dating, going to school, and someone who is twenty, and usually living on their own, maybe has a job or is finishing college, etc. Someone at fifty, however, may not be all that different from what they were at thirty. They may even live in the same house and hold the same job.

What I'm saying is, yes, of course someone can marry at age 16 and live happily ever after. But I would still advise a 16 year old to have a long engagement, give it a year or two or three. If they feel the same at 18 that they did at 16, okay; and hey, it didn't hurt to wait those two years did it? Putting it another way: what's the hurry when you're 16 and have your whole life ahead of you? You can wait and see if your love for this person stays the same even if you both transform. And you will transform between age 16 and 18.

Remember, there is some evidence that teenage brains haven't finished maturing, and teenage bodies, for certain, aren't finished developing, and at age 16 a teen may not even have balanced hormones yet. And none of this even takes into account that 16 year olds rarely know what they want to do for most of their life, even if they're going to go to college or business school or get vocational training or enter into the family business or join the army or be a stay-at-home mom/dad. For age 16, it's only wisdom to wait and see what you're going to turn into once your body, your mind, and your goals for the future are clearer. Can it work out? Of course. But it seems foolish, IMHO, to saddle yourself with a spouse who is going to narrow your choices of who you may or may not be before you've even decided who you are.

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...3113...a rational and fairly logical presentation and not only that it makes some common sense as well.

If I may present an opposing set of, I hope, rational and logical alternatives, and see if I garner a seal of approval from you.

On the Larry King Show earlier this evening, I heard a female pundit, in accusatory terms, state that the cult believed that when a girl began to bleed she was ready for marriage and should deliver a child per year.

The shock value worked; it got my attention.

But in light of that, nature and evolution turns on the reproductive elements at a certain age, which varies with the individual of course, for a reason, one would surmise?

Granted that, way back when, the life span, especially with multiple and coninuting child birth episodes, along with infant mortality, was a great deal different than modern times.

Part of your thoughts concerned that very young people do not know either their own minds or bodies at those tender ages. That also sounds most reasonable, but again, I question it.

Unless one is internally driven to be a Holy Man or an artist, or to follow in family footsteps, spending those late teens in search of a proper niche is often a useless venture.

I see news stories of college sex orgies and truly wonder the wisdom of placing these sexually explosive young people in an atmosphere condusive to promiscuous behavior.

You also intimate that neither the mind or the body is mature at the ages in question and again, I question that. I think of the past when girls learned at their mother's elbow how to run a household, cook, clean, care for children and elders, become sensitive to the needs of others and essentially give themselves into the care of others.

I do not mean to wax political here, but the concept of necessarily educated each and every teenage child through college seems to me to be of a questionable nature.

Perhaps a girl desiring to marry and begin a family and a boy who wants to be a bricklayer, really don't need an education past the basic three R's at perhaps a seventh grade level?

Who in the hell says that society should pressure and coerce each and every young person through sixteen years of education?

Perhaps a marriage between two teenage lovers at whatever age they choose would be a good thing in some circumstances. Is it the State or God that should say otherwise?

It is implied that hormones and the sex drive are the most powerful motivators of human behavior; I have a doubt even about that. From reading hundreds of young teenagers on a poetry site, most of them young girls, I sense that loneliness and the intense desire to belong is the primary driving force in their lives....

It is possible that early marriage and the responsibility for ones own family might well be an answer to much of the teenage angst, violence, cutting, suicide and a host of drug problems that otherwise seem epidemic...

Just some things to think about...


Amicus...

 

[NoJo]

I'd suggest to a young man that he needs to sow his wild oats before he gets married. Although some young men may not actually feel any need to do this, particularly when in the throes of new love, I believe that quite a few of these men are simply unaware of their own nature, which catches up with them years later. But everyone's different.

A big problem young people have is trying to live up to the standards of their grandparents, (my parents), for whom fidelity and life-partnership were the norm.
Nowadays many people reject life-partnership as oppressive and unnesessarily burdensome. "Why be stuck in an unhappy marriage?" they say. It's fine to ask that question, and consider one's options as a free individual, but not to pose the question rhetorically, without thought: Sometimes one SHOULD be "stuck in an unhappy marriage". Because it's actually not as unhappy as the alternative.

 

[amicus]

Ah, wild oats, eh? Hmmm....would you take my word that I am not purposely being argumentative or confrontational?

But...in this age of gender equality, can you get away with implying that the 'nature of man', is to be sexually promiscuous?

Is the sex drive of the male more compelling than that of the female?

Chastity and virginity were considered values and a virtue for women and still is in many circles; could it not be likewise for the male?

Could not a loving young couple learn that most intimate relationship with each other and no other?

I am loathe to believe that we are so controlled by our hormones to a point that a conscious effort could not be made to withhold that experience until a chosen time.

In the past, religious and social values were imposed, could not those values be found to have a rational basis, understood, comprehended and acted upon to overide the hormonal urges?

There have always been and always will be prostitutes and profligates and Bohemians of course, who flaunt every convention, but could it not be otherwise for some?

We are taught as children not to steal or cause pain to others, could not other values and virtues be instilled as well?

Please note I phrase these as questions.

amicus...

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

Ah, wild oats, eh? Hmmm....would you take my word that I am not purposely being argumentative or confrontational?

But...in this age of gender equality, can you get away with implying that the 'nature of man', is to be sexually promiscuous?

Is the sex drive of the male more compelling than that of the female?

Chastity and virginity were considered values and a virtue for women and still is in many circles; could it not be likewise for the male?

Could not a loving young couple learn that most intimate relationship with each other and no other?

I am loathe to believe that we are so controlled by our hormones to a point that a conscious effort could not be made to withhold that experience until a chosen time.

In the past, religious and social values were imposed, could not those values be found to have a rational basis, understood, comprehended and acted upon to overide the hormonal urges?

There have always been and always will be prostitutes and profligates and Bohemians of course, who flaunt every convention, but could it not be otherwise for some?

We are taught as children not to steal or cause pain to others, could not other values and virtues be instilled as well?

Please note I phrase these as questions.

amicus...

Part of the whole women must be virgins ideal was pregnancy. That and the misguided belief that if a woman was a virgin when married that she would remain faithful. One of the things that pisses me off about religion is the whole "it is all Eve's fault" mentality. Women were manytimes concidered whores waiting to happen unless they were controlled by their husbands.


I personally think that an individuals maturity level is the most important thing when concidering marriage. I suppose 18 is a fairly good arbitrarily set number for legal purposes. I was pretty immature when I got married at 27. (still going strong 10 years later).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Marriage is a different institution today than it was in the 19th Century or before. Our attitudes about major appliances (cars, computers, refrigerators) infected our expectations of marriage. People live a lot longer now than they did a century ago. Most people today dont live on farms or work from dawn to sunset. Hardly any couple has 10 children to fret about.

One of my ancestors was 15 when she married her 32 year old husband. He was an MD and a catch for an immigrant Irish girl. She was 52 when she died. He out-lived her. But they had 4 children, all of whom graduated college, and enjoyed a prosperous life together.

My grandmother was older when she first married. She had 5 or 6 husbands. My other grandmother had 3 husbands.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Teenagers in our culture aren't being prepared for adulthood like they were even fifty years ago. Sitting around and playing Xbox does not prepare you to be in the workforce and support a family or take care of a household and children. Even people in their twenties seem selfish and woefully unprepared for marriage.

 

[WRJames]

A few points

First, marriage seems to be a declining institution. When my daughter went to college, she was shocked to discover that almost none of her friends were living with both of their original parents. Personally, having been married for a very long time, I think this is sad.

On the other hand, I had couple of relationships before that marriage that did not end in divorce only because they were not formal marriages.

How many of us wind up marrying their first love? It sounds very romantic. However, we learn from our mistakes (hopefully).

When people married at 13 or 14, they lived to be about 40. They lived in a society where they didn't have an opportunity to change much. Now we live in a society where we can (and must) reinvent ourselves several times in the course of a lifetime. At age 14 you have almost no clue as to what a peson is going to be like later in life. But, marriage provides a social context for a sexual realtionship. Without that, people drift.

None of this is easy. We are living "unnatural" lives -- lives that are much longer and much more complex than our traditional institutions, and our phsysiology are designed for. How can you tell someone reaching puberry in sixth grade that she has to wait until the end of graduate school to marry and have sex? How can you explain to her that her first love will most likely not be her last? Can we invent institutions to handle this? Mini marriages, term marriages? Could our hearts truly follow that path?

 

[amicus]

Happy to say that I am pleased with having chosen to participate in this thread and more appreciation directed at the thread starter.

Nothing that is said here will or can influence events in our lifetime, I imagine, but that is not the point.

I and perhaps many, write stories that take place in the future and a major facet of futuristic fiction is to speculate what 'institutions', including marriage, may be still current and practiced.

I find it challenging to speculate on how our distance progeny will conduct their lives and the social conditions they will be born into.

I suggest that a formal relationship between a male and a female, intended to be a long lasting agreement for the purpose of family stability and heritage will be a part of the future in one way or another.

I also suggest that since the future is indeed based on the past, that our current choices will influence the next generation and the one after that and so on into the distant future.

C'mon Misty, come back and visit the child of a thread you gave birth to and let us hear your thoughts...


Amicus....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Especially in light of the probable exponential extension of human life within the next 20-30 years. Is it even moral to ask a couple to remain together for a century? A millenium? That is foreseeable, after all. Perhaps what we may see is period contracts, renewable at mutual consent? Come, let us dream . . .

 

[3113]

When people married at 13 or 14, they lived to be about 40. They lived in a society where they didn't have an opportunity to change much.

Excellent point. We also have to remember that those 13/14 year olds usually had a limited choice. Even if you were allowed to choose your mate, rather than being in an arranged marriage, you really only had a small village of folk to choose from. Someone going to a big high school or college, never mind interacting on the internet with thousands of people around the globe, has a much, much wider choice than our poor ancestors in their isolated tribes and villages.

I mean, if there's only a couple of choices of guys/girls for you to marry, and it's not likely anyone new is going to show up or that you're ever going to leave the village, why not marry the boy/girl next door at 13? But if you've got a world of choices, why not see what's out there before marrying the boy/girl next door?

Once again, it doesn't do any young person harm to wait a few years and see if this boy/girl next door is, indeed, the one and only.

 

[WRJames]

Especially in light of the probable exponential extension of human life within the next 20-30 years. Is it even moral to ask a couple to remain together for a century? A millenium? That is foreseeable, after all. Perhaps what we may see is period contracts, renewable at mutual consent? Come, let us dream . . .

For me, the unconditional commitment of marriage is very important -- there have many been times when each of us have had to carry the other. Can you have that in a not-quite marriage? And what about old age? Not that I am particularly happy about facing it at all, but I would rather not face it alone.

On the other hand, maybe, like athletes in their contract year, marriages would pick up if they had to be renegotiated.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Happy to say that I am pleased with having chosen to participate in this thread and more appreciation directed at the thread starter.

Nothing that is said here will or can influence events in our lifetime, I imagine, but that is not the point.

I and perhaps many, write stories that take place in the future and a major facet of futuristic fiction is to speculate what 'institutions', including marriage, may be still current and practiced.

I find it challenging to speculate on how our distance progeny will conduct their lives and the social conditions they will be born into.

I suggest that a formal relationship between a male and a female, intended to be a long lasting agreement for the purpose of family stability and heritage will be a part of the future in one way or another.



I also suggest that since the future is indeed based on the past, that our current choices will influence the next generation and the one after that and so on into the distant future.

C'mon Misty, come back and visit the child of a thread you gave birth to and let us hear your thoughts...


Amicus....

My thoughts are merely that...just thoughts, observations and opinions.

Like I said, I've had a sister and a niece that married VERY young. My sister will be celebrating her 31st wedding annaversary this year. She and her husband are very happy and have always been so.

My neice has been married about 16 or 17 years, has a lovely family and is also very happy.

Now I have had other family members that married young but didn't seem to have thought out all the consequences. Seems as though they allowed their emotions to rule the day. Needless to say...they ended up divorced.

In fact, my sister and my neice are the only members of my family that have had successful mariages.

Maybe what they have is true understanding that marriage is give and take. And that it is a proccess of growth. Whereas others perhaps did not grow and adapt.

I have no problem whatsoever with women marrying young in order to have a family. I don't look down on them thinking that they are ruining their lives. In fact, I respect their desire to raise children in a nuclear family.

I do not subscibe to the mindset that women (and men) MUST attend college and become career professionals. If that life path makes you happy....follow it, but don't look down your nose at the traditional housewife and mother.

I think it is more difficult to want to follow the dream of higher education and professional careers when folks marry young. I believe that the goal of being successful in education and careers takes a toll on the marriage. And really, this applies no matter what age of the folks that marry.


On another note...I think that it would be very helpful if all individuals contemplating marriage under marriage counseling for 1 year prior to marriage. From personal experience I can say that that counseling is very revealing. Each person learns new things about their potential partner that they never considered.

I think it would cut down on the divorce rate by either realizing that marriage may not be best, or that the individuals do possess the ability accept and adapt.


I wish I had followed that route...but then again...hindsight is 20/20.

 

[FatDino]

I'm not planning to get married before I hit 30.

 

[JagFarlane]

I do not subscibe to the mindset that women (and men) MUST attend college and become career professionals. If that life path makes you happy....follow it, but don't look down your nose at the traditional housewife and mother.

-chuckles- My aunt would be interested in that. She was one of the ones whom married in her early thirties. Prior to their second son, she was working as a VP for an insurance company...but after having their second son and now, as well, their daughter, she has settled into the role of housewife/mother comfortably.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There have been studies that state that the majority of over-40 single, professional women would really prefer to be married with children. I can't cite any of them nor can I vouch for their methodology but it is an interesting finding.