>

The point of dating as a kid isn’t to get married it’s just practice. It just fuctions as a way to learn what u like in people. But kids don’t know that, just like dogs don’t know that they won’t keep getting a treat every single time they we ask them to sit
I think we should instead be teaching what to look for in a healthy long term relationship, doesnt matter the age. I got married at 22. Am happily married 5 years later and we are expecting our first. I was very selective with who I dated before my now husband and was very selective with him as well. I turned down many other guys who it would have been fun to date, but did not meet what I wanted in someone long term. Let's teach our kids the difference between someone you would want to date short term/just for fun and who to date long term. >

This is great. >

I married young and we’ve made it work. One plus is that I don’t get compared to an ex in any way. Just because you marry young doesn’t mean the house and kids come right away, or even at all. It’s great having someone who’s your dependable support that you can consistently confide in. Being single for me meant less freedom because I was too broke to afford to move out on my own and have my own vehicle. Together we could do that. We could’ve just moved in together, but neither of us believed that was the right thing for us religiously and we both had zero doubts about getting married. I don’t think getting married young is detrimental. I think it’s a combination of a lot of things all at once. College, marriage, kids, mortgage, car loans, and career goals all come with a stress load. Balancing the load is key. >

True. I think my point was more people don't fully know who they are at younger ages, so trying to build a life with someone while still growing and learning about yourself and the world is a big reason why relationships fall apart in the long run. It also depends on the values with which you were raised. >

I deleted that because I felt I got off topic a bit. I think making such a big commitment early on meant there wasn’t any backing out and forced us to make things better. I also think when you think you have the right person, you should go for it. There’s no guarantees someone better will ever come along. >

True, things are definitely worth the risk, but you are more likely to fail at younger ages was my point. >

I disagree. All of the failed relationships teach you things that you eventually take into your marriage. I had half a dozen multi year relationships before I met my wife. No way she would have married the version 1.0 of me. >

I understand where you're coming from, but this is just a bad take. It is 100% possible to gain the insight and skills you need to nurture a good marriage or lifelong relationship by your late twenties without having been in a relationship before. 
There are some people who have one relationship and stay in it for the rest of their lives and do very well in their relationships. There are some people who go through many relationships in yheor liftime and never learn the skills they need to learn to have a healthy relationship, and end up miserable, divorced alcoholics. 
Being in relationships does not inherently prepare you for future relationships. And it's possible to prepare for future relationships without having been in relationships beforehand. >

At the risk of just sounding contrary, I have to disagree again. 
As is true with nearly every complex thing in life; “knowing it and doing it are two entirely different things.”  You will not always act in the most rational ways. Your partner will not always act in the most rational ways. Guiding two humans with different goals, dreams and interests down the same path on days good and bad is a set of skills learned through experience….and almost never achieved flawlessly. 
My life advice is just to do things. You’ll never be “ready” for life. >

I dunno.
Some people are loyal, kind, honest, intelligent, and all the other things that make someone a good partner. Others are not.
The longer you wait to settle down, the less of those people will be in the dating pool. Because the good ones end up in relationships that work.
This is also the reason second marriages have a higher divorce rates than the first. The good ones are less likely to get divorced. >


Because the good ones end up in relationships that work.

This is circular reasoning. In my scenario, everyone would be equally available in their late 20's early 30's so therefore the "good" ones would still be available, and the "bad" ones would have had more time to grow and mature into a "good" one. >

Not everyone is equally available in their late 20s and early 30s. The average age of marriage is around 29 and most people date for a couple years before marriage.
As that's the average many people settle down before that. Late 20s and early 30s is when the dating pool gets shallow.
And it should be self evident that some people are better at relationships and are thus more likely to be in one that works. So the pool of available singles self selects for people that aren't easy to get along with or are unattractive mates. >

So at least more of the good ones would be getting in relationships then? I guess I'm missing your point. I'm saying to tell kids to wait until 27 to get into a serious relationship and you are saying people will be locked down by then, but that is contradictory to the original assumption that they wouldn't be. This is an ideal scenario not actual real life. >

"So at least none" 
"I guess I'm missing your point"
Yes.
But I think it's you not me. >

And then you edit your response after I reply and then don't reply back 😂 >

The idea that someone is less likely to divorce if they marry later is just wrong >

That being the average result doesn’t prove that someone who would otherwise marry early has a lower chance of divorce if they wait. It might just as well be the case that people who are prone to divorce are also prone to marrying early. There’s too many confounding factors. >


That being the average result doesn’t prove that someone who would otherwise marry early has a lower chance of divorce if they wait

That's exactly what it means. You are literally more likely to divorce if you get married in your early 20's than at age 30. It is a proven fact. >

No, correlation does not prove causation. It might just be that marrying early and divorcing both correlate with another factor, like intelligence or impulse control. >

True to a degree, but the factor or factors are largely based on the immaturity and inexperience that comes with being a teen or early 20's. In this situation there is no other "cause" that is not directly or indirectly related to the person's age factoring in to the highest divorce rate. It makes logical sense. >

I heavily disagree. I think it’s highly reasonable to assume that things like intelligence, education, impulse control, and income all relate to this. >

Which are byproducts of age. You are literally proving my point and then disagree with it. >

They aren’t entirely byproducts of age, though they relate to it.
Like for example, someone who is more intelligent (which doesn’t change much from your early 20s) is more likely to go into higher education, and therefore to wait with marriage, but they might also be less likely to divorce because of their higher intelligence, unrelated to education. It doesn’t follow that they couldn’t do the same if they didn’t go into higher education, but instead married earlier. >

Ok, your one example of intelligence is not based directly on age, yes, but there is also little evidence supporting higher intelligence and lesser divorce rate, on average. The studies are generally all centered around higher education.
And all your other examples (education, income, impulse control) are indeed byproducts of age. 
Ultimately though, my original point really didn't have anything to do with divorce, I just mentioned that as a potential side benefit. There are tens of thousands of people who are unhappy in their marriage because they grew up and grew a part from their spouse, but don't believe in divorce. So divorce rate is not universally indicative of happiness. >

The strongest couples I know, today, got married in their early '20s or even late teens. They had kids early. And they all grew up together.
I don't know anyone who has been in an arranged marriage, or at least who has mentioned that fact to me. But I hear those couples tend to report greater satisfaction, and stay together more often, than their counterparts who went into this institution with notions of finding true love and a soul mate.
So at a minimum, I'd say the jury is out, and the system that's worked for many thousands of years, where lovestruck young people with romance on their minds are pressured by their parents to just settle down already, probably doesn't need an overhaul. >

Statistics say people that got married before 24 and are still happily married 10+ years later are the minority. That is the entirety of my point. >

To the extent that there is a consensus that earlier marriages are more likely to break up, there is a strong argument that making one's mistakes earlier in life affords the possibility of moving on and still falling within the age range, on remarrying, which will afford the greatest chance of a happy and lasting union.
For instance, studies which find that women who marry before 25 are 50% more likely to divorce than their peers who wait until the age of 28, may simply be pointing out the obvious, that they are more empowered, by their comparative youth and perhaps by not already raising children within their present marriage, to end this union and move on. Perhaps by the age of 28, like those who waited.
There's a whole opportunity cost argument we could have, here. But honestly, individuals should figure that out for themselves, and I'm not sure that coaching them one way or the other would do more good than harm. And seems unnecessary, with the trend being already that couples marry a good deal later than earlier generations. >

Society is slowly trending toward marrying later which I think is the right thing and the basis of my post. One thing I will point out is people statistically are 90% moreover to get a  divorce if they have already had a divorce. Yes there are varying factors involved there, but I think the biggest driver of that is the learned behavior that divorce isn't the end of the world and that something better could come along, which I think is the wrong thinking. Which is also the fatal flaw with the "Tinder" mentality; there is always someone there after that next swipe, so it creates the illusion that people and relationships are more expendable and the grass is always greener so to speak. >

Different people have different priorities in life. The key is learning early to be responsible and that all decisions can have good and bad consequences. The thing about being that age is that even if someone doesn't make mistakes in love they will make mistakes in other areas. Its always going to be a learning period. >

You're missing cultural norms. In many traditional Latino households its expected that you live with your parents until you get married. There is also a lot of pressure to be married and have kids before being in your mid-20s. This is just an example. >

Not missing them, just saying that it doesn't help you be happy later in life. >

Your values. >

It’s actually shown that once you get into mid 30’s you are more likely to get divorced. Sweet spot for marriage is mid 20’s and early 30’s. I met my husband at 19, got married at 24 and it’s nice because you don’t have to rush into having kids but can be done having them pretty young still if you want. >

Right, so late 20's early 30's is the best time, which is what I said. And my point wasn't even really about divorce, just pointing that out as a potential side benefit. There are tens of thousands of people that are unhappy in their marriages because they grew apart from their spouse as they aged but don't believe in getting divorced. So divorce isn't directly indicative of unhappiness. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement, but my intent was to basically say you have a greater chance of being happier longer if you meet that partner in your late 20's, early 30's. >

I'm in mid 40's and most of the couples I know did in fact get together in their mid 20's and earlier. Yes it's a small percentage of the total relationships anyone has at that age, but that is the nature of relationships in general. Most don't work out. >

Got married at 22 and I am still happily married almost 11 years later. Divorces and strife happen between couples of all ages. Relationships take a level of work and it really depends on the two people in it more than their age. While nobody should rush to settle down, let people do what works for them. We all have a different timeline. >

The only problem with this is the way people develop relationship skills is by being in previous long-term relationships. If your life is a series of one-nigh stands and short-term flings until you hit 30, settling down with someone might well be a challenge. There's sometimes a phenomenon with older people who have never lived with a partner where it becomes hard for them to live with someone because they're so used to controlling their own space, as an example. >

This makes sense. >

Everyone’s different. >

True >

Late 20's? I think being 16 and thinking your relationship will last forever is a little naive but most ppl in their early 20's get into a relationship and marry them >


but most ppl in their early 20's get into a relationship and marry them

This is true, but statistically these fail more often than not. >

Disagree.  Hardly any of those who marry as late as you prefer stay celibate to begin with, and your philosophy tells them it's best to enjoy sex with no emotional context at all.  Children should learn what makes a relationship happy and sustainable.  If you would not have them learn from their mistakes, then teach them. >

I'm et my husband at 14. Married him as soon as I turned 18. 26 years and 3 kids  later I'm pretty sure it was the real thing >

Everybody is different and there are exceptions to the rule. Some people can find the absolute love of their life when they're in their late teens and early 20s, but for the most part, I agree with you. For most, your love of your life isn't going to materialize until you're in your mid 20s or so. High school and college relationships usually don't last long term and end up failing. 
There is experience to be gained however when dating while you're young. It can help a lot to know what to do, what not to do, realize where you went wrong, and where you went right. In my experience however, calling every partner that you have the "love of your life", and you haven't even made it to the 1-year mark, is pretty naive. If you've made it to the 2-year mark or more, chances are that they may very well be the love of your life. 
If you've already had some significant doubts about the relationship and are staying in it because you're insecure about not being single again for example, your relationship isn't going to work out in the long run, it'll only break your heart and theirs, and end up creating two bitter people. >

Yes, exactly! This was my point that I think a lot of others missed, thanks. >

Why so kids can't make mistakes when there safe and instead should wait till the risk of these mistakes is exponentially higher.
Also you make 2 distinctly different points here you saying teenagers shouldn't date teenagers and people shouldn't get married till there 30. These are not the same point. >


you saying teenagers shouldn't date teenagers

Never said this. They should by all means date, just go in with the expectation that it's not your last relationship. >

I disagree you can absolutely make a high school relationship last past high school. My friend has been dating the same girl since ninth grade still going strong.
The relationships that ended seemed to be ones where communication wasn't key or interest didn't align.
I feel like if you took everyone who dated in high school and everyone who started new relationship in college and everyone who started new relationships after college the success rate would be the same in each group.
Dating is just hard. >


you can absolutely make a high school relationship last past high school

You CAN, but its the minority. And I'm not talking past high school, I'm talking 60+ years until you die.  

I feel like if you took everyone who dated in high school and everyone who started new relationship in college and everyone who started new relationships after college the success rate would be the same in each group

Over a 10+ year period, this isn't true at all. Those with college education are much more likely to have a longer lasting marriage or relationship. The studies show this. >

Who says that you need to be with someone for life. Not science. >

My whole post and argument is predicated upon the socio-ideological construct of "mating for life". I'm not necessarily agreeing with that philosophy, just arguing within that pre-conceived construct that binds the majority of our society today. >

Ok but you are. Your whole argument comes from the belief that people should be coupled for life or atleast that adults should expect to be bonded in this way. >


Your whole argument comes from

Not comes FROM, operates WITHIN. That is how the majority of people raised in this country are taught to believe. Parents aren't telling their kids "date and have children, but don't feel obligated to stay with that person". The modern family dynamic is based on this. Again, I didn't create this construct, I inherited it. And what is your point? If you don't believe that humans should mate for life, then why are you commenting on this at all, because we aren't even speaking the same language here. If that is your belief then obviously you will disagree, since you clearly disagree with marriage altogether. Your point is moot. >

I don't disagree with marriage I disagree with A staying married for the kids benefit or B pressuring couples to get married who have no interest.
I also disagree with the idea a temporary relationship is a waste of time. >


I also disagree with the idea a temporary relationship is a waste of time.

So what is it then? Learning experience for what not to do or just target practice for your emotions? Or do you actually put a positive spin on a breakup?
I agree with your previous a and b staying for kids and a loveless relationship is never a great option as eventually the children will figure out what's going on and that will feel worse. >

Prt of mee thinks this wood be good for an smlll groooop two bee made tooooo wait until thy half an fūthold in liyf und their brains are fully developed. Theee other prt off my sayes tht me meeeet me husbind as a teen, muved in wuth hom at 19, and half beeen togethr four 21 yars. An wí have a rly, rly strowng marridge. He ws me bast frind, an then myself futere. If wee had to waytt, I woold've endd up mooving from Massachusississippis to Tixas for cawlidge an lively wooldn't half cume bayck, therefour niver marreed hum. And huoumin behayvyer is vry wonkey. No tooo peepl perceevve the wurld exacly the same. So univrsel rooles on huoumin behayvyer are diffaclt to enfours inless thy cawse harm.
So yeah, I disagree. Have a upvote >

"An"
And thats great that things worked out for you that way, but if you think you are the majority, you are not, which is my point. Statistics support the late 20's, early 30's age range. >

Does that typo really bother you that much? Let me go back and fix it for you, my friend. Give me two minutes.
Done. Fixed it for ya. >

I’m 35. Been with my lady since I was 19… Our relationship os stronger then ever. >

Congrats man, you are the minority 👏 >

Thanks!  We have started seeing some friends get divorced that were married less time then us.  It’s a bit of a shock every time. >

Yeah, I was in your boat too, was going strong seeing all other long term relationships fail around us. It was crazy to us until it happened to us 😂 but I'm definitely glad for you guys >

I would tell them not to expect it to last long in like highschool/middle school bc they're going to end up liking/falling in love with someone eventually and it's kind of none of my business on that unless said person is too old, too young, or abusive >

Basically yes, that is my point >

Yeah but its the not to get in relationships half i would never agree with >

Not "serious" relationships. And I meant more like don't expect a relationship you get into at 21 to last forever. Basically curbing expectations. >

You shouldn't ever expect a relationship to last, but thats my thoughts.
People get divorced in their 40s all the way through their 80s
It doesn't matter what age you are >

But I think that is the societal expectation, which is what my "opinion" is trying to change. So I am agreeing with you hah >

Ye ofc >

I agree. The majority of my friends in their 20s who have started a relationship before 20 or in their early 20s are no longer together. Right now I can only think of one relationship I know that began before their mid-20s that's still together 10 years later.
I see many people on Facebook getting engaged and saying they can't wait to spend the rest of their life with their partner. I'm sitting here thinking "Yeah, good luck with that." >

Basically. I know everyone and every situation is different. Just looking at the statistics though, and personal experience with people I know, essentially "committing" to someone for the rest of your life at 21 is basically a recipe for disaster. Could it work out? Sure. But success is also subjective. A lot of people disagreeing here are saying "well I got married at 19 and I'm 26 now and still happy". Like cool, but come back to me when you are still together in 60+ years on your deathbeds and tell me you are still happy. And that can happen too, but it is the rare rare minority. That's the only point I'm making here. Statistics favors waiting until later 20's, early 30's for a better shot lasting success. I don't really care when one off people tell me they've been happily married for 19 years since they were 22. Ok great, when I get 1 million people telling me the same, I will change my opinion. Your one story isn't swaying my opinion. >

I think you might be technically right about most younger relationships not working out or people rushing into commitment (ie. marriage, kids).
I really dont think its feasible though because if you fall in love (which happens pretty easily sometimes) its very hard to view your relationship as temporary.  Sure, love is irrational sometimes, but thats just the way we're wired.  And sometimes it works out. >

Agreed, which is the basis of my original post. The message is basically teach your kids not to get their hopes of for a lasting relationship that begins before 25. Could it work out, yes, but odds say it won't, so be prepared for that. >

Women don’t have the time. Biological clock. >

Yeah it's very rare that a relationship lasts as high school sweethearts >

I’ve been with my boyfriend since I was 22 and I’m now 26 >

Cool >

the people in todays age that choose to get married at 19-20 we’re going to do it no matter what since she/he is so in love to be willing to do that. 
I don’t think we need a government program to teach our kids in public school to not get married until we are 30. We already have those abstinence and scare videos on how pregnancy ruins your life in elementary school. We don’t need to add another section to make kids already more skeptical about relationships than we already are now. >

I agree. I wished I focused on myself and school instead of these “serious” relationships to fill voids. I could’ve used that time to better/understand myself and learn things outside of intimate partners. >

Good luck trying. This will be just about as succesful as teaching abstinence. >

You just never know, but when you know, a lot of times you know. >

Relationships aren’t likely to work out in the long run regardless of age. >

Best time to have kids is in your kid 20s.  Had mine at 33, and honestly I wish I was younger because she wears me the fuck out.  I appreciate being financially secure first, but now I’ll be in my late 50s when she’s in her 20s.
Gotta find the right one to have kids and be in a stable relationship.  I applaud anyone who finds them early.  I was trying and after several long term failed relationships, I met my wife at 26.  Married at 29, kids at 33. >

It's less about getting married early, and more about having kids early. Everyone I know (myself included) who got married in their teens and early 20's and didn't have kids are still together 15+ years later with relationships stronger than when they first got together. Everyone I know who had kids in their teens and early 20's are divorced and/or in abusive, miserable relationships