Research shows that marrying young without having lived together makes for the lowest divorce rates

[Zimbabwe]

Funny it's always the opposite of what the media recommend which is waiting till your 30+ and living together first. I think it's because there's a deliberate agenda to ruin the family unit. That's why music, TV, etc... Are so vulgar. Bad is portrayed as good. Good is portrayed as bad.

Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not if You Avoid Cohabiting First

Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates.

www.wsj.com

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Funny it's always the opposite of what the media recommend which is waiting till your 30+ and living together first. I think it's because there's a deliberate agenda to ruin the family unit. That's why music, TV, etc... Are so vulgar. Bad is portrayed as good. Good is portrayed as bad.

Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not if You Avoid Cohabiting First

Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates.

www.wsj.com

Anything rubbish is directly from mainstream media.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

There is a difference between being married and being happy...my bet is a lot of them are staying together because it's comfortable

 

[Barrister]

This means nothing ultimately. As @BackInTheGame78 mentioned, true happiness should be the real barometer. Most of these men who get married this young generally end up hating their wives that they have been with since they turned 16. I know a few buddies from high school that married their sweethearts - there is zero passion and energy between them anymore. The only plus is they have a common educational background and local jobs with no ambition to do anything else. So I suppose they are a good match on some level (more depressing than anything).

Articles like these are completely misleading because it makes it seem like this is some great thing. It doesn't mean that at all.

 

[SW15]

The Wall Street Journal is mainstream-ish, but a little bit outsider.

Marrying before one's 26th birthday without having cohabited is probably a sign of greater success, as measured by not divorcing. I think it is closely aassociated with other practices that reduce probability of divorce such as devout, mainly Christian religious practices and a female with a lower notch count. Many of the Christian religions have doctrines that condemn pre-marital sex.

The Sexual Revolution started in the United States in 1960 with the release of the birth control pill. It took a while for the Sexual Revolution to permeate through the culture. Let's say the Revolution didn't become fully mainstream until the second half of the 1970s (1975-1979). The people who were marrying from 1960-1974 were still more religious and the typical path was a couple marrying before age 23, more likely to practice religion, and the female had a 1 or 2 person notch count at the time of marriage. People marrying from 1960-1966 were mainly the late Silent Generation (births prior to 1946). Around 1967 is when the earliest Boomers (1946-1964) started to marry. Divorce started to lose its stigma in the 1970s with the introduction of no fault divorces in most USA states in the 1970s. California was the first no fault divorce state when its no fault law took effect in 1970.

From 1975-1989, when the Sexual Revolution had become mainstream, marriage was getting delayed from ages 19-22 to ages 23-26. That 3-4 year delay allowed women to pick up some more notches. The partners marrying during this time were the latter 2/3rd of the Boomer generation and the possibly the earliest Gen X'ers. Divorce had become mainstream in these years. Religious practice dropped. Cohabitation prior to marriage became common.

The 1990s and beyond saw the continuation of all the trends. Women tend to pick up more notches prior to marrying and marrying kept happening later. Marriage moved from 23-26 year olds in the 1975-1989 period to 27-32 year olds by the 2010s.

 

[SW15]

There is a difference between being married and being happy...my bet is a lot of them are staying together because it's comfortable

It's common in romantic relationships (married or not) to stay together out of comfort and convenience after 3-5 years. I've asserted here that I believe the shelf life of goodness of most romantic relationships is about 5 years. With married couples who have been married 5-10 years (+1-4 years of pre-marital couple time typically), you're looking at 10-15 year long relationships there. A lot of these 10-15 year long couples aren't that happy.

Most of these men who get married this young generally end up hating their wives that they have been with since they turned 16. I know a few buddies from high school that married their sweethearts - there is zero passion and energy between them anymore. The only plus is they have a common educational background and local jobs with no ambition to do anything else. So I suppose they are a good match on some level (more depressing than anything).

Articles like these are completely misleading because it makes it seem like this is some great thing. It doesn't mean that at all.

Agree. @Barrister -- You and I are about the same age. In our era, it has been much less common for couples formed in high school and college to stay together longer term. By age 35, relationships that formed during high school or college have lost their spark if they exist. The ones who didn't stay with their high school or college sweethearts might be better off in terms of happiness. It's probably at least equal (neither is happy).

 

[Barrister]

Agree. @Barrister -- You and I are about the same age. In our era, it has been much less common for couples formed in high school and college to stay together longer term. By age 35, relationships that formed during high school or college have lost their spark if they exist. The ones who didn't stay with their high school or college sweethearts might be better off in terms of happiness. It's probably at least equal (neither is happy).

Yes - I got married right out of law school to my ex-wife. We had been dating for about 2 years - married for 5 for a total of 7 years. The first three years of the seven were pretty good, the next two were tolerable, and the last two were miserable. I don't regret ending it, even with a daughter in the picture, when I did. In fact, I wish I had done it sooner.

I do know couples who have been together many years (10+) that do seem legitimately happy together. However, I know more couples in this relationship-length range that are unhappy - it is just a varying degree of unhappiness. Some downright hate each other and don't interact except to fight each other, but what is more common is a general malaise of the relationship. Neither shows any affection towards the other, no positive feelings are elicited, and both complain/b1tch to friends/family nonstop when their partner is not within ear shot. And I have a feeling this latter group is makes up the vast majority of OP's statistic for couples who have stayed together but never lived together prior to marriage. Just a hunch.

 

[RickTheToad]

Funny it's always the opposite of what the media recommend which is waiting till your 30+ and living together first. I think it's because there's a deliberate agenda to ruin the family unit. That's why music, TV, etc... Are so vulgar. Bad is portrayed as good. Good is portrayed as bad.

Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not if You Avoid Cohabiting First

Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates.

www.wsj.com

I call bullturd. I didn't live together prior to marriage 12 years ago. As soon as she moved in, we started to clash and her personality turned. It was miserable living with her. I filed for divorce then moved for an annulment after a year and a half. She even argued with the marital counselors. Two said it's not going to work and I should leave. Some females are nuts.

 

[RickTheToad]

It's common in romantic relationships (married or not) to stay together out of comfort and convenience after 3-5 years. I've asserted here that I believe the shelf life of goodness of most romantic relationships is about 5 years. With married couples who have been married 5-10 years (+1-4 years of pre-marital couple time typically), you're looking at 10-15 year long relationships there. A lot of these 10-15 year long couples aren't that happy.



Agree. @Barrister -- You and I are about the same age. In our era, it has been much less common for couples formed in high school and college to stay together longer term. By age 35, relationships that formed during high school or college have lost their spark if they exist. The ones who didn't stay with their high school or college sweethearts might be better off in terms of happiness. It's probably at least equal (neither is happy).

Not true. I know a couple who got married at 18. He was her first, she wasn't his first (otherwords, she was the virgin, he wasn't). They are in their mid 30's, now and still very much in tact and together. She also still looks smoking hot. She looks a little like Camila Cabao, just white; seems very loyal and both are lawyers.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Divorce started to lose its stigma in the 1970s with the introduction of no fault divorces in most USA states in the 1970s. California was the first no fault divorce state when its no fault law took effect in 1970.

We are worse off for it. California once again ruining the states.

 

[Dr.Suave]

Its over for NotDivorcedButNotReallyHappyCels

 

[SW15]

Yes - I got married right out of law school to my ex-wife. We had been dating for about 2 years - married for 5 for a total of 7 years. The first three years of the seven were pretty good, the next two were tolerable, and the last two were miserable. I don't regret ending it, even with a daughter in the picture, when I did. In fact, I wish I had done it sooner.

That's a common timeline of goodness in a relationship. 2-5 years is the typical goodness timeline. Most relationships go from good-mediocre-miserable. Good is 2-5 years. Mediocre and miserable can last any amount of time.

I do know couples who have been together many years (10+) that do seem legitimately happy together. However, I know more couples in this relationship-length range that are unhappy - it is just a varying degree of unhappiness. Some downright hate each other and don't interact except to fight each other, but what is more common is a general malaise of the relationship. Neither shows any affection towards the other, no positive feelings are elicited, and both complain/b1tch to friends/family nonstop when their partner is not within ear shot. And I have a feeling this latter group is makes up the vast majority of OP's statistic for couples who have stayed together but never lived together prior to marriage. Just a hunch.

Your experience of knowing more couples of 10+ years being unhappy than happy is common. At least your contacts are being upfront with you. Married people and LTR people of 5+ years are often good at hiding unhappiness and significant relationship issues. General malaise rather than outright contempt is usually more common in the relationships that keep going on and on. When outright contempt occurs, the relationship ends relatively quickly. Outright contempt is better than general malaise because you don't end up wasting time.

 

[EyeBRollin]

There is a difference between being married and being happy...my bet is a lot of them are staying together because it's comfortable

The point of marriage has never been “happiness.”

 

[bat soup]

Funny it's always the opposite of what the media recommend which is waiting till your 30+ and living together first. I think it's because there's a deliberate agenda to ruin the family unit. That's why music, TV, etc... Are so vulgar. Bad is portrayed as good. Good is portrayed as bad.

Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not if You Avoid Cohabiting First

Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates.

www.wsj.com

This doesn't mean that it's a good idea for you to follow. What it means is that the kind of people that get married young are also the kind of people that tend not to divorce. For example, religious conservatives.

 

[SW15]

What it means is that the kind of people that get married young are also the kind of people that tend not to divorce. For example, religious conservatives.

This is accurate.

 

[Knight of Roses]

When you get married young, you are more likely to adapt and mold. As you grow older, both parties become more entrenched in their own ways, and less compromises are made.

That’s why I believe if you want that fairy tale love story with your soulmate, it’s gotta happen in the early twenties or it won’t at all. You ain’t gonna find that type of connection in your 30s/40s.

 

[CollegeMan22]

This means nothing ultimately. As @BackInTheGame78 mentioned, true happiness should be the real barometer. Most of these men who get married this young generally end up hating their wives that they have been with since they turned 16. I know a few buddies from high school that married their sweethearts - there is zero passion and energy between them anymore. The only plus is they have a common educational background and local jobs with no ambition to do anything else. So I suppose they are a good match on some level (more depressing than anything).

Articles like these are completely misleading because it makes it seem like this is some great thing. It doesn't mean that at all.

Do they have children? That would give them a shared purpose.

 

[EyeBRollin]

That Hierarchy of importance then becomes the children, then the woman, and then lastly the man. So the man has to be very careful now - the state has written laws that further encourage his disposability.

Actually this is completely wrong if you practice religion. Spouse comes before children. When shvt hits the fan you are supposed to protect the wife first. Same with vice versa.

 

[EyeBRollin]

And why do you think religion in the West has been gayed?

This is a clear and consciously orchestrated agenda by the Top Men to, like a shark, separate the protected fish shoal into isolated fish that can be easily eaten.

You’re a smart dude. I know you get this. I suspect that you’re benefiting from this state of play in some way, or you’re in a deep denial about it because you’re married and it’s a terrifying reality to admit to oneself.

I am not sure what you mean by this. But your comment regarding children over husband / wife is incorrect. And that is not a “West” thing.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Because Nature's order is the reverse - Children - Women - Men. And Men support Nature's natural order through their natural propensity to simp and self-sacrifice for women in exchange for sex.

That’s not even nature’s order. Women and children cannot survive in nature without male protection.