What is the ideal marriage age for you?

[Anonymous]

20-22

23-25

26-28

29-31

32-34

35-37

38-40

[OlderAndWiser]

I am planning my wedding for April 27 next year, and I will be 69 years old, so the perfect age is. . . 69!

[Anonymous]

doesn't matter what's ideal. i hope people stop putting these ideas in their head... when it happens for you it happens. if you miss your "goal" then it's not the end of the world. it actually shouldn't even be a goal. there's no way of knowing if you'll be single or everything's good and then you break up or even if you divorce in the near future. there are a lot of things that need to be lined up to even have a lasting marriage.

[WonderBell99]

26-28, probably. My parents have made it pretty clear that I’m not to get married until I complete my postgraduate degree and start earning money. 😂 Not like I was interested in marriage anyways

[DaveJord]

Anywhere from 26 to 32 in my opinion. But honestly any age if you are in love and you truly want marriage.

[SaRang21]

Around 27-28 is best I think. Around this age, you not too young or too late. I can spend more time with my hubby. But it depends on your financial state and mental state. If you have a stable job already and sees your partner as lifelong partner, then 27-28 is the best I think.

[Anonymous]

For a girl I’d say so were between 22-24. For men I’d go a little older seeing as how a lot of us act like dumb asses at an early age. Even at an older age some of us still act like dumb asses. But I’m thinking as far as marriage w the intent of having children.

[humanearth]

I was married twice first time I was Barley 18yrs old and that marriage lasted just over a yr. Was young and stupid and thought I knew what I was doing.

Second time was I 25yrs old the second time and I'm still married to her today

[monorprise]

Biologically for women it needs to happen in their early to mid 20s. Men can put it off a few more years but both need to be settled to make time for life.

[nastyb]

most women marry late nowadays. usually late 20s to early 30s

[monorprise]

@nastyb Yes and we have sub-replacement birthrates leading to a collapsing population and culture well on its way out the door.

This will not continue whether we like it or not. Either it will end with our civilization or it we will find away to get our women into the business of having and raising families again.

I can't fully convey how critical this issue is to our survival.

[nastyb]

Birth rates are decreasing because the new generation of young men are having a hard time supporting kids financially. Things are significantly more expensive today compared to 20 years ago. It has nothing to do with women birthing in their 30s

[monorprise]

@nastyb Women are birthing in their 30s if at all because they can't find men who can support a family, its true.

As a direct result of the changes they made to education back in the 90's to better appeal to girls at the expense of boys, and the ever escalating cost for housing and cost of living in many urban areas. its rarely been more difficult to get what socility expects men to have to start a family.

The problem however is still very much a cultural and educational issue, as alien cultures demonstrate with still higher birth rates until they adopt our cultural "values".

[nastyb]

@monorprise

denying girls an education and career to benefit boys is wrong. No woman should be deprived of what she wants entirely so boys can have it easier.

Escalating housing and food costs is due to inflation. Not girls being in school

[monorprise]

@nastyb If right and wrong have little to do with what works and doesn't work, then they hardly matter in the long run. For wrong or not what your doing right now isn't working, and you and that habit will soon enough cease to exist on this earth no matter how "right" you think it is. It is still costing you and your family everything.

[nastyb]

@monorprise

because forcing girls to not go to school and stay home will only stifle our country's growth and development. It does not benefit our economy or society. why?

because if the workforce were to eliminate women from the workforce, companies will lose a lot of talented, intelligent individuals. It is these talented, brilliant individuals that help US companies rake in profits. In other words, US companies rely on these brilliant geniuses to help them make money.

There are also many fields that are traditionally worked by women. If we eliminated all the women from the workforce, there won't be enough teachers, nurses, speech pathologists , lawyers, therapists, social workers. where will you be able to find a nurse if you need one?

[nastyb]

@monorprise

we don't live in a country where families can afford to survive on 1 income anymore. If you're only bringing in 70k a year, after taxes- you're left with little to nothing which is really not enough to feed a family of 4. Not only to feed the kids and pay bills but also pay your children's college tuition fund and to save for retirement.

[monorprise]

@nastyb I won't dispute the economic value of women in the workforce. But claiming women should neglect the vital business of making and raising babies in the interest of simply making money. Is like neglecting eating so that you may have more time make better food.

It may take a lifetime to clearly see it but this is not a survivable trade.

Likewise the idea that 70k a year is not enough to feed and raise a family of 4 is nonsense, as forign immigrant and Americans are clearly doing so on far less. Indeed one of my best friends is a mother of 5 kids all born in the last decade or so and she made less.

Maybe you can't live in New York city and raise kids at that price, but there are quite a few better managed places in this country where you can, and people do. Its simply a matter of controlling your expenses. If you look at what your parents and grandparents did to save money you would be shocked just how much further they went on how much less.

[nastyb]

[But claiming women should neglect the vital business of making and raising babies in the interest of simply making money.]

Being a mother and also working a full time job is certainly not a new concept. I was raised by a mother who worked 5 days a week who raised me very well. In fact, most mothers work full time jobs while raising kids... Nothing new... only someone like you would say this doesn't exist or can't be done.

[Maybe you can't live in New York city and raise kids at that price, but there are quite a few better managed places in this country where you can, and people do. Its simply a matter of controlling your expenses. ]

how are you going to control your expenses when the price of food has risen drastically? how are you going to control your expenses when price of car insurance and gas has sharply increased?
how are you going to control expenses when the price of college tuition has nearly doubled over the past 25 years?

[nastyb]

[Likewise the idea that 70k a year is not enough to feed and raise a family of 4 is nonsense, as forign immigrant and Americans are clearly doing so on far less. Indeed one of my best friends is a mother of 5 kids all born in the last decade or so and she made less.]

I grew up in a family of 4 , living in the ghettos, on 20k a year. we were under poverty and on food stamps. My parents also couldn't afford to send me to college.

you can raise kids under poverty. but you will only harm your kids instead of helping them. Data proves that kids who grew up in financially unstable homes not only do worse in childhood but also adulthood. It will only be a million times harder for your kids to succeed in life when they grow up.

[monorprise]

@nastyb Unless your telling me it would be less harmful for you not to exist at all, your not making a point. yes it's frequently better to have more resources, particularity if those resources are spent well. But non-existence is far worse than even a tough existence.

If your trying to make a race augment, i should point out you lose every race you don't run. I should also point out nearly every one of your ancestor of the last 2 million years would have found the way you grew up to be absurdly pampered, and probably spoiled rotten in your character.

[nastyb]

@monorprise

Not existing at all is better than letting your kids suffer the trauma of not having enough resources to grow up into decent adults. A lot of kids who grow up under poverty tend to stay in poverty as adults or become criminals.

[I should also point out nearly every one of your ancestor of the last 2 million years would have found the way you grew up to be absurdly pampered,]

because we live in a different world today compared to 1 million years ago. 1 million years ago any idiot who can plant a potato can survive. Nowadays, you can't eat or pay rent unless you have a college education.

[nastyb]

@monorprise

Nowadays low paying jobs such as cashier, burger flippers, waitresses, are being automated by robots. If you can't afford to send your kid to college to obtain skilled career, your kid is FUCKED. We dont live in a society where we plant our own food anymore. If you lack the education or skills, you will starve.

[monorprise]

@nastyb If you really believed that a poor life is not worth living then you would be suggesting that we kill poor to save them from suffering.

I think that is terribly narrow minded particularly seeing as poverty is the default state of assistance, and very much relative. That soo many of the existing poor end up as criminals probably has more to do with the cultural values that made them poor than their actual posterity given soo many others both now and in the past who were just as poor or even more poor were not criminals.

[monorprise]

@nastyb Regarding the idea that you can not eat or pay rent without a collage degree, i would very much dispute that given more than 60% of the population is doing precisely that without a collage degree.

It may be that you cannot eat or pay rent in your way and area without a collage degree but clearly most people can in most other areas and other ways.

[monorprise]

@nastyb Regarding the subject of automation, I can't say for certainty but historically such tecnoligy is merely a tool, and there are always other things that can be done.

in any case AI and robots have little need for either food or housing, to the price thereof would remain proportionate to what people can pay.

[nastyb]

@monorprise

[If you really believed that a poor life is not worth living then you would be suggesting that we kill poor to save them from suffering.]

In just a few decades, being poor will literally be a death sentence. With climate change, sea levels are rising. This means more natural disasters, homes will be destroyed, and property insurance will sharply increase which also means higher rent.

Now if you can't pay this rent, where are you going to live?

Its not uncommon for the homeless to want to suicide. I've seen many homeless people actually jump in front of trains.

[nastyb]

@monorprise

[That soo many of the existing poor end up as criminals probably has more to do with the cultural values that made them poor than their actual posterity given soo many others both now and in the past who were just as poor or even more poor were not criminals.]

you can either pick one of the two choices:
steal a piece of bread from the bakery OR let your kids starve.
which one would you pick?
often times people have no other choice but to be criminal.

[Regarding the idea that you can not eat or pay rent without a collage degree, i would very much dispute that given more than 60% of the population is doing precisely that without a collage degree.]

the effects of automation will kick in within the next few years. You would just need until the robots to come in to really see disaster happen. Robots are cheaper, more efficient and can do work faster and better. Soon all the jobs will be fixing and designing robots rather than flipping burgers. So if you can't afford to give your kid a higher education to obtain skilled jobs, you're FUCKED.

[nastyb]

AI expert warns automation could take 40% of jobs by 2035

h ttps://www. axios. com/2019/01/10/artificial-intelligence-automation-jobs-robots

Automation will threaten the future of low skilled labor in america.

h ttps://www. forbes. com/sites/markhall/2019/10/16/automation-threatens-black-workers/? sh=c8ecadd6b980

[ohsheeT]

It's hard to pick an sge. I did that once and it didn't work out.. but we were way to young.
I'm going to say when you both really know what you want in life. And what ever that age might be

[Flight1]

When two people match well and don’t want to be apart. That can happen from birth to the tip top of elderly golden years. Marriage is a modern concept when considering how long humans have existed.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I was thinking 25-26. But suddenly I got single. The next best age will be when I meet a man good enough for that.

[LazerBean]

We got married at 18 and 19, and both of us are glad we got married when we did.

[theeliigilbert]

I know people who married around 25 and 28. I'm 29 years old and for me when the time comes I'll probably want to be married by 32

[Notyouraveragecat]

I feel like a marriage would be more successful if both people are financially stable. So I'd definetely wait till my late 20s to get married.

[DizzyDesii]

Ideally 23-25. And not because thats how you split the poll but because i truly always preferred those ages

[Adam1978]

Where is never? I mean if marriage culture/laws was actually healthy, I would say late 20 in modern times.

[Jemini_Crocket]

Depends on the relationship. If I'd meet someone special in near future, I'd probably say yes to a marriage offer immediately.

[Nikki1989]

When you are ready is ideal. The age is not important.

[BCRanger10]

The sooner, the better. Personally, I say not much later than ages 20-22.

[juene]

When I was younger I thought I'll get married before I turn 30. I'm 28 now and single so probably before 35 years old. 😂😂😂

[BoobSlayer]

Dont' wait another second. Bring your ta-ta's over to my place.

[Simslover92]

35-37. That's when I hope I am more financially stable to get married.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Are you asking what age I'd prefer I got married at?
Or are you asking what age in women I look for at my current age?

[Mangospacho]

Wow. It’s official. I’m past the age of marriage. I didn’t even realize I had passed the age.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Any ages should be ideal if the people truly love each other.