Is it true?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Judging by some of the posts in [thread=2834266]this thread[/thread], I get the impression that people believe that if I have not experienced x number of y things by z age then I am to be avoided. 30 seems to always be z (what is so significant about one's 30th birthday?).

Is that true? Because I didn't experience a minimum amount of certain things before my 30th birthday women should avoid me?

If I experienced all of it for the first time in my 29th year would I then be okay? Is there a grace period or something? If I hurry up and experience all of it before my next birthday (my 35th), will my delinquency be forgiven? Talk about pressure! I've got eight months now to experience a bunch of things that normal people experience and prove that I would be okay to date and/or marry!

Is there really a set schedule for physical, emotional, social and spiritual development which any deviation from is a red flag?

It has been my experience that some women find a lack of experience interesting and attractive. Does that mean that something is wrong with those women?

And is this a double standard? It is okay for a woman not to have had certain experiences by her 30th birthday, but it is not okay for a man?

I find the whole idea discouraging and depressing. I have made a lot of sacrifices so that if I am ever in a relationship I can bring a lot of positives to the relationship and bring minimal baggage. But now it is again being asserted that not having a minimum amount of certain experiences by a certain age is baggage itself.

And here is what I don't understand. If my inexperience is a red flag and women should think "Avoid", then why have all of the women whom I have been good friends with--women who know about my age and what I have not experienced--gone out of their way to tell me that they admire me and that I will make a terrific husband for some lucky woman?

 

[biffy]

how sweet are you!!!!

i am 26 and honestly i don't think i've ever actually experience being in love....i hope i do someday!!! i don't think i'll be any more or less good at it than someone who has fallen in love before...

i am a teacher and i see this attitude in teenagers all the time...this strong urge to keep up with Jake or Henry because they are like so way cool and stuff!!
I often ask the kids at school "who the hell decides what cool is anyway"... ok so "today i say that wearing pink socks to your knees is cool who is doing that one tomorrow???" There's always one try hard boy that gives it a go hehe...

Heck...i think God is only interested in our hearts not our long pink socks...or how many times we've been in love or played scrabble!?!(i'm so bad with examples)....you seem more than superficial ("teenage attitude")...i think that's great...nothing to be avoided as far as you are concerned!! ;-)

I avoid superficial guys who do behave the way you have described!!

 

[NoCompromise]

I am not sure what experiences you are speaking of...But I have the shortest history in experience ever...So I totally feel you on this...People act like you are a freakin alien if you have not been stoned and passed out drunk at least twice in your life.

 

[Deliberatetourist]

Judging by some of the posts in [thread=2834266]this thread[/thread], I get the impression that people believe that if I have not experienced x number of y things by z age then I am to be avoided. 30 seems to always be z (what is so significant about one's 30th birthday?).

Is that true? Because I didn't experience a minimum amount of certain things before my 30th birthday women should avoid me?

If I experienced all of it for the first time in my 29th year would I then be okay? Is there a grace period or something? If I hurry up and experience all of it before my next birthday (my 35th), will my delinquency be forgiven? Talk about pressure! I've got eight months now to experience a bunch of things that normal people experience and prove that I would be okay to date and/or marry!

Is there really a set schedule for physical, emotional, social and spiritual development which any deviation from is a red flag?

It has been my experience that some women find a lack of experience interesting and attractive. Does that mean that something is wrong with those women?

And is this a double standard? It is okay for a woman not to have had certain experiences by her 30th birthday, but it is not okay for a man?

I find the whole idea discouraging and depressing. I have made a lot of sacrifices so that if I am ever in a relationship I can bring a lot of positives to the relationship and bring minimal baggage. But now it is again being asserted that not having a minimum amount of certain experiences by a certain age is baggage itself.

And here is what I don't understand. If my inexperience is a red flag and women should think "Avoid", then why have all of the women whom I have been good friends with--women who know about my age and what I have not experienced--gone out of their way to tell me that they admire me and that I will make a terrific husband for some lucky woman?

30 is generally the point of physical decline for men and women. Male bodies production of testosterone lessens resulting in the "pot gut" and other physical maladies and women's lessened production of estrogen results in no-longer-firm musculature and disproportionate weight gain. Both cases are exacerbated by generally poor diets and lifestyle choices - currently a hallmark of Western civilization. I am currently divorced but I was married for 8 years. I honestly could not imagine myself had I not had the experience of living with a mate and the maturity that comes with it. I worked with a 37 year old woman once who had never been married. She had the emotional capacity of a 14 year old when it came to intimacy and relationships and the body of a 40 year old - bad combination. Anyway I think that our biology gives us clues as to what is wrong currently with our system. A woman begins menstruation around the mean age of 11 (although this is dropping - diet and hormonally imbibed cosmetics) and then enters a period of 'hyper-fertility" from the ages of 15 to 19. This lessens around the mean age of 20 and at 25 the reproductive system begins a slow declination towards menopause. At 30 this is greatly accelerated by the afforementioned hormonal trends. We know that a woman having a baby in her 30's is many more times likely to have the child suffer prenatal disease (down syndrome, etc..) and for a woman having her FIRST baby in her 30's this is exponentially higher. Also, younger women (18-23) have shown that they can expect an 85% chance of their bodies returning to pre pregnancy propotions after childbirth becasue thier bodies are still in the growth stage. For women above 30 the chances are only 15% that their bodies will return within reason to pre pregnancy proportions. Based upon these observations I would say that we are marrying and having children too old. We all hear the common arguement that "they're too young to get married" while the current frequency of divorces have shown a steady climb in proportion to the rising average age at which people get married. I think when you kick against mother nature she kicks back hard and behaviors wth regard to biology can have implications evidenced in the social realm.

 

[Miles]

... I have made a lot of sacrifices so that if I am ever in a relationship I can bring a lot of positives to the relationship and bring minimal baggage. But now it is again being asserted that not having a minimum amount of certain experiences by a certain age is baggage itself.

Are the people who value minimal experiential baggage the same people who view your lack of experience as baggage? I suspect these messages are coming from different sources.

 

[sunshiinedays]

Tim, I think this speaks volumes:

But I am not spiritually, emotionally, physically or financially prepared to be a boyfriend, husband or father. Therefore, I will most likely have to make it to the next stage alone.

Not only am I unable to figure out what place dating, marriage, etc. have in my life, I don't even know if I will ever be prepared to embrace them.

That, I think is a red flag, and perhaps this is something women might sense from you, not your lack of experience alone.

Speaking as a single woman, I honestly would be wary of getting involved with a man with no dating/relationship/marriage experience at all. Because I know exactly what I am looking for and what I want in a potential mate, I would be afraid that he might not, having not had the benefit (and I use that term very loosely) of experience. This isn't to say I would immediately reject someone based on their lack of experience, just that it would raise a lot of questions.

 

[little esther]

There Is One Main Thing To Think About.....it Not How Much Expreience You've Had......but How Much Godly Love You Have.....until We Put God First In Our Lives And Make Him Number One,,, None Of Those Who Are Married Will Ever Be Happy , No Matter What The Spouse Does Or Doesn't Do.....that Also Goes With Dating...it Doesn't Matter About The Age..... God Tells Us In His Word That We Are To Be Pure.....so What If You've Never Did Anything By The Age 30.....keep Yourself Pure For That Special Someone Who God Has Already For You.....when You Are Ready For Her...my Advice Is To Talk To Your Pastor If You Have One And See What He Has To Say About The Situation..
Always Remember To Keep God 1st, No Matter What Relationship You Have ,,, Rather Dating Or Marrying.

 

[ladyavalon]

far out! deliberatetourist, are you trying to depress all women, particularly those who have taken a stand to remain pure for the Husband that God has chosen for them????

Love through intellect - May God Bless you richly for the living sacrifice you have been, when you havnt a partner or kids, you have more time to spend with God, you are able to do so without distractions of responsibility of a man or child/ren...

You are Blessed

 

[Deliberatetourist]

far out! deliberatetourist, are you trying to depress all women, particularly those who have taken a stand to remain pure for the Husband that God has chosen for them????

Love through intellect - May God Bless you richly for the living sacrifice you have been, when you havnt a partner or kids, you have more time to spend with God, you are able to do so without distractions of responsibility of a man or child/ren...

You are Blessed

I am not trying to depress anyone but how much more depressed will they be if they scrap the best years of their lives waiting around for something that may or may not come? Keeping oneself pure has nothing to do with it . Its simply a choice and has no bearing on what we are discussing. You are 33 and I am 35 going on 36. Now unless you were grossly overweight back then and have shed some pounds I'll wager that with regard to physical appearence, it was a whole lot better in years past. I know I looked a whole lot better with more hair. I for one don't like my 30's and I'll bet that the 40's don't get much better. I am more mature now and vastly more experienced, but I get tired moreso and it takes a lot of work to keep myself up physically. I must take supplements to restore even a bit of the vitality I had in my early 20's. If I were first entering into a relationship just now I would have to say, from experience, that I would be getting the short end of the stick as well as whoever is my SO. As for waiting for that "right person" and the "right time" there is never going to be a totally right person or a time when all the stars are in alignment. Something will be out of order and if you are looking for negative omens you'll surely find them. Simply.... if you want a mate then pursue one and don't stop until you get it. Also in my experience God seldom drops something right in your lap. Legions of bitter, middle aged singles in America are a testement to this.

 

[Labayu]

If my inexperience is a red flag and women should think "Avoid", then why have all of the women whom I have been good friends with--women who know about my age and what I have not experienced--gone out of their way to tell me that they admire me and that I will make a terrific husband for some lucky woman?

Is answed nicely if indirectly by

Speaking as a single woman, I honestly would be wary of getting involved with a man with no dating/relationship/marriage experience at all. Because I know exactly what I am looking for and what I want in a potential mate, I would be afraid that he might not, having not had the benefit (and I use that term very loosely) of experience. This isn't to say I would immediately reject someone based on their lack of experience, just that it would raise a lot of questions.

Women interlectually think that it's a good thing and they'd like the idea for their friends just not themselves. I was watching tv last night with a mix of guys and girls (around 10 of us) and at one point a fat, neredy guy with a lisp saves the day and stands up for his mom. All the girls imediately go "owww he's so cute", I guarentee non of them would go out with him (they all had the hots for the mean, kinda jerky lead or backup guy), but they would love him to be the boyfriend of one of their friends (and these a seriously committed and mature christian girls from about 20-25). What girls/ladies say they want and what intially attracts/reples them are two dif things.

Why are you telling them you have no experiance at all? Do they need to know before you start dating? Why not avoid that subject because it will raise red flags.

(I'm assuming that it is more that issue than that you havn't smoked pot )

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I honestly could not imagine myself had I not had the experience of living with a mate and the maturity that comes with it.

What kind of maturity are you referring to? Something more specific would be helpful.

I worked with a 37 year old woman once who had never been married. She had the emotional capacity of a 14 year old when it came to intimacy and relationships and the body of a 40 year old - bad combination.

What kind of emotional capacity are you referring to? "When it came to intimacy and relationships" is vague.

Anyway I think that our biology gives us clues as to what is wrong currently with our system. A woman begins menstruation around the mean age of 11 (although this is dropping - diet and hormonally imbibed cosmetics) and then enters a period of 'hyper-fertility" from the ages of 15 to 19. This lessens around the mean age of 20 and at 25 the reproductive system begins a slow declination towards menopause. At 30 this is greatly accelerated by the afforementioned hormonal trends. We know that a woman having a baby in her 30's is many more times likely to have the child suffer prenatal disease (down syndrome, etc..) and for a woman having her FIRST baby in her 30's this is exponentially higher. Also, younger women (18-23) have shown that they can expect an 85% chance of their bodies returning to pre pregnancy propotions after childbirth becasue thier bodies are still in the growth stage. For women above 30 the chances are only 15% that their bodies will return within reason to pre pregnancy proportions.

Then it seems that the children of women who start families as teenagers and young adults would have advantages over the children of women who delay gratification and complete their education, start a career, start a business, work in missions, etc., etc. before starting families. The former would be healthier, have lower mortality rates, perform better in school, etc., etc., it seems.

We all hear the common arguement that "they're too young to get married" while the current frequency of divorces have shown a steady climb in proportion to the rising average age at which people get married.

All of the research that I know of shows that people who marry later are less likely to divorce.

I think when you kick against mother nature she kicks back hard and behaviors wth regard to biology can have implications evidenced in the social realm.

What exactly does, "She kicks back hard" refer to? And what "implications evidenced in the social realm"?

I don't know of any harsh consequences of inexperience with intimate romantic relationships.

The possibility that anybody believes that if a person has not experienced x at least y number of times by z age means that that person should be avoided makes me feel and . But living with < y and being > z has not been especially unhealthy, as far as I can tell.

I have known plenty of people who, planned and unplanned, started families while the ink was still drying on their high school diplomas. While they may have quickly gained a lot of experience--and the maturity that comes with it--long before I ever will, I have had experiences that likely will never be possible for them. It is exciting to think about building on that foundation. But if people can't see or appreciate that foundation because they are too busy pointing out how the walls have not been built yet and how the landscaping is behind schedule, there is not much that I can do about it.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

 

[Deliberatetourist]

What kind of maturity are you referring to? Something more specific would be helpful.

Well......gee I guess the maturity that comes through living, sharing, and caring for someone for many years. I kind of always thought relationships have been about growth. Maybe you've never been down that road?

What kind of emotional capacity are you referring to? "When it came to intimacy and relationships" is vague.

Let me spell it out for you then. When the lady would get with a guy she would act giddy like a 14 year old (and please don't ask me how a 14 year old acts....I can see it coming already). She had absolutely no experience with the give and take (mutual reciprocity) that occurs in adult relationships. I know what to expect from living with a woman. I did it for 8 years. This lady had only a string of non-serious relationships and never seemed to progress beyond the physical stage for whatever reason. In my observation people who have been married have tossed the "letter jackets and cheerleader outfits" out the window. Or at least put them in a trunk somewhere and know how to relate to someone on their own wavelength. Guys were simply annoyed with her behavior.

Then it seems that the children of women who start families as teenagers and young adults would have advantages over the children of women who delay gratification and complete their education, start a career, start a business, work in missions, etc., etc. before starting families. The former would be healthier, have lower mortality rates, perform better in school, etc., etc., it seems.

I believe that younger women who have children DO end up more healthier as their bodies still being in the growth stage have a better chance of returning to near original proportions. So after the pregnancies their bodies do not look as marred. Of course many teeneagers suffer difficult childbirths but that is due to extenuating circumstances. The unwed mother is still usually under the auspices of her parents who restrict any sexual access to her for the duration of the pregnancy. Then 9 months later the child tries to force it's head through a passagway that has been barred shut for that duration of time. Reseach has shown that women who are sexually active during the pregnancy have easier childbirths. I dont feel I have to elaborate as to why. As far as younger people having advantages...they might if our warped society through financial sanctions didn't punish younger people for everything. Our biologies have remained reletively constant for many thousands of years although social circumstances fluctuate wildly within any given span of time including decades. In the past poeple married much younger than they do today and with the allusion to the menstrual cycle tendencies previously described it would appear that our bodies are better equipped for having children during the peak years of fertility. Just because man comes along and cooks up a new social system of his own does not mean that our genetics and naturally selected behaviors will "fall in line". In fact if you know anything about genetics then you know thats not true.

All of the research that I know of shows that people who marry later are less likely to divorce.

And what reseach is that? The last research I saw showed no discrepancy with proportion to age categories when it came to divorce. The average for all groups was static at around 50% as is the norm for Christian vs. non Christian marriages - no difference. The only difference was that there were far more late 20's people getting divorces because the average age that people get married nowadays is higher than in years past.

What exactly does, "She kicks back hard" refer to? And what "implications evidenced in the social realm"?

I don't know of any harsh consequences of inexperience with intimate romantic relationships.

Well about a year ago I remember reading a story (Time Magazine or Newsweek) that was about the trend of disatisfied "career women" who had shucked marriage and family in favor of the career lifestyle. These women were in their mid to late 30's and had had it all with respect to their careers. But now they had experienced enough of that and were looking for the traditional family that they passed by earlier in life. What these women were finding was that their male peers, equally successful, were going for younger, more attractive women. And furthermore these women that the men were going for tended to be more subordinate in compare. So there you had women who had money, prestige, and security that were being trumped by younger gals who still looked good in tight lingerie. You can't change DNA in a single generation (or really a hundred for that matter). I would say that these women are getting kicked pretty hard as a result of their selfish decisions and not realizing a fundamental truth of genderness - we men like our eye candy.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Well......gee I guess the maturity that comes through living, sharing, and caring for someone for many years. I kind of always thought relationships have been about growth. Maybe you've never been down that road?

Let me spell it out for you then. When the lady would get with a guy she would act giddy like a 14 year old (and please don't ask me how a 14 year old acts....I can see it coming already). She had absolutely no experience with the give and take (mutual reciprocity) that occurs in adult relationships. I know what to expect from living with a woman. I did it for 8 years. This lady had only a string of non-serious relationships and never seemed to progress beyond the physical stage for whatever reason. In my observation people who have been married have tossed the "letter jackets and cheerleader outfits" out the window. Or at least put them in a trunk somewhere and know how to relate to someone on their own wavelength. Guys were simply annoyed with her behavior.

It sounds like you are saying that because of my inexeperience with romantic relationships I am extremely immature for my age. And that I am selfish.

I believe that younger women who have children DO end up more healthier as their bodies still being in the growth stage have a better chance of returning to near original proportions. So after the pregnancies their bodies do not look as marred. Of course many teeneagers suffer difficult childbirths but that is due to extenuating circumstances. The unwed mother is still usually under the auspices of her parents who restrict any sexual access to her for the duration of the pregnancy. Then 9 months later the child tries to force it's head through a passagway that has been barred shut for that duration of time. Reseach has shown that women who are sexually active during the pregnancy have easier childbirths. I dont feel I have to elaborate as to why. As far as younger people having advantages...they might if our warped society through financial sanctions didn't punish younger people for everything. Our biologies have remained reletively constant for many thousands of years although social circumstances fluctuate wildly within any given span of time including decades. In the past poeple married much younger than they do today and with the allusion to the menstrual cycle tendencies previously described it would appear that our bodies are better equipped for having children during the peak years of fertility. Just because man comes along and cooks up a new social system of his own does not mean that our genetics and naturally selected behaviors will "fall in line". In fact if you know anything about genetics then you know thats not true.

But I did not say anything about advantages for the mothers. I said that it seems that the children of such mothers would have advantages.

And what reseach is that? The last research I saw showed no discrepancy with proportion to age categories when it came to divorce. The average for all groups was static at around 50% as is the norm for Christian vs. non Christian marriages - no difference. The only difference was that there were far more late 20's people getting divorces because the average age that people get married nowadays is higher than in years past.

Are you talking about all marriages or only people's first marriages?

Well about a year ago I remember reading a story (Time Magazine or Newsweek) that was about the trend of disatisfied "career women" who had shucked marriage and family in favor of the career lifestyle. These women were in their mid to late 30's and had had it all with respect to their careers. But now they had experienced enough of that and were looking for the traditional family that they passed by earlier in life. What these women were finding was that their male peers, equally successful, were going for younger, more attractive women. And furthermore these women that the men were going for tended to be more subordinate in compare. So there you had women who had money, prestige, and security that were being trumped by younger gals who still looked good in tight lingerie. You can't change DNA in a single generation (or really a hundred for that matter). I would say that these women are getting kicked pretty hard as a result of their selfish decisions and not realizing a fundamental truth of genderness - we men like our eye candy.

Well, those powerful, successful professional women are the women who I admire.

 

[Deliberatetourist]

It sounds like you are saying that because of my inexeperience with romantic relationships I am extremely immature for my age. And that I am selfish.

Not at all. It seems you have an inferiority and/or persecution complex.

But I did not say anything about advantages for the mothers. I said that it seems that the children of such mothers would have advantages.

I believe the children of such mothers have the advantage of not being as prone to suffering prenatal illnesses as previously discussed. That covers the health part. As for the other ones you mentioned, you are tossing about lots of attributes that are influeced by a myraid of external factors....wealth, geography, nutrition, etc....

Are you talking about all marriages or only people's first marriages?

You made no distinction in your previous post so I felt no need to offer one. The data I referred to was the statistical observations of marriages as a whole in American society segregated by age only, not other applied attributes. Which are the same ones you alluded to originally when you stated that you had obseved data suggesting that marriages that entailed older couples showed less frequency of divorce, remember? No mention of first marriages on your part - you lumped them all together and my data simply recognizes that assertion.

Well, those powerful, successful professional women are the women who I admire.

And those young, less powerful, more subodinate beauties are the ones the objects of your admiration are so vehemently jealous of.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It seems you have an inferiority and/or persecution complex.

Nah. I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

I believe the children of such mothers have the advantage of not being as prone to suffering prenatal illnesses as previously discussed. That covers the health part. As for the other ones you mentioned, you are tossing about lots of attributes that are influeced by a myraid of external factors....wealth, geography, nutrition, etc....

Unless people are suggesting that it is unethical/immoral to put children's health at risk by conceiving when the mother is past a certain age--like it may be unethical/immoral to put children's health at risk by drinking alcohol and/or smoking during pregnancy--then I don't see the significance of any of it. We do plenty of other things, such as poisoning the air and streams with mercury, that put children's health at risk prenatally, yet nobody talks about mother nature "kicking back hard" with respect to those behaviors.

Anyway, whether we are talking about women's health, children's health or both, I don't see a public health crisis in people marrying later in life. Almost all of the public health problems related to reproduction that I hear about the U.S. struggling with (I don't know about other places) disproportionately afflict the youngest people and the children of those youngest people, it seems.

Meanwhile, there are risks to young people that may have nothing to do with "the system". For example, I have heard that the risk of developing certain non-infectious diseases increases when kids are sexually active before a certain age.

You made no distinction in your previous post so I felt no need to offer one. The data I referred to was the statistical observations of marriages as a whole in American society segregated by age only, not other applied attributes. Which are the same ones you alluded to originally when you stated that you had obseved data suggesting that marriages that entailed older couples showed less frequency of divorce, remember? No mention of first marriages on your part - you lumped them all together and my data simply recognizes that assertion.

I thought it was clear what I meant. Anyway, it has always been my understanding that first marriages that start later in life end in divorce at a significantly lower rate than all other marriages.

And those young, less powerful, more subodinate beauties are the ones the objects of your admiration are so vehemently jealous of.

Well, I think that it is an irrational jealousy. Why would a woman be jealous of women who are doing what men demand and who are in the process degrading both themselves and men?

A woman should trust her own judgment and do what is best for her, not do what men would like for her to do.

 

[OhhJim]

If my inexperience is a red flag and women should think "Avoid", then why have all of the women whom I have been good friends with--women who know about my age and what I have not experienced--gone out of their way to tell me that they admire me and that I will make a terrific husband for some lucky woman?

Whenever a woman tells you that "you will make a terrific husband," that's womanspeak for, "I would never date you, although I know some messed-up women who you would be good for".

If they really admired you, they'd want to date you themselves.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Whenever a woman tells you that "you will make a terrific husband," that's womanspeak for, "I would never date you, although I know some messed-up women who you would be good for".

If they really admired you, they'd want to date you themselves.

I am talking about colleagues and close friends who are married and/or much older than me. Therefore, they can't date me.

And how do you know that if they weren't married and if they weren't so much older than me that they wouldn't want to date and/or marry me?

 

[invisiblebabe]

I hear ya, Tim.

Although I'm married now obviously, I used to get verrrry annoyed by the whole "sweet sixteen and never been kissed" garbage. What is so significant about being kissed? (honestly, it's great because it's with my husband, but kissing in and of itself is not the be-all and end-all)

I could start a new one if I wanted to. Nobody is cool unless they've done a double back flip before their 20th birthday. Non-gymnasts beware.

-kayli

 

[Kgreg]

My situation is a bit different from many of the 30-somethings around here (long story) but there are a lot of different takes one the age/marriage issue.

I see a lot of people marry in their twenties but then end up divorced in their thirties. Is something "right" with them because they partnered with someone and married early, and is something also "wrong" with them because they are now single in thier thirties? Are they "used goods" because they are sexually experienced, at least with one other person?

Having quite a sexual "past" myself (part of the long story) I don't quite see how a man can reach the age of 30 without having sex. I realize this is just my own ego-centrism, but a guy needs sex and it is available, even among some christians. How does a guy not become sexually active before 30? I certainly know that masturbation is an option for the physical need, but what about just wanting to touch another person sexually. How do you resist throughout your twenties?

I think the baby issue is important too. A woman's ability to conceive decreases as she gets older. Her "biological clock" is ticking. His is too. It's a lot easier to chase a couple of small children around at the age of 25 than 40.

I'm just curious about people who believe that God is making them wait for "the one". Do you believe that's the case?

Some people to marry after 30. Karen Carpenter was about 35 (yes she had an eating disorder but I don't think that was why she was single til then), President Ford married at 35 and he and Betty had 5 or 6 kids.