3 ms·

If she is 20 years younger, then he will have to date her until she is 18 or so, but that's okay, too. Mother nature and the lawyers agree: A women of 18 is old

• graycat 7y ago
  You don't understand mother nature, women, and love. One of the secrets to a good love relationship is from the woman's often really, really strong romantic feelings when she is in her teens. That's just a fact, Jack. Live and learn that fact or suffer the consequences of ignorance. Some movies will say "That old zing" -- well, teen girls are awash in the propensity to "zing". Sure, we'd all like some thoughtful, planned, rational, etc. relationship -- alas Mother Nature didn't get or like that memo. The relationship gets a LOT of that young women propensity or gets, net, less. Bluntly, the woman is able to be good at marriage and motherhood years before a man is able to be good at marriage and being a father. That's just Mother Nature's way. In particular, the woman with a baby needs to feel that her husband is strong, wise, and cares about, cares for, and will take care of his wife and children. If he is close to her age, then that's super hard -- possible with some special circumstances but otherwise improbable. Or, when she is 18 she is old enough; when he is 35 he is still young enough; and that's enough. Besides, in general, and especially for the case of this thread, he will make a much better husband and father at 35 than 19, 25, or 30. For her at 18, she will need help, from her husband, yes, but also, as I outlined, from the rest of the older family members. So, date her when she is 15-16 or so and marry her when she's 18. I'm not nearly the first person to observe or even recommend such age differences. I know; I know; the currently strongly politically correct view is that we should ignore any such gender/age differences as I outlined. But, bluntly, that's one of the reasons we're rapidly going extinct, literally, from birth rates too low from bad family formation. It's just the facts of life. I once believed as you did: At 18 she was fully ready to be married and a mother, totally awash in love. Would have made a terrific mother. But I was only 4 years older, and we planned. Lots of good, rational planning. She was brilliant, Valedictorian, Summa Cum Laude, PBK, Woodrow Wilson Fellow, NSF Fellow, mathematical social science Ph.D. from two of the world's top experts. But that's NOT what Mother Nature wanted. It flopped. She died. Her effort to be equal ("this equality stuff got me in a lot of trouble") was fatal. Now I'm lonely. Never, never, never again, never should any man ever, ever, ever consider a marriage with two Ph.D. degrees and close in age. NEVER. It's begging for disaster. In a word, are trying to do without the "zing". Early on she said "Women don't have to be just cared for. Women can do things, too." Well, that was a deeply convoluted statement: Being cared for is what she really expected, wanted, and knew she needed. But she wanted to pretend to me that she could also paddle our little canoe. She knew she wanted to be cared about, cared for, taken care of. And for young women with children, those feelings are nearly universal and universally strong. So, you just learned one of the facts of life. Ages 35 and 15 have a LOT going for them: Then at 38 and 18 they can be married and right away start their family. GOOD. TOUGH to do better than that. But you look at this terrific situation and find something wrong -- you need to study Women 101 for Dummies -- Men.
  • o10449366 7y ago
    There's nothing weirder than men on the internet talking about how to groom young women like they're fragile animals that only exist to breed.
    • graycat 7y ago
      That's your interpretation. The current system does not work -- we're going extinct. The politically correct situation is fascism masquerading as progress. As in the OP of this thread, we're talking about nothing else than "family formation". That means marriage with CHILDREN, babies, with the wife having BABIES. In many ways for the good of the marriage, the family, and motherhood, having her start at age 18 with a husband old enough to be wise, strong, and financially able enough to be a good husband and father is about the best it can be. Again, there are HUGE reasons for her to start at 18 -- one of these is so that a generation is about 20 years instead of 25 or 30 so that the young mother will have more ancestors who really care about her helping her be good as a wife and mother. One of the huge problems is that the mother is with her husband, who typically knows next to nothing about motherhood, and without her ancestors because they are already dead or just too far away. BUMMER. So, you sound like you don't want women to have babies. The women really aren't "fragile" -- you don't understand and need to learn. In some significant ways, women are stronger then men, e.g., in cases of endurance. But here's what you just flatly refuse to get: "Men and women deserve equal respect as persons but are not the same.". In particular, as an expert explained to me, flat statement, no qualifications, "Of COURSE women are MUCH more emotional than men. That's the cause of all the problems [between men and women]", and you are an example: You just REFUSE to see women as different and, thus, fail to see that they are more emotional and fail to see the enormously strong role of the wife and mother being happy with her emotions in the marriage. The husband MUST understand the emotions of his wife and children -- his sons will be easy for him, but he will have to think HARD about the emotions of his daughters. You just don't understand so fall back on some trivial, critical cliche. That's ignorant. I'm outlining a LOT here, paid full tuition. Now you can pay full tuition and be alone as in the OP or wise up, read, learn, and do better.
• tropo 7y ago
  Plato and many American states agree: A women of 16 is old enough to get married, have kids Plato would even add the "and do well at both". That is advice from a famous philosopher. He thought 16 was ideal for women, and 30 was ideal for men. I have no idea if he might have had a personal bias in that matter.
  • tschwimmer 7y ago
    Luckily for us, neither of these are particularly good modern moral authorities.
    • graycat 7y ago
      While I place no trust in Plato's reasoning or evidence, I don't see the issue as "moral". Instead, I see the importance of good family formation, which the US is failing at (birth rate so low we are rapidly going extinct, literally -- the most basic failing of a society), and needing solutions good in all or nearly all respects. Failing at family formation is no darned good and worse -- it canNOT last. On this point f'get about Plato, Fromm, or me and, instead, listen to Darwin -- yup, he's on the case.
  • nonwifehaver3 7y ago
    The American states' laws from 100+ years ago are completely at odds with current culture. So unless you are in a radically traditional and very insular religious subculture, marrying before 21 is probably going to be a disaster. This whole "women of 16 are fit to reproduce" thing is not constant in time. Not only is there the cultural factor, the physical age of puberty varies radically across environments and ethnicities. For example, home environment (presence of biological father) affects age of menarche in women. And in 18th century England many girls didn't start puberty until they were over 20 years old. And west of the Hajnal line, England included, has had consistently higher marriage and childbearing ages for centuries. Menarche age has been plummeting in developed countries for 60+ years, but since it's partly from pollutants it probably isn't correct to assume that means they should have children earlier. It indeed feels unsavory to talk about human beings like this, but the point is that it isn't correct to generalize about what is "ideal".
• o10449366 7y ago
  Seriously. This thread has some fucking crazy people in it with very little self-awareness.