Getting shammed for getting engaged at 22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, “young” weddings (wherein bride and groom are under 27 or so and, importantly, NOT PREGNANT) are the happiest and most optimistic. They tend to be visibly giddy and madly in love and make you believe they have the best chance of still being together 50 years later.

You know that no one is “settling” if they get married under 27. They’re there because they genuinely want to be not because everyone else is doing it or they’re worried about their aging ovaries.

Dumbest post of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there is no right age to get married. A couple married at 22 could be perfect for each other. A couple married at 38 may also be. Love is love and you follow it where it leads you. No one should judge anyone else on this. All this divorce talk has a lot less to do with age than it does income. Divorce rates fall apart based on income level. So I would worry less about the age and more about the happiness of the couple.

A thought also -- the good ones at least most of them are gone by 30 -- both male and female. They are married.

You started off well, but then decided to end with this foolishness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, “young” weddings (wherein bride and groom are under 27 or so and, importantly, NOT PREGNANT) are the happiest and most optimistic. They tend to be visibly giddy and madly in love and make you believe they have the best chance of still being together 50 years later.

You know that no one is “settling” if they get married under 27. They’re there because they genuinely want to be not because everyone else is doing it or they’re worried about their aging ovaries.

Dumbest post of the day.

Np. Parts of this are so true. People worry so much about the young weddings. And instead it’s the older weddings that are so worrisome. Lots of my friends rushed to the altar at 30-37 and many were very unhappy and divorced soon. Many young couples (22-27) have genuinely found their mate in line and should be supported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, “young” weddings (wherein bride and groom are under 27 or so and, importantly, NOT PREGNANT) are the happiest and most optimistic. They tend to be visibly giddy and madly in love and make you believe they have the best chance of still being together 50 years later.

You know that no one is “settling” if they get married under 27. They’re there because they genuinely want to be not because everyone else is doing it or they’re worried about their aging ovaries.

Dumbest post of the day.

Np. Parts of this are so true. People worry so much about the young weddings. And instead it’s the older weddings that are so worrisome. Lots of my friends rushed to the altar at 30-37 and many were very unhappy and divorced soon. Many young couples (22-27) have genuinely found their mate in line and should be supported.

Every single person I know who married under the age of 27 did so because they thought it was the adult thing to do and were in a rush to be settled by 25 so they could have kids at 30 and are all divorced now and on marriage # 2 after marriage to their soulmate didn't work out.

As I said , pp's post was incredibly stupid and the same old crap spewed about people who marry over 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got married young. Now at 50, our kids are out of the house, so we can travel, bang, etc as much as we want. I wouldn’t trade that for the chance of having sex with others in my 20s. Being 50 with a 13 year old would suck.

This (ish). I will be in your shoes. I had my kids at 28 and 31, which by DCUM standards is basically preadolescent. My youngest will be off to school when I’m 49 and I’m happy for that. I have mom friends with kids my age in their mid- to late-forties (I’m mid-thirties). Sometimes my DH pushes for another but there is no way in hell I would start the process over. I love my kids but boy is it hard. I’m essentially selfish and lazy, truth be told.

Eh. If you have the money to spend, traveling is a lot more fun in your 20s. Old people are boring travelers.

That’s just you, dear. Other people are capable of being vibrant and having fun at 50, whether they still have kids at home or not.

This entire thread is filled with pretty pathetic assumptions- that you stop growing once you get married and have children, that older people wouldn’t have anything better to do but raise children, etc. Different choices will work for different people and only bitter, jealousy prone people will sit there and nitpick every life choice you make.

Lol I don’t care how “vibrant” you feel at 50, but the fact is sex, traveling, and pretty much any fun activity is easier and more enjoyable when you’re young. Ppl get busted and sad after having kids so better to delay it if possible.

WTAF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, “young” weddings (wherein bride and groom are under 27 or so and, importantly, NOT PREGNANT) are the happiest and most optimistic. They tend to be visibly giddy and madly in love and make you believe they have the best chance of still being together 50 years later.

You know that no one is “settling” if they get married under 27. They’re there because they genuinely want to be not because everyone else is doing it or they’re worried about their aging ovaries.

Dumbest post of the day.

Np. Parts of this are so true. People worry so much about the young weddings. And instead it’s the older weddings that are so worrisome. Lots of my friends rushed to the altar at 30-37 and many were very unhappy and divorced soon. Many young couples (22-27) have genuinely found their mate in line and should be supported.

Every single person I know who married under the age of 27 did so because they thought it was the adult thing to do and were in a rush to be settled by 25 so they could have kids at 30 and are all divorced now and on marriage # 2 after marriage to their soulmate didn't work out.

As I said , pp's post was incredibly stupid and the same old crap spewed about people who marry over 30.

The data backs this. Marrying under the age of 25 has much higher divorce rates than these "worrisome" 30 somethings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, “young” weddings (wherein bride and groom are under 27 or so and, importantly, NOT PREGNANT) are the happiest and most optimistic. They tend to be visibly giddy and madly in love and make you believe they have the best chance of still being together 50 years later.

You know that no one is “settling” if they get married under 27. They’re there because they genuinely want to be not because everyone else is doing it or they’re worried about their aging ovaries.

Dumbest post of the day.

Np. Parts of this are so true. People worry so much about the young weddings. And instead it’s the older weddings that are so worrisome. Lots of my friends rushed to the altar at 30-37 and many were very unhappy and divorced soon. Many young couples (22-27) have genuinely found their mate in line and should be supported.

Every single person I know who married under the age of 27 did so because they thought it was the adult thing to do and were in a rush to be settled by 25 so they could have kids at 30 and are all divorced now and on marriage # 2 after marriage to their soulmate didn't work out.

As I said , pp's post was incredibly stupid and the same old crap spewed about people who marry over 30.

The data backs this. Marrying under the age of 25 has much higher divorce rates than these "worrisome" 30 somethings.

24 isn’t 27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their brains haven’t even finished developing yet. I would not support my adult kids getting married or engaged before 25.

Land that helicopter mama!

This. Land the chopper already.

Land that cliche! It is ok to tell your kids that you wouldn't recommend getting married so early. This is the first person they have dated seriously. Why wait and live life as a single person before getting married? Your 20's are supposed to be for learning how to be independent and I think that it is ok to encourage waiting a few years.

The 'kids' are ADULTS who have graduated college and have careers. You sound like a future nightmare MIL.

HA HA HA I hardly think encouraging my kids to wait to get married is automatically going to make me a "future nightmare MIL" My kids are already 23 and 20 and have zero desire to marry that young. They have good common sense and want to experience a single life before marriage. However, if I did have kids who wanted to marry young and could afford to be independent ( not relying on me) than I would let them make their decision and support them. If they choose NOT to marry or have kids I fully support that decision too!

Take your insults elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their brains haven’t even finished developing yet. I would not support my adult kids getting married or engaged before 25.

Land that helicopter mama!

This. Land the chopper already.

Land that cliche! It is ok to tell your kids that you wouldn't recommend getting married so early. This is the first person they have dated seriously. Why wait and live life as a single person before getting married? Your 20's are supposed to be for learning how to be independent and I think that it is ok to encourage waiting a few years.

The 'kids' are ADULTS who have graduated college and have careers. You sound like a future nightmare MIL.

HA HA HA I hardly think encouraging my kids to wait to get married is automatically going to make me a "future nightmare MIL" My kids are already 23 and 20 and have zero desire to marry that young. They have good common sense and want to experience a single life before marriage. However, if I did have kids who wanted to marry young and could afford to be independent ( not relying on me) than I would let them make their decision and support them. If they choose NOT to marry or have kids I fully support that decision too!

Take your insults elsewhere.

And yes, my "kids" will always be MY KIDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, I met my future husband at 19, fell head over heals in love, and married him at 23. We are still very happily married 17 years later with 3 kids. But I attribute that largely to luck. I was just extremely fortunate to meet the love of my life at a young age and we’ve grown up and gone through life together. Although it worked out for us, I’m not sure I’d be quite so on board with any of our children getting married that young.

I will tell you though, I remember feeling like a full fledged adult back then.

My dream since childhood has always been to be married and be a mom. Yes, I could be a working mom and have a career, in case you were wondering. I never found anyone until my late 20s. I spent my 20s working, traveling, etc., but it wasn't as fun as settling down (for me).

I'd say you were lucky too. There are a lot of advantages to building a life with someone younger. You can save a lot of money before the kids come, you can buy a house earlier, etc. If my daughter marries early and the guy treats her well, that is fine by me.

[Anonymous]

One big reason not to get married that early is often mental illness doesn't show up until mid-20s.

This happened to both one of my best friends and my H. Both got married at 19, had a child at 20, and then mental illness showed up in their spouses around 23/24. My best friend's now-xH developed bipolar disorder, got fired from multiple jobs for sexual harassment, had affairs, physically and emotionally abused her and their kids, then was arrested, convicted, and put in jail for being violent in public. H's story isn't that bad, but mental illness developed and their child greatly suffered as a result.

Good idea to wait until at least mid-20s to get married, or at least wait that long before having kids so you know exactly what genes they'll be getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One big reason not to get married that early is often mental illness doesn't show up until mid-20s.

This happened to both one of my best friends and my H. Both got married at 19, had a child at 20, and then mental illness showed up in their spouses around 23/24. My best friend's now-xH developed bipolar disorder, got fired from multiple jobs for sexual harassment, had affairs, physically and emotionally abused her and their kids, then was arrested, convicted, and put in jail for being violent in public. H's story isn't that bad, but mental illness developed and their child greatly suffered as a result.

Good idea to wait until at least mid-20s to get married, or at least wait that long before having kids so you know exactly what genes they'll be getting.

You’ll be surprised to see number of divorce cases where mental health is mentioned as the cause and most of them were married way after 20’s.

[Anonymous]

What percentage of youngsters in their early 20’s actually has degrees, jobs, income, committed partners, family support, paid off colleges and such? It’s not even an option for 90% of the young population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of youngsters in their early 20’s actually has degrees, jobs, income, committed partners, family support, paid off colleges and such? It’s not even an option for 90% of the young population.

You don’t need paid off college to get married! I agree that education, job stability and (in some ways) family support are key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of youngsters in their early 20’s actually has degrees, jobs, income, committed partners, family support, paid off colleges and such? It’s not even an option for 90% of the young population.

You don’t need paid off college to get married! I agree that education, job stability and (in some ways) family support are key.

Well, marrying someone with debt (college or credit or any sort) often eats up marital harmony.