Society, why wait?

[news4thenonbeliever]

Ok, so I saw this comment in a different thread and wanted to comment on it, but then realized after I typed forever that my thoughts were really not related to the original thread and topic at all. So, new thread.

I disagree with the modern christian fads of prolonged dating and abnormally long engagements, your asking for problems when you do that because regardless of how much christians try to down play hormones they are very powerful and the sex is going to happen regardless of what propaganda you try to shove down someones throat, Gods design of our bodies trumps legalism.

If I could go back and change my life, I would not date until it could progress (it would have saved me a lot of heartache and saved me from many mistakes and issues that I have had to and still have to deal with) to the next step and I hate how society has somehow changed the age to mid 20's for marriage. Why is this? Some number of years ago at the age of 20 I would already be married and have a child.

God made us this way for a reason, so why are we letting society tell us to wait? Why? Why is it unacceptable to someone to get married at 19, 20, 21, 22, 23?

 

[dayknee]

I think you bring up good questions. I did get married at 19. Although that did not work out for me and we were divorced 20 years later I do not have a problem with marrying young.
I also think though, that in every generation there seem to be that group of kids who are just not smart enough for a life long commited relationship. I think that my generation was quite different but I look at my daughters and think, wow, there is NO way I can see my 19 year old daughter married. she is way too young emotionally, maturity wise and well..man wise.
I do know that my rearing of her has made her this way but I also think that the Lord knew what he was doing making me her mom and rearing her this way.
I did not want her to go through some of the things I went through when I was young.
I do think the change is dictated by society but I also think it changes because more and more poeple are realizing that for some 19, 20, 21 is just too young. I will always believe it's a case by case basis or rather individual dependent.
Interesting topic to discuss though. Thanks for sharing it

 

[NiobiumTragedy]

I also think though, that in every generation there seem to be that group of kids who are just not smart enough for a life long commited relationship. I think that my generation was quite different but I look at my daughters and think, wow, there is NO way I can see my 19 year old daughter married. she is way too young emotionally, maturity wise and well..man wise.

I don't really think this is a generational thing, I think that we're just getting older and seeing things differently. lol

 

[Mayzoo]

As time goes on and life gets "easier" I think Americans are maturing later and later. Pre-industrial when 6 yr old + worked hard, long manual labor in coal mines, sewing sweat shops, or long hours on the farm those kids matured quicker and knew what was required from them to make it in this world and in a marriage. Now, many teens are merely required to get good or reasonably good grades in school and their parents will pay all or almost all their way through college...no job or very part time job needed. Real life experience about compromise, disappointments, self sacrifice etc are all taught much later in life now than it used to be. Hormones keep trekking on yes, but emotionally we (Americans) are typically not mature enough to be the self sacrificing individuals required to make a marriage work. Some who marry early mature and grow together. Others do not.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

It almost seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy that the generations will marry later and later. People typically spend more time in college, more time living with their parents, and begin their careers later in life. In my career I have younger folks who outrank me by 2 or even 3 stripes, and 18-19 year olds who equal my rank and income, and, unsurprisingly, I work with many more young married people with kids than I'm sure the American norm would dictate.

 

[news4thenonbeliever]

I do see the point that some of yall are making about how life has become too easy and many are not mature enough for marriage. That does really make a lot of sense.
I wish that things were different. It frustrates me.
I feel like I should have lived at a different time sometimes

 

[Luther073082]

Actually it seems to me the current Christian fad is short engagements and marrying young. And I disagree with that for the most part. (Especially the marrying young part, not so much the short engagements.)

But I also disagree with the society fad of long open ended engagements and waiting forever to get married.

Now to address your question

If I could go back and change my life, I would not date until it could progress (it would have saved me a lot of heartache and saved me from many mistakes and issues that I have had to and still have to deal with) to the next step and I hate how society has somehow changed the age to mid 20's for marriage. Why is this?

Multiple reasons. . . increasing lifespans and increasing educational needs for both men and women. The increasing educational needs more then anything.

I do agree that there has been a maturity change in which the level of maturity that used to be expected from someone aged 20 is not expected until later in life. This has a lot to do with the educational requirements. But there are other factors, the job market is fairly limited to the young and parents now have the resources to help their children through school more.

Plus I think our parent's generation has become a bit of a me-first generation and that was passed on to us as their children. This to me is westernized individualism taken too far. Sacrificing for the greater good is has not died out but has been far more limited in people's minds since the 60's.

Some number of years ago at the age of 20 I would already be married and have a child.

See this is where Christians tend to over emphasis something and thats exactly what you are doing.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2010 — Infoplease.com

Even in 1890 the median age at which women married was 22 and since then has gone up 4 years to 26.

For men however its only gone up from 26 to 28.

The big reason as to why women has gone up 4 years and men only 2 was because that now women are expected to put together careers before they get married. Prior to that it was just men who where expected to do that.

But really the age of first marriage has not changed THAT MUCH considering 1890 was 120 years ago. 2 years for men, 4 for women.

Throw that in with the fact that lifespans from that era and earlier where at least 30 years shorter on average then they are now.

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

In fact its interesting to look at

Age at first marriage percent change (1900 to 2010) - Some rounding involved

Men: 7.7%
Women: 18.2%

Life Expectency Percent change (1900 to 1997) - The 2010 percentage would only be larger. Some rounding involved again.

Men: 53.7%
Women: 56.6%

Really the bolded part is something that so many people seem to ignore in this sort of conversation. We throw around immaturity which may in part be true. And we also throw out there education which is true. And careers I see a lot too which is also true. But for both men and women the average life expectency is over 50% longer then it used to be while the age at first marriage change has been a paultry 7.7% and 18.2% change. This is highly important because if you are only expecting to live to 47 or 50 then you might want to get started on the making babies a little bit sooner then if you can expect to live to be 73 or 79 years old. Hence if there is more pressure to get started on children then there is obviously a reason to get married sooner rather then later.

In short perhaps the biggest change is that people in modern America can reasonably expect a full 30 years of extra lifetime. It used to be that the greast pressure was having the children and raising them to adulthood before you died. Now the greatest pressure is having children before the woman hits menopause. Huge difference. . . a woman in 1900 would not have wanted to have a child at 35 because in all likelyhood she may not live to see him/her out of the house and on his/her own. However if a woman is still able to have children at 35 then there is no problem with that because living til nearly 80 she can expect that her child will be 45 or more years old by the time she dies!!! Enough time to not only see him out of the house but see her grandchildren become teenagers or young adults! Maybe even enough time to see great grandchildren! In fact I know of at least two living women (one of them my grandmother) who have great grandchildren now. Something that would have been nearly unheard of in 1900.

 

[gzt]

Looking at life expectancy is somewhat of a canard because early mortality drags it down a LOT. Expected future lifetime of somebody aged 20 is better these days than 100 years ago, but not as precipitously different as expectation at birth. I haven't seen the tables lately, but I recall being shocked when I saw the tables for ancient Rome on this matter. IIRC, if you made it to 25 back then, you could expect to make at least 60...

 

[news4thenonbeliever]

This is highly important because if you are only expecting to live to 47 or 50 then you might want to get started on the making babies a little bit sooner then if you can expect to live to be 73 or 79 years old. Hence if there is more pressure to get started on children then there is obviously a reason to get married sooner rather then later.


In short perhaps the biggest change is that people in modern America can reasonably expect a full 30 years of extra lifetime. It used to be that the greast pressure was having the children and raising them to adulthood before you died. Now the greatest pressure is having children before the woman hits menopause. Huge difference. . . a woman in 1900 would not have wanted to have a child at 35 because in all likelyhood she may not live to see him/her out of the house and on his/her own. However if a woman is still able to have children at 35 then there is no problem with that because living til nearly 80 she can expect that her child will be 45 or more years old by the time she dies!!!

Ok, I understand that point too. So there are a lot of reasons why it has changed. Life expectancy is a big one...but that doesn't change how late you can have or should have a baby. The longer a woman waits the more likely the baby will have Down syndrome and having a premature baby are more likely the older a woman gets.
But I guess if they're not wanting to have children, it doesn't really matter.

To each his/her own.

 

[Melethiel]

Ok, I understand that point too. So there are a lot of reasons why it has changed. Life expectancy is a big one...but that doesn't change how late you can have or should have a baby. The longer a woman waits the more likely the baby will have Down syndrome and having a premature baby are more likely the older a woman gets.
But I guess if they're not wanting to have children, it doesn't really matter.

To each his/her own.

Exactly. Any woman 35 or older is titled "advanced maternal age," is put into the high risk OB clinic, and has a much higher rate of complications and birth defects. The risk is even higher if it's the first pregnancy.
Just because women are having children later now doesn't mean that's the best thing to do.

 

[Johnnz]

Several factors have combined for marriage to be later

Contraception - sex without risk
Education - important because
Living costs, especially housing, have risen greatly, so better paid jobs are important for many people
Parents marriage failed - fear of making the same mistake
Women have jobs and careers
Self seeking lifestyles - people want without commitment

John
NZ

 

[Luther073082]

Ok, I understand that point too. So there are a lot of reasons why it has changed. Life expectancy is a big one...but that doesn't change how late you can have or should have a baby. The longer a woman waits the more likely the baby will have Down syndrome and having a premature baby are more likely the older a woman gets.
But I guess if they're not wanting to have children, it doesn't really matter.

To each his/her own.

That may be true but the overall risk of birth defects is still very low, even at age 35. So I don't have a problem with someone waiting til 35 if thats whats necessary for them. Its a risk but so is everything in life. And its not like the risk is non-existant at a younger age. . . its just less of a risk.

 

[Mayzoo]

God made us this way for a reason, so why are we letting society tell us to wait? Why? Why is it unacceptable to someone to get married at 19, 20, 21, 22, 23?

BTW, who has said it is unacceptable to marry at any of those ages? I have not heard that for the most part. Individual parents may wish their child to wait, but I do not think I have heard a "societal push" about marriage at those ages being unacceptable. My sister and I both got married in those ranges, and I do not recall anyone saying anything negative to me about it (other than are you pregnant and that was more because I choose a very short engagement).

I am not saying it does not happen, I am just curious who you are hearing it from. Is it a pastor, church members, friends, co-workers? I of course was married over 20 years ago, so maybe things have changed .

 

[news4thenonbeliever]

I am not saying it does not happen, I am just curious who you are hearing it from. Is it a pastor, church members, friends, co-workers? I of course was married over 20 years ago, so maybe things have changed .

Church and friends mostly right now. We've had 4 or 5 engagements and 2 marriages of people under the age of 24 in my church in the past year-ish. There has been alot of negative talk about it. One of the couples has been together for 6 years about and some people are still questioning them.

 

[Luther073082]

Church and friends mostly right now. We've had 4 or 5 engagements and 2 marriages of people under the age of 24 in my church in the past year-ish. There has been alot of negative talk about it. One of the couples has been together for 6 years about and some people are still questioning them.

I'm a bit concerned about anyone under 23 getting married.

I'm extremely concerned about anyone under 21.

Its a bit different if I know the person and have a good feel for their maturity. But I hear all too often of people getting married too young and it causing a divorce because neither one of them is mature enough to handle marriage or even have the faintest idea of what its about.

But when random 18, 19, 20 year old comes in here and says they are getting married soon. It very much concerns me. It makes me wonder what the rush is.

 

[news4thenonbeliever]

I guess I can understand the under 21.
Even though 23 is not much older, what is concerning about it?
People change, but can't growing and learning together about each other strengthen a bond? I think that would be great for a relationship if the couple can handle it and survive thru it.

 

[Luther073082]

I guess I can understand the under 21.
Even though 23 is not much older, what is concerning about it?
People change, but can't growing and learning together about each other strengthen a bond? I think that would be great for a relationship if the couple can handle it and survive thru it.

Its mostly through personal experiences. . . I've found in the past that people change the most from ages 18 to 22. Changes after that always exist as we always change. But you don't see the radical changes that you see over those years.

I'm a little bit different now then I was when I was 23. I'm more conservative, in some ways I'm more set in my ways and in some ways I'm less set in my ways.

But the ways that I'm different from when I was 18 or 19. . . thats a very extensive list.

It doesn't bug me as much as it does when someone is 18, 19, or 20 since they are on the tail end of it. But I still don't think its a good plan.

Also I get concerned about people trying to learn how to be an adult and learn how to be married at the same time. The basics of being an adult is pretty much a pre-requisite to holding together a marriage. And that is something that really scares me about younger people, especially people under 21 getting married.

It seems like a lot of Christians want to get married that young so they can get in eachother's pants. And I seriously understand that feeling, I really do. . . And sex and marriage go hand in hand so I don't want to de-emphasise the importance of sex to marriage.

But on the other hand, getting married so you can have sex without being aware of everything else that comes with being married is a formula for disaster.

It would be similar to someone who signs up for the military for the pay and benefits, having no idea what they even do in the military or what the job entails. Its just not going to work out very well.

Being married, like being in the military is a lifestyle, its a way of life. And in both cases you need to be completly prepared to take on that way of life before you sign on. And if you arn't prepared for or don't want that way of life, you just shouldn't do it.