Young marriage: stupid or smart?

[hadia]

I knew some people back in high school that decided to get married either during school or immediately after graduation. It seemed a little...strange, to be honest. I myself got engaged before the end of my senior year but I'm Muslim and we tend to get married young (but yes, even then, I'm a little younger than young.) I noticed that most of these kids ended up not attending a college, not finding a career and not doing what they wanted to do. I always wonder if it is the people who are in these situations or is it the situations themselves that help those marriages become sources of unhappiness.

 

My question is, is marriage really something a young person is capable to face? Does a complex, working relationship require a certain age or only a certain level of maturity? And are there particular things that a person should look for in a spouse, or is it really all about "I love you forever n ever n ever"?

 

 

Hope you guys have some interesting thoughts.

[Übereil]

You have no facts to suggest people haven't become more selfish.

You have none that suggests they have...

(I'll answer the rest in case Julian doesn't show up again.)

[Decepticon]

"You have no facts that show it is socially unacceptable to be single or divorced in rural areas."

Do I really need to go into the socioeconomic and cultural differences between large urban sprawls and small rural areas?  Is this a thing that you seriously don't understand?

Here, I'll just go the simple route with something you can look up if you want: Urban Areas = More Liberal = More Accepting of Divorce/Homosexuality/Whatever Other Thing.  Rural Areas = More Conservative = Less Accepting of Divorce/Homosexuality/Whatever Other Thing.  Conservatism, by its very nature, values the 'sanctity of marriage' in the states, and tends to be centered in rural areas.

You can look up voting maps, if you want, for any year you like, and see this trend if you have a solid grasp of where US major cities lie. Or you could just look up various voting trends performed by analysts.
Rural tends to vote conservative, urban tends to vote liberal.

You could argue that conservative doesn't necessarily mean that they disagree with divorces or that there's a greater social impetuous to marry young and stay married, and you'd be right in that it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, however the general trend? That's how it goes. Indeed, the very definition of conservatism requires them to latch onto earlier times and social norms, letting them go slower than liberals. Like, you know, sanctity of marriage.

There's also the fact that rural areas tend to be more overwhelmingly christian, or more devoutly christian than urban centers, but I really don't feel like looking up maps and shit, so you'll have to take my word on it (or go look it up yourself).

"The whole tone of your response is oozing with emotional appeals."

Yeah, sorry, no, but "Correlation does not equal causation, and here are some examples of the data points you're missing" does not equal 'emotional appeal'.  In fact, it's basically the opposite.

I didn't even argue whether young or old marriage was better or whether divorce was good or bad, or for any other specific point.  I merely pointed out the blatant mistake that is using 'low divorce rate' as an equivalency for 'better marriages'.

"You have no facts to suggest people haven't become more selfish."

So, let me ask you a question: If people were more selfish, would not the rate of thefts and murders increase?  If people were MORE out for themselves today than they were in the past why, then, are we seeing a drop in violent crime across the board?

Indeed, I can't be assed to find a chart for it, but go ahead and look up violent crimes over the last 100 years in the US and you'll see that we are currently at the lowest violent crime rate since before prohibition.  How does that add up with 'people are more selfish'?

Further: Where is your evidence that they weren't?  In the first half of this century divorce simply wasn't an option.  Not socially.  I'm not going to give you a history and social lesson of the era.  If you doubt me, go read a book.  I'm right on this one, but it'd take a lot of typing to prove it.

But hey, hell, let's just go by your OWN METRIC of selfishness.  Divorce rates: Since 1980 they've been on a steady decline.

 

So... where was YOUR evidence?

 

"Unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages."

So... people who cohabitate and don't get married... probably because they... don't feel ready for marriage or don't think they want to marry the person they're with... are more likely to break up, and this is... news?

"The report also goes into length talking about people in marriages tend to have better overall health, and tend to produce healthier children."

 

A more accurate thing to say might be that people who are in love tend to have better overall health, etc.  It's a stress thing.  And not new.  And has nothing to do with my post?

 

[Wayne Dirac]

You're right, there is no evidence showing people are more selfish, and there is no evidence that people are less selfish. Because selfishness is not a thing that you can directly measure. You can measure things that may be related to selfishness, but you can't show direct causation.

 

I'm just pointing out that the statement you made:

 

But your 'facts' and 'logical points' are half-assed at best. 

 

That applies to what you were saying as well.

 

 

[Decepticon]

Of course it does, sweetie.

[hadia]

we can be nice, yes? Thank you!

 

As far as divorce being less acceptable in more conservative, rural areas, we can the change that modern America is bringing to these places: more and more of them are joining the trend toward a higher divorce rate.

 

Can we think about what is it that causes divorce, anyhow? What exactly causes a marriage to fall to pieces and why is it more common now to see a divorce within any marriage, young or old?

 

Can a divorce be avoided before a marriage even begins?

[Übereil]

I find the first part of your response completely untrue and very weak.

I have two friends who are married. They met in high school (at the latest), so when they were 16-18 years old. They got married two or three years ago, when they were 29 and 27 (IIRC). In between they were common-law spouses, lived together etc. From what I can tell nothing really changed about their relationship when they got married (apart from the female changing her last name).

This bond we've been discussing, this couple clearly had it up and running before they got married. Sure, it's just one couple but they at least show that marriage isn't necesary to develop this bond (so at best marriage is merely helpful). The world is also full of examples of marriages where the bond didn't develop (or where the bond withered away with time).

What has happened in the past few decades has turned marriage into a kind of unfavorable option that can be overcome by simply trying to enjoy what a married relationship would bring outside of that religious/legal institution. People have become very self-centered and very attached to their freedom, and marriage has become the very last thing you do, if you must, because people just don't "feel" like it's time, or it's the right person. To be completely honest, love, whatever that means, doesn't have too much to do with it because the idea we call love now has very little to do with compromise with other people, for the sake of other people.

I (once again) think you underestimate pepole (or rather underestimate the pepole of the past). The difference between now and the past isn't that pepole are more celf-centered and refuse to compromise. The difference is what Julian described: in the past you were forced to stay in a failed relationship, whether you wanted to or not. Pepole don't get out so often now because they're self-centered and refuse to compromise, they get out because they can. In other words: marriages weren't more successful in the past, the unsuccessful marriages just wasn't as visible as they are today.

And I believe pepole are far more altruistic about their partner and more willing to work on getting the relationship to work than you seem to think. A lot of relationships (marriages included) end because the pepole in the relationship simply aren't able to make it work.

I mean, where does the bond come from? It doesn't just appear when you find a lucky match.

No, but they don't come from saying "I do" in a church either (as the divorce statistics make very clear).

The bond is built over time, and how to build it is all but clear. The first step is that the pepole involved must commit to trying and build a common life. It requires collaboration, trust and common support, but apart from that I believe the rest of the work is highly individual and depends on the pepole involved. Success is also far from guaranteed, which is why you'll have to evaluate the work a while in rather than right away. It's only a while in you can see how well you've succeeded, and consequently if if it's worth soldiering on or if you should try over with someone else.

(Note that I don't think it's something that just randomly happens. I also think this is something most pepole realize, sooner or later. I suspect most that discover it later does so by divorcing...)

You create that bond by marrying because you've got a title and it's something you must adhere to.

That, I believe, only leads to pepole staying in unhealthy relationships to try and adhere to something they're not capable of adhering to.

[hadia]

Congratulations to your friends, that's really hopeful news! I wish them the best. Yet still, I don't believe on a general level there is great possibility that bond will remain as...binding (bonding? baha) with time. It is much too easy to jump at the slightest misfortune and I mention this because the top reasons for divorce can normally be attributed to poor communication and lack of respect, which are two things that people can alleviate. These are not signs of a doomed relationship.

 

I don't believe I underestimate people; I think I simply give them a cushion. What you're basically saying is that people in marriage before today actually hated their marriages and wanted to split but couldn't, and now that times are changed, people can turn their faces to the sun and make their moves. I resent that, a little. Though divorce wasn't something people accepted readily, I believe that in the past, there may have been less to complain about. Sometimes, with more freedom there is a lot more at stake to lose. Once you open doors for people to spread out and relax, (which is GREAT, please don't think I support any kind of segregation, inequality, racism, or anything like that) you allow them to be more protective of themselves, their assets and their happiness. Solzhenitsyn said, "Freedom is self-restriction", and that to me is the solution.

 

So, this "bond" business we've been talking about. Say you are in a relationship with someone and your bond is strong, but over time, it does wither and eventually break. You have spent a long time with this person, but now it's time to move on. You simply find someone else you can work with, strike up a bond, and ride the wave until it's gone? A life spent waiting for marriage isn't about trying anyone and everyone to see who fits the longest and best. You pick someone worth picking and you take a jump, knowing you can make it work. You say I underestimate people? Give them some credit to make a wise decision concerning their lives and you may surprised. Though young people may be slightly foolish and drunk on amphetamines, it is very possible for them to clear their minds and realize the future.

 

*siiiiiiidenote* People don't give young adults enough credit sometimes and they force the society to dumb them down; until you're 18, you can't make an 'adult' decision, but you can be subject to every abuse known to man thanks to public school. In the past, 16 year old boys were men and they acted like men, supporting families and still gaining an education. I know, things have changed, but the human mind is still very capable. Don't blame the hormones.

 

But, in the end, most people don't see it this way, so you don't see things work out quite so nicely all the time.

 

[Übereil]

Congratulations to your friends, that's really hopeful news! I wish them the best. Yet still, I don't believe on a general level there is great possibility that bond will remain as...binding (bonding? baha) with time.

I'd say that the only way to test the strength of the bond is to see they're staying together because they want to rather than because they they have to. If they don't have enough going for them that they must be forced to stay together in order to stay together then their bond is weak.

That I believe is what most pepole who think relationships in the past were stronger miss. That pepole stayed together longer wasn't a sign that relationships were stronger, because divorce was so stigmatized there really was no other option - you stayed together no matter how weak your relationship was. I actually believe that now we have stronger relationships because we can abandon a weak relationship and instead seek out new ones (utilizing the experience from the past relationship to make the new one stronger).

What you're basically saying is that people in marriage before today actually hated their marriages and wanted to split but couldn't, and now that times are changed, people can turn their faces to the sun and make their moves.

To an extent, yes. That's far from all there is to it, but that was definently the case with some marriages (questionable how big a chunk).

Though divorce wasn't something people accepted readily, I believe that in the past, there may have been less to complain about. Sometimes, with more freedom there is a lot more at stake to lose. Once you open doors for people to spread out and relax, (which is GREAT, please don't think I support any kind of segregation, inequality, racism, or anything like that) you allow them to be more protective of themselves, their assets and their happiness.

So marriage is relativly less attractive now than before, therefore there's less marriage. This means that there rare cases where pepole are better off not married now than they would have been married in the past (which, when I think of it, is quite close to my own conclusion - just based on different data). So why is this a problem?

You say I underestimate people?

I think you underestimate the effort they actually put into getting relationships to work before they give up, since you seem to think that if they just try things will work out. I mean, you say things like this...

Say you are in a relationship with someone and your bond is strong, but over time, it does wither and eventually break. You have spent a long time with this person, but now it's time to move on. You simply find someone else you can work with, strike up a bond, and ride the wave until it's gone?

...as if that's how things work out in practise nowadays. It is, sometimes, but far from always. And it's far from always that's why pepole divorce. Pepole do wait until they find someone good enough, and then they do try to get their relationship to work. The reason for a lot of divorces is that, despite their best effort, they don't succeed (IE not because they didn't try hard enough).

That's really how "looking for the best partner" works IRL. You look around until you find someone suitable, then you give it a try. Hopefully you're able to work it out, but if you don't you try over with a new suitable partner. It's not about riding the wave (most pepole realize that doesn't work long term). Marriage isn't finding a suitable partner and making it work either, because all you can do is try. Really, it is that difficult and complicated.

That jump you mentioned? Most pepole who get into a serious relationship with someone makes that jump. It's just that not everyone does it by "marrying".

Though young people may be slightly foolish and drunk on amphetamines, it is very possible for them to clear their minds and realize the future.

I'm not claiming it's only young pepole who should wait, I claim everyone should. That young pepole generally shouldn't get married is because they really haven't had the time to figure out if their partner is the right one (or even what they want from their life - since a lot happens to a person in the early 20's).

[Klaire]

I think, before any marriage, the couple has got to really get to know each other. See them both in good moods and in bad. There's some books that, though they take the whole 'romantic' angle away, are really good at getting to know how your SO feels about finance, what's important to them about childcare, all the things that people who are getting married need to know.

 

I think that any marriage that starts without being planned out well, ends badly, whether married young or old.

 

Personally, I want to marry young, but I'm not going out looking for spouses. If I'm meant to have a spouse then I will. If I'm not, well, then I guess I'll die a virgin. But being married, though important to me, does not take up my entire life. So I just need to fill my life with all the other stuff and let the 'marriage' take care of itself.

[Übereil]

Example of books would be nice.

[Daniel]

SO you're of first marriage, then sex?

[Daniel]

I think the number of divorces are higher when the people marry young (and are 'allowed' to divorce). Most people in the Netherlands marry in their thirtees or later, I think. And the problem is that you're more naive at young age. And if a lot of the young weds don't go to school, I find it stupid. I don't think that marrying or making real marriage plans at the age of 18 is common here in the Netherlands.