It's official: Gen Z are not delaying marriage til 30s anymore, young weddings are cool again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the other trend of not marrying at all?

I have coworkers with babies who are not married.

This is the actual trend. But it doesn't fit in with the current narrative being pushed

UMC/rich kids seem to be getting married younger. These kids likely have the support of the rich parents.

Poor and MC young adults may not have the money for a wedding or to buy a house. Our kids will have college, grad school, wedding and at least down payment from the parents. I would rather my kids marry relatively young in their twenties and have kids young.

I come from humble beginnings and traveled a ton in my twenties after I started working. My kids have been traveling internationally since they were young. My kids are still minors and been to Europe and Asia several times and the US/Caribbean countless times. It isn’t like they need to spend their twenties traveling and enjoying life. They have been doing this since being born.

Traveling with mama is not what people mean when they say "travel and see the world." That you would unironically write that tells me so much about you.

DP.

What does “travel and see the world” mean if not travel and see the world, which one can do with their friends, their parents, or even by themselves!

Do you mean getting drunk, high, and having sex with random strangers? That’s the only scenario in which you’re right and one would not get that experience traveling with mama…

No they mean exploring the world on your own without your parents paying for everything and holding your hand the entire time. Navigating a foreign transportation system or a language you don't speak on your own without well-traveled parents who can always step in to explain or guide.

I traveled a ton between birth and age 12 because my dad worked for a huge international company and we lived all over the world as he helped set up offices and factories for them. And then even after we settled in the US so I could have a "normal" high school experience we still traveled abroad a lot. So I was a "well-traveled" kid. But when I traveled in my 20s on my own I learned different things about myself. It was a totally different experience. Independence is a really powerful thing to explore and I do think I would have missed out on something if I'd married straight out of college even though obviously I wasn't lacking in opportunities to travel.

I never did the drinking and drugging and casual sex type of travel btw. I did meet lots of interesting people but I have always known to be cautious when traveling abroad.

You’re speaking from an upper middle class / wealthy bubble. The vast majority of American kids, teens, and young adults will NEVER “see the world”. For the average American family a trip to a single European country for a week is literally a once-in-lifetime event.

So you can continue to split hairs about whether seeing the world as a kid “counts” or not, but just understand that it’s irrelevant.

DP. Isn’t that the topic of this thread?

Anyway, the point was that most young adults would benefit from getting TF out of their hometown. “Seeing the world” doesn’t just mean visiting some tourist trap in Europe.

So wait, are you talking about upper middle class young people who have almost certainly been out of their hometown? Or are you talking about lower class young people who not only have likely not gotten out of their hometown, but will never do so regardless of their age at marriage?

Most young adults should become independent and ideally live somewhere else before settling down.

Why?

To learn useful life skills like budgeting, cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, planning time, saving, making friendships, developing hobbies, maintaining social networks.

You can’t learn all of this while at college? Or while continuing to live in your hometown? Or while living with your spouse or future spouse?

Many men don’t.

And? What’s your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married at 23 and had my first at 26, in law school. People acted like I was a teen mom. It was ridiculous. I’ve been married for 17 years and I’m really happy with my choices. I have health problems now that could have kept me from having kids in my 30s. So I’m really glad I got that done in my 20s and I would recommend for my children to do the same.

At the same time, I was fairly mature at 23 and knew what I wanted. I knew DH was a good partner.

I wish I could have had children younger. I don't see what the big deal is. Think of how young you'll be when the nest empties!

I’ll be 46 and an empty nester MUAHAHAHA.

My 20s were hard but I’m happy DH was with me. He is the one who put me through law school. We had marriage, law school, babies overlapping and it was super hard but by my mid 30s life was so pleasant. Now nearing 40 my kids are older and I am really enjoying my life. I didn’t travel or date a lot but DH and I have had some fun trips while my parents stay with the kids.

It always stands out to me that young parents seem thrilled to be empty nesters and “enjoying my life.” There is this mindset that you’re happy the phase of having kids is over with.

Did you not enjoy having kids?
Perhaps you had to give up so much in your 20s and you feel like your time is finally your own? I can imagine you had virtually no time to yourself and had to struggle through lawschool if you had young babies at the same time.

I can’t imagine viewing having a family the way you do. I loved my time in my 20s and it’s now great to have a young family in my 40s.

+1! I read that and thought that sounds sad to be so giddy about your kids being gone. I was married young (23) but waited until 30s for kids. I’m glad we still have a way to go with them under my roof. In my 40s now.

Agree with this. I'm happy for anyone who is happy with their life choices, but I'd rather have kids later and spend much of my middle age years with kids in the house because this is when I most want to be home and don't feel curtailed by kids. I went out and traveled a lot in my 20s and early 30s -- by the time I got pregnant that was no longer as appealing to me and I was very ready to stay in more and have a more family-centric life. And no I was not out drinking and doing drugs and sleeping around -- I was just going out to dinner with friends, traveling to fun places, dating (but not having a ton of sex actually), and trying new hobbies. And now I'm eating dinners with my family and helping with homework and sewing halloween costumes... and happily going to bed at 9:30pm on a Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying it. The people who get married young typically don’t have as many options and aren’t missing out on much by getting married.

Most successful wealthy 20 somethings are going to grad school or building their career. They are traveling, having fun on the weekends and enjoying hobbies. Not…getting married.

To actually meet a wealthy woman from a place like Greenwich, CT who is 25 and married is incredibly unusual. I can think of Samantha Varvel and she’s Mormon.

If you’re wealthy and have an interesting life you don’t need to get married at a young age.

The whole point of this entire thread is that the new trends IS that these kids are getting married younger.

I’m from nyx. I got married at 29 and was one of the earlier ones to get married and have a baby. I used to think it was a southern thing for people get married younger. Now it seems kids from all over are getting married younger and they are usually the rich good looking ones.

+1. Posters here are in denial or out of touch. This trend was starting before Covid but has really taken off since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let’s revisit all these couples in 15 years. If they’re still together, great, but I suspect many will not be. These are starter marriages, people, not happily ever afters. We’ve got some real starry-eyed romantics in the crowd, it would appear.

You’re a miserable cynic. Quit projecting your bitterness onto others.

Not bitter, just realistic. To me you are like a child, still believing in fairy tales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that it's hard to afford a house, and careers aren't stable at all, why wait?

It's actually the opposite of this. Trend is young marriages for rich kids -- who have no student loans, get parent help including with house. Biglaw partner here and I have seen other partners kids getting engaged and married at college (quite often elite) or right after.

Yep. Rich kids are pairing during college and marrying soon after undergrad (and buying a nice house and will pop out easy kids). Not being married or at least engaged by mid to late 20s is going to be a prole tell for Gen Z’ers. Weird lower rung leftovers still using dating apps while their rich peers have kids and a big house.

Many, many people don’t think like this. It honestly seems a very Southern, conformist outlook on life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the other trend of not marrying at all?

I have coworkers with babies who are not married.

This is the actual trend. But it doesn't fit in with the current narrative being pushed

UMC/rich kids seem to be getting married younger. These kids likely have the support of the rich parents.

Poor and MC young adults may not have the money for a wedding or to buy a house. Our kids will have college, grad school, wedding and at least down payment from the parents. I would rather my kids marry relatively young in their twenties and have kids young.

I come from humble beginnings and traveled a ton in my twenties after I started working. My kids have been traveling internationally since they were young. My kids are still minors and been to Europe and Asia several times and the US/Caribbean countless times. It isn’t like they need to spend their twenties traveling and enjoying life. They have been doing this since being born.

Traveling with mama is not what people mean when they say "travel and see the world." That you would unironically write that tells me so much about you.

DP.

What does “travel and see the world” mean if not travel and see the world, which one can do with their friends, their parents, or even by themselves!

Do you mean getting drunk, high, and having sex with random strangers? That’s the only scenario in which you’re right and one would not get that experience traveling with mama…

No they mean exploring the world on your own without your parents paying for everything and holding your hand the entire time. Navigating a foreign transportation system or a language you don't speak on your own without well-traveled parents who can always step in to explain or guide.

I traveled a ton between birth and age 12 because my dad worked for a huge international company and we lived all over the world as he helped set up offices and factories for them. And then even after we settled in the US so I could have a "normal" high school experience we still traveled abroad a lot. So I was a "well-traveled" kid. But when I traveled in my 20s on my own I learned different things about myself. It was a totally different experience. Independence is a really powerful thing to explore and I do think I would have missed out on something if I'd married straight out of college even though obviously I wasn't lacking in opportunities to travel.

I never did the drinking and drugging and casual sex type of travel btw. I did meet lots of interesting people but I have always known to be cautious when traveling abroad.

You’re speaking from an upper middle class / wealthy bubble. The vast majority of American kids, teens, and young adults will NEVER “see the world”. For the average American family a trip to a single European country for a week is literally a once-in-lifetime event.

So you can continue to split hairs about whether seeing the world as a kid “counts” or not, but just understand that it’s irrelevant.

DP. Isn’t that the topic of this thread?

Anyway, the point was that most young adults would benefit from getting TF out of their hometown. “Seeing the world” doesn’t just mean visiting some tourist trap in Europe.

So wait, are you talking about upper middle class young people who have almost certainly been out of their hometown? Or are you talking about lower class young people who not only have likely not gotten out of their hometown, but will never do so regardless of their age at marriage?

Most young adults should become independent and ideally live somewhere else before settling down.

Why?

DP. If you go directly from being dependent on your parents to being committed to another person, you don’t get many opportunities to make decisions that are purely in your own self-interest, for better or for worse. Regardless of what age one gets married—if they get married—once they start checking the boxes of the traditional nuclear family, they might start to keenly feel the possibilities of how their life might turn out getting narrower and narrower. Which is normal and fine, but there’s that sweet spot right after college where there are just so many possibilities! What a wonderful thing and a great time to take chances, make mistakes with minimal consequences. Figure out what’s really important to
you. The more people you have hitched to you, the harder those risks are to take.

You can of course do that, but it is neither ideal nor necessary. It is merely one way to live your life.

I also can’t help but wonder how many folks on this thread are crowing about the supposed importance of living independently (particularly from their parents) while simultaneously receiving handouts. This area is rife with trust fund babies and people who had their entire undergraduate and graduate educations fully financed by mom and dad. Weddings paid for! Down payment assistance! College savings for the grandkids! And so on.

Some of us had to learn to be independent much earlier than many of the rich kids turned rich adults posting here…

You sound angry and like you have a chip on your shoulder. I'm sorry you didn't have successful parents, but there's nothing wrong with paying for your kid's education, engagement ring, wedding, honeymoon, and helping with a down payment on a first house. There is nothing to romanticize about starting adulthood in some student loan and rental apartment usury trap.

By extension...there's then nothing wrong with subsidizing every expense of your child for life. Of course that happens quite often with massive Trusts for kids.

I don't care one way or the other, but why stop at the things you list?

You're suggesting privileged kids are lazy layabouts, when they're anything but. They're wealthy Type A overachievers. They're going to selective colleges, getting great grades, and they're mindful about finding a spouse. Who you marry is the most important decision of your life. Not seriously looking for a spouse in your prime, when you're surrounded by 10,000-50,000 ambitious peers, is foolish. These kids have it all and they're quickly checking off status and milestone boxes. BA, check. Fiancé or fiancée, check. Grad school, check. Wedding, check. First house, check. Career in a premier city, check. Baby, check.

I’m fascinated that you think a checklist approach to life is desirable or to be emulated. It sounds incredibly depressing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the other trend of not marrying at all?

I have coworkers with babies who are not married.

This is the actual trend. But it doesn't fit in with the current narrative being pushed

UMC/rich kids seem to be getting married younger. These kids likely have the support of the rich parents.

Poor and MC young adults may not have the money for a wedding or to buy a house. Our kids will have college, grad school, wedding and at least down payment from the parents. I would rather my kids marry relatively young in their twenties and have kids young.

I come from humble beginnings and traveled a ton in my twenties after I started working. My kids have been traveling internationally since they were young. My kids are still minors and been to Europe and Asia several times and the US/Caribbean countless times. It isn’t like they need to spend their twenties traveling and enjoying life. They have been doing this since being born.

Traveling with mama is not what people mean when they say "travel and see the world." That you would unironically write that tells me so much about you.

DP.

What does “travel and see the world” mean if not travel and see the world, which one can do with their friends, their parents, or even by themselves!

Do you mean getting drunk, high, and having sex with random strangers? That’s the only scenario in which you’re right and one would not get that experience traveling with mama…

No they mean exploring the world on your own without your parents paying for everything and holding your hand the entire time. Navigating a foreign transportation system or a language you don't speak on your own without well-traveled parents who can always step in to explain or guide.

I traveled a ton between birth and age 12 because my dad worked for a huge international company and we lived all over the world as he helped set up offices and factories for them. And then even after we settled in the US so I could have a "normal" high school experience we still traveled abroad a lot. So I was a "well-traveled" kid. But when I traveled in my 20s on my own I learned different things about myself. It was a totally different experience. Independence is a really powerful thing to explore and I do think I would have missed out on something if I'd married straight out of college even though obviously I wasn't lacking in opportunities to travel.

I never did the drinking and drugging and casual sex type of travel btw. I did meet lots of interesting people but I have always known to be cautious when traveling abroad.

You’re speaking from an upper middle class / wealthy bubble. The vast majority of American kids, teens, and young adults will NEVER “see the world”. For the average American family a trip to a single European country for a week is literally a once-in-lifetime event.

So you can continue to split hairs about whether seeing the world as a kid “counts” or not, but just understand that it’s irrelevant.

DP. Isn’t that the topic of this thread?

Anyway, the point was that most young adults would benefit from getting TF out of their hometown. “Seeing the world” doesn’t just mean visiting some tourist trap in Europe.

So wait, are you talking about upper middle class young people who have almost certainly been out of their hometown? Or are you talking about lower class young people who not only have likely not gotten out of their hometown, but will never do so regardless of their age at marriage?

Most young adults should become independent and ideally live somewhere else before settling down.

Why?

DP. If you go directly from being dependent on your parents to being committed to another person, you don’t get many opportunities to make decisions that are purely in your own self-interest, for better or for worse. Regardless of what age one gets married—if they get married—once they start checking the boxes of the traditional nuclear family, they might start to keenly feel the possibilities of how their life might turn out getting narrower and narrower. Which is normal and fine, but there’s that sweet spot right after college where there are just so many possibilities! What a wonderful thing and a great time to take chances, make mistakes with minimal consequences. Figure out what’s really important to
you. The more people you have hitched to you, the harder those risks are to take.

You can of course do that, but it is neither ideal nor necessary. It is merely one way to live your life.

I also can’t help but wonder how many folks on this thread are crowing about the supposed importance of living independently (particularly from their parents) while simultaneously receiving handouts. This area is rife with trust fund babies and people who had their entire undergraduate and graduate educations fully financed by mom and dad. Weddings paid for! Down payment assistance! College savings for the grandkids! And so on.

Some of us had to learn to be independent much earlier than many of the rich kids turned rich adults posting here…

You sound angry and like you have a chip on your shoulder. I'm sorry you didn't have successful parents, but there's nothing wrong with paying for your kid's education, engagement ring, wedding, honeymoon, and helping with a down payment on a first house. There is nothing to romanticize about starting adulthood in some student loan and rental apartment usury trap.

By extension...there's then nothing wrong with subsidizing every expense of your child for life. Of course that happens quite often with massive Trusts for kids.

I don't care one way or the other, but why stop at the things you list?

You're suggesting privileged kids are lazy layabouts, when they're anything but. They're wealthy Type A overachievers. They're going to selective colleges, getting great grades, and they're mindful about finding a spouse. Who you marry is the most important decision of your life. Not seriously looking for a spouse in your prime, when you're surrounded by 10,000-50,000 ambitious peers, is foolish. These kids have it all and they're quickly checking off status and milestone boxes. BA, check. Fiancé or fiancée, check. Grad school, check. Wedding, check. First house, check. Career in a premier city, check. Baby, check.

I’m fascinated that you think a checklist approach to life is desirable or to be emulated. It sounds incredibly depressing to me.

The problem with anyone who is a box-checker is that at some point, something happens. So all those timely and neat boxes you just mentioned? Midlife crisis, check. Serious illness or death, check. Abuse or addiction, check. Child with special needs or health issue, check. Infertility, check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let’s revisit all these couples in 15 years. If they’re still together, great, but I suspect many will not be. These are starter marriages, people, not happily ever afters. We’ve got some real starry-eyed romantics in the crowd, it would appear.

You’re a miserable cynic. Quit projecting your bitterness onto others.

Not bitter, just realistic. To me you are like a child, still believing in fairy tales.

The data doesn’t support your view. Marriages for those 25-29 are more likely to last than those for older cohorts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the other trend of not marrying at all?

I have coworkers with babies who are not married.

This is the actual trend. But it doesn't fit in with the current narrative being pushed

UMC/rich kids seem to be getting married younger. These kids likely have the support of the rich parents.

Poor and MC young adults may not have the money for a wedding or to buy a house. Our kids will have college, grad school, wedding and at least down payment from the parents. I would rather my kids marry relatively young in their twenties and have kids young.

I come from humble beginnings and traveled a ton in my twenties after I started working. My kids have been traveling internationally since they were young. My kids are still minors and been to Europe and Asia several times and the US/Caribbean countless times. It isn’t like they need to spend their twenties traveling and enjoying life. They have been doing this since being born.

Traveling with mama is not what people mean when they say "travel and see the world." That you would unironically write that tells me so much about you.

DP.

What does “travel and see the world” mean if not travel and see the world, which one can do with their friends, their parents, or even by themselves!

Do you mean getting drunk, high, and having sex with random strangers? That’s the only scenario in which you’re right and one would not get that experience traveling with mama…

No they mean exploring the world on your own without your parents paying for everything and holding your hand the entire time. Navigating a foreign transportation system or a language you don't speak on your own without well-traveled parents who can always step in to explain or guide.

I traveled a ton between birth and age 12 because my dad worked for a huge international company and we lived all over the world as he helped set up offices and factories for them. And then even after we settled in the US so I could have a "normal" high school experience we still traveled abroad a lot. So I was a "well-traveled" kid. But when I traveled in my 20s on my own I learned different things about myself. It was a totally different experience. Independence is a really powerful thing to explore and I do think I would have missed out on something if I'd married straight out of college even though obviously I wasn't lacking in opportunities to travel.

I never did the drinking and drugging and casual sex type of travel btw. I did meet lots of interesting people but I have always known to be cautious when traveling abroad.

You’re speaking from an upper middle class / wealthy bubble. The vast majority of American kids, teens, and young adults will NEVER “see the world”. For the average American family a trip to a single European country for a week is literally a once-in-lifetime event.

So you can continue to split hairs about whether seeing the world as a kid “counts” or not, but just understand that it’s irrelevant.

DP. Isn’t that the topic of this thread?

Anyway, the point was that most young adults would benefit from getting TF out of their hometown. “Seeing the world” doesn’t just mean visiting some tourist trap in Europe.

So wait, are you talking about upper middle class young people who have almost certainly been out of their hometown? Or are you talking about lower class young people who not only have likely not gotten out of their hometown, but will never do so regardless of their age at marriage?

Most young adults should become independent and ideally live somewhere else before settling down.

Why?

DP. If you go directly from being dependent on your parents to being committed to another person, you don’t get many opportunities to make decisions that are purely in your own self-interest, for better or for worse. Regardless of what age one gets married—if they get married—once they start checking the boxes of the traditional nuclear family, they might start to keenly feel the possibilities of how their life might turn out getting narrower and narrower. Which is normal and fine, but there’s that sweet spot right after college where there are just so many possibilities! What a wonderful thing and a great time to take chances, make mistakes with minimal consequences. Figure out what’s really important to
you. The more people you have hitched to you, the harder those risks are to take.

You can of course do that, but it is neither ideal nor necessary. It is merely one way to live your life.

I also can’t help but wonder how many folks on this thread are crowing about the supposed importance of living independently (particularly from their parents) while simultaneously receiving handouts. This area is rife with trust fund babies and people who had their entire undergraduate and graduate educations fully financed by mom and dad. Weddings paid for! Down payment assistance! College savings for the grandkids! And so on.

Some of us had to learn to be independent much earlier than many of the rich kids turned rich adults posting here…

You sound angry and like you have a chip on your shoulder. I'm sorry you didn't have successful parents, but there's nothing wrong with paying for your kid's education, engagement ring, wedding, honeymoon, and helping with a down payment on a first house. There is nothing to romanticize about starting adulthood in some student loan and rental apartment usury trap.

By extension...there's then nothing wrong with subsidizing every expense of your child for life. Of course that happens quite often with massive Trusts for kids.

I don't care one way or the other, but why stop at the things you list?

You're suggesting privileged kids are lazy layabouts, when they're anything but. They're wealthy Type A overachievers. They're going to selective colleges, getting great grades, and they're mindful about finding a spouse. Who you marry is the most important decision of your life. Not seriously looking for a spouse in your prime, when you're surrounded by 10,000-50,000 ambitious peers, is foolish. These kids have it all and they're quickly checking off status and milestone boxes. BA, check. Fiancé or fiancée, check. Grad school, check. Wedding, check. First house, check. Career in a premier city, check. Baby, check.

I’m fascinated that you think a checklist approach to life is desirable or to be emulated. It sounds incredibly depressing to me.

The problem with anyone who is a box-checker is that at some point, something happens. So all those timely and neat boxes you just mentioned? Midlife crisis, check. Serious illness or death, check. Abuse or addiction, check. Child with special needs or health issue, check. Infertility, check.

So what? That happens to everyone, whether they believe in meeting life milestones or not. If you find that depressing, your problem is with life and reality itself. You’d find it depressing whether you marry at 25 or 55. Not everyone is as neurotic and temperamentally melancholic as the finger- waggers on DCUM, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let’s revisit all these couples in 15 years. If they’re still together, great, but I suspect many will not be. These are starter marriages, people, not happily ever afters. We’ve got some real starry-eyed romantics in the crowd, it would appear.

You’re a miserable cynic. Quit projecting your bitterness onto others.

Not bitter, just realistic. To me you are like a child, still believing in fairy tales.

The data doesn’t support your view. Marriages for those 25-29 are more likely to last than those for older cohorts.

Because those who marry young are typically religious and most religion don't encourage divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married at 23 and had my first at 26, in law school. People acted like I was a teen mom. It was ridiculous. I’ve been married for 17 years and I’m really happy with my choices. I have health problems now that could have kept me from having kids in my 30s. So I’m really glad I got that done in my 20s and I would recommend for my children to do the same.

At the same time, I was fairly mature at 23 and knew what I wanted. I knew DH was a good partner.

I wish I could have had children younger. I don't see what the big deal is. Think of how young you'll be when the nest empties!

I’ll be 46 and an empty nester MUAHAHAHA.

My 20s were hard but I’m happy DH was with me. He is the one who put me through law school. We had marriage, law school, babies overlapping and it was super hard but by my mid 30s life was so pleasant. Now nearing 40 my kids are older and I am really enjoying my life. I didn’t travel or date a lot but DH and I have had some fun trips while my parents stay with the kids.

It always stands out to me that young parents seem thrilled to be empty nesters and “enjoying my life.” There is this mindset that you’re happy the phase of having kids is over with.

Did you not enjoy having kids?
Perhaps you had to give up so much in your 20s and you feel like your time is finally your own? I can imagine you had virtually no time to yourself and had to struggle through lawschool if you had young babies at the same time.

I can’t imagine viewing having a family the way you do. I loved my time in my 20s and it’s now great to have a young family in my 40s.

+1! I read that and thought that sounds sad to be so giddy about your kids being gone. I was married young (23) but waited until 30s for kids. I’m glad we still have a way to go with them under my roof. In my 40s now.

Agree with this. I'm happy for anyone who is happy with their life choices, but I'd rather have kids later and spend much of my middle age years with kids in the house because this is when I most want to be home and don't feel curtailed by kids. I went out and traveled a lot in my 20s and early 30s -- by the time I got pregnant that was no longer as appealing to me and I was very ready to stay in more and have a more family-centric life. And no I was not out drinking and doing drugs and sleeping around -- I was just going out to dinner with friends, traveling to fun places, dating (but not having a ton of sex actually), and trying new hobbies. And now I'm eating dinners with my family and helping with homework and sewing halloween costumes... and happily going to bed at 9:30pm on a Friday.

This. Can’t imagine wanting my life to be limited by kids in my 20s. Someone who thinks this is the best option simply missed out on their 20s and doesn’t know any better.

You may as well try to convince me that the best time to have kids is high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that it's hard to afford a house, and careers aren't stable at all, why wait?

It's actually the opposite of this. Trend is young marriages for rich kids -- who have no student loans, get parent help including with house. Biglaw partner here and I have seen other partners kids getting engaged and married at college (quite often elite) or right after.

Yep. Rich kids are pairing during college and marrying soon after undergrad (and buying a nice house and will pop out easy kids). Not being married or at least engaged by mid to late 20s is going to be a prole tell for Gen Z’ers. Weird lower rung leftovers still using dating apps while their rich peers have kids and a big house.

Many, many people don’t think like this. It honestly seems a very Southern, conformist outlook on life.

Not southern. Rich or well to do. Actually conformist would be to wait until late 30s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let’s revisit all these couples in 15 years. If they’re still together, great, but I suspect many will not be. These are starter marriages, people, not happily ever afters. We’ve got some real starry-eyed romantics in the crowd, it would appear.

You’re a miserable cynic. Quit projecting your bitterness onto others.

Not bitter, just realistic. To me you are like a child, still believing in fairy tales.

The data doesn’t support your view. Marriages for those 25-29 are more likely to last than those for older cohorts.

DP. I thought we were talking about marriage at 21-22 here, per the example in the OP. I don’t think most people have an issue with 25-29. I certainly don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married at 23 and had my first at 26, in law school. People acted like I was a teen mom. It was ridiculous. I’ve been married for 17 years and I’m really happy with my choices. I have health problems now that could have kept me from having kids in my 30s. So I’m really glad I got that done in my 20s and I would recommend for my children to do the same.

At the same time, I was fairly mature at 23 and knew what I wanted. I knew DH was a good partner.

I wish I could have had children younger. I don't see what the big deal is. Think of how young you'll be when the nest empties!

I’ll be 46 and an empty nester MUAHAHAHA.

My 20s were hard but I’m happy DH was with me. He is the one who put me through law school. We had marriage, law school, babies overlapping and it was super hard but by my mid 30s life was so pleasant. Now nearing 40 my kids are older and I am really enjoying my life. I didn’t travel or date a lot but DH and I have had some fun trips while my parents stay with the kids.

It always stands out to me that young parents seem thrilled to be empty nesters and “enjoying my life.” There is this mindset that you’re happy the phase of having kids is over with.

Did you not enjoy having kids?
Perhaps you had to give up so much in your 20s and you feel like your time is finally your own? I can imagine you had virtually no time to yourself and had to struggle through lawschool if you had young babies at the same time.

I can’t imagine viewing having a family the way you do. I loved my time in my 20s and it’s now great to have a young family in my 40s.

+1! I read that and thought that sounds sad to be so giddy about your kids being gone. I was married young (23) but waited until 30s for kids. I’m glad we still have a way to go with them under my roof. In my 40s now.

Agree with this. I'm happy for anyone who is happy with their life choices, but I'd rather have kids later and spend much of my middle age years with kids in the house because this is when I most want to be home and don't feel curtailed by kids. I went out and traveled a lot in my 20s and early 30s -- by the time I got pregnant that was no longer as appealing to me and I was very ready to stay in more and have a more family-centric life. And no I was not out drinking and doing drugs and sleeping around -- I was just going out to dinner with friends, traveling to fun places, dating (but not having a ton of sex actually), and trying new hobbies. And now I'm eating dinners with my family and helping with homework and sewing halloween costumes... and happily going to bed at 9:30pm on a Friday.

This. Can’t imagine wanting my life to be limited by kids in my 20s. Someone who thinks this is the best option simply missed out on their 20s and doesn’t know any better.

You may as well try to convince me that the best time to have kids is high school.

You are limited by kids later then. This is not better or worse just different. They get their freedom too just later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Let’s revisit all these couples in 15 years. If they’re still together, great, but I suspect many will not be. These are starter marriages, people, not happily ever afters. We’ve got some real starry-eyed romantics in the crowd, it would appear.

You’re a miserable cynic. Quit projecting your bitterness onto others.

Not bitter, just realistic. To me you are like a child, still believing in fairy tales.

The data doesn’t support your view. Marriages for those 25-29 are more likely to last than those for older cohorts.

Because those who marry young are typically religious and most religion don't encourage divorce

Wea re not talking about these kids. I mentioned Biglaw partner kids above. None are religious. Most are from elite schools and have great jobs right out of college and are getting married or engaged right away. Biglaw has nothing to do with it except parents have a alot of money that they spend on the kids in addition to the great jobs.