# Should 15 - 16 year old girls get married at that age?



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

The other day some outfit tried to hang Phil Robertson on something he said some 5 - 10 years ago about girls needing to get married at a earlier age. Now I don't specifically remember what his reason was. But it got me to thinking about most all of my ancestors were married at very young ages. My maternal grandfather was 20 when he married my maternal grandmother who was only 15 at that time. As well as many other ancestors. I even had one paternal great, great, great, grandfather who married some 5 or 6 times and each bride was only in thier teens. 

Now except for the grandfather who married 6 times, each dieing of some kind of a disease outbreak, etc., they all stayed married for decades and decades. When you think about now days hardly anyone stays married for more then 10 years. Should we not look down on young couples so much who want to marry young? Should we change the law from 18 back to 15? 

I do have one classmate who married when we were just 15 (1975)and she is still married to the same man after all these years.


----------



## craftychick (Nov 11, 2013)

I personally think every person, male & female should get some sort of marketable skill before getting married. Those skills can be either college, trade school or on the job training as long as it gives the person the ability to support themselves instead of being dependent on a spouse for their financial support.


----------



## ROSEMAMA (Jan 12, 2007)

craftychick said:


> I personally think every person, male & female should get some sort of marketable skill before getting married. Those skills can be either college, trade school or on the job training as long as it gives the person the ability to support themselves instead of being dependent on a spouse for their financial support.


That's the thing. Back in the day, teens did have skills (no choice). By 15, most girls were helping cook, clean, raise the younger sibs, etc. Boys were farming (or helping in whatever dad did) or apprenticed out to learn a skill. Nowadays, most kids can barely take care of themselves in their twenties! 

Heck, I know people my own age that I'm not sure how they breathe unassisted :facepalm:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm not sure that a successful marriage can be attributed to age only. A lot of times when our ancestors married, they married someone local so they had the benefit of knowing someone's entire family, the family dynamics and how the family fit in with the community.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> The other day some outfit tried to hang Phil Robertson on something he said some 5 - 10 years ago about girls needing to get married at a earlier age. Now I don't specifically remember what his reason was. But it got me to thinking about most all of my ancestors were married at very young ages. My maternal grandfather was 20 when he married my maternal grandmother who was only 15 at that time. As well as many other ancestors. I even had one paternal great, great, great, grandfather who married some 5 or 6 times and each bride was only in thier teens.
> 
> Now except for the grandfather who married 6 times, each dieing of some kind of a disease outbreak, etc., they all stayed married for decades and decades. When you think about now days hardly anyone stays married for more then 10 years. Should we not look down on young couples so much who want to marry young? Should we change the law from 18 back to 15?
> 
> I do have one classmate who married when we were just 15 (1975)and she is still married to the same man after all these years.


Marketable skills to support yourself financially are different than household skills.


His reasoning was so she wasn't able to support herself so she can't leave if he was a bad husband or old enough to know how to think for herself. 







ROSEMAMA said:


> That's the thing. Back in the day, teens did have skills (no choice). By 15, most girls were helping cook, clean, raise the younger sibs, etc. Boys were farming (or helping in whatever dad did) or apprenticed out to learn a skill. Nowadays, most kids can barely take care of themselves in their twenties!
> 
> Heck, I know people my own age that I'm not sure how they breathe unassisted :facepalm:


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

No! That is too young in today's world.


----------



## txplowgirl (Oct 15, 2007)

The young women from 100 years ago were raised in a different time and way of life that the young people of today can not even begin to imagine. 

My paternal grandmother was 16 when she married my grandfather who was 27. They were married in 1914. They had 12 children, 1 was stillborn. 

My grandfather was a cowboy and stayed away from home for months at a time while grandmother picked cotton and raised the children while taking care of a home and animals and a garden. 
They were married until my grandfather died of a heart attack in 1956. 41 years together. No electricity, indoor plumbing, running water etc until children were grown and out of the house.

My maternal grandmother was also 16 when she married my grandfather who was 18 in 1915. The had a total of 10 children, 1 who only lived for 3 weeks. Her first pregnancy was twins in 1916, my uncles Austin Lee and Baustin Davis. Grampa was a jack of all trades mainly logging and working sharecropper. They were married until he died of cancer in 1969. 54 years together. No electricity, indoor plumbing, running water, etc and also did not get it until after children were grown and out of the house. 

All of their children born at home with only the help of a midwife and visiting dr. 

I just do not see any 16 year old from this day and age with the strength of character to even think about that let alone try it.

In 1982 I married when I was 17. I intended to be married for the rest of my life. But he turned into an alcoholic and abusive. I tolerated that for 21 years but it got to the point that he would have killed me if I had stayed it got. I would have stayed married to him if he hadn't done that. 

Here it is 12 years later and I finally found someone that I intend to stay married to. We've been together 10 years now but it took him nearly 9 years to talk me into it. We've been married now a year and a half. But then again I'm not a teenager anymore and I've grown up and have lived life. 

Most kids nowadays have no morals, fortitude, etc. That's why the divorce rate is so high now. Just my opinion.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> His reasoning was so she wasn't able to support herself so she can't leave if he was a bad husband or old enough to know how to think for herself.


And you KNOW this as fact???


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I think it depends on the girl and her maturity.

Granted, in ages gone past, kids, boys and girls, were more mature by age 14 than most kids are today by age 20. I blame that on tv, internet, society. It is societys fault because we, as a society, have become far too accepting. Decades ago, if a child was acting out, being lazy, etc, they were punished, or even shamed by their peers or community. Now, if a kid sleeps till 9:30 on weekends, doesn't do chores timely, spends too much time on tv or video games, etc, etc, it is accepted because "that's normal for kids these days".


----------



## MelonBar (Dec 27, 2012)

If things where as they should be yes.

Today's culture doesn't want anyone married and having children.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Oldcountryboy said:


> The other day some outfit tried to hang Phil Robertson on something he said some 5 - 10 years ago about girls needing to get married at a earlier age. Now I don't specifically remember what his reason was. ......


There's a youtube video of him saying that, he was giving some kind of religious sermon and I watched the clip of that part of it on TV on the news up here in Canada. It was really very ignorant what he said and I was disgusted with his patriarchal, misogynistic, dark ages attitude. I took it as him advocating that men need to marry girl-brides who will be uneducated slaves and brood mares who can be abused or abandoned. (Which is what I understand he did to his own wife before he got religion for money and went back to his wife).

He said older men needed to marry girls when they were 15 or 16 because then the men could train the girls up to be and to think the way the men wanted them to and the girls wouldn't do any thinking for themselves. 

He said if the girls were young they could be trained to do the husbands' work for them and follow their orders on whatever the husband wanted them to do. 

He said if a man waited until the girl was 18 or older that was bad because she would end up having a mind of her own and want to make decisions for herself, also that she would pick his pockets. 

He said that a bride older than 16 wasn't desireable for any man who wanted a wife who would grow up being biddable and obedient to her husband's will and willing to do without any money of her own.

:hrm: :hohum: :yuck: :hammer:

So as far as I'm concerned, 3 strikes already (promoting racism, homophobia and abuse of women) and Phil Robertson is out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I got married when I was very young, not yet 17. It was one of the worst mistakes I ever made in my life and although I escaped from the abusive, dead-beat jerk 2 years later and then divorced him and later married a very nice man I'm still paying for that first mistake 46 years later. 

In answer to your question, I agree with what the several other dissenting posters above have said and I don't think girls in today's society need nor should be getting married at 15 or 16. They need to complete their education and have some good money-making skills to get them by, to help them be independent whether they marry or not. They need to have a passing good understanding of the rest of society outside of school and to be able to function in society independently without needing some male figure making their decisions for them. They need to have a more mature understanding of what it means to be running a household, having babies and the responsibilities of raising a family, and before they start having babies they need to have strong women's bodies that are mature and physically developed enough to have healthy pregnancies and produce strong, healthy babies.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I say yes they should! That way their children will not be illegimate.


----------



## Songbird (Apr 2, 2006)

I married young, at 16, and my DH was 18. We're still happily married 40 years later. There have been some hard times along the way, like any marriage, but I have no regrets. 

We both finished high school with marketable skills, got decent jobs....mine was clerical and his was auto mechanics. They taught these skills in high school back in the day. We both also took college classes in later years to advance in our jobs. We also had a couple kids along the way. 

I feel like we and our peers were so much more mature then kids are nowadays. Back in the day you were expected to be out on your own by the time you were 18. But it was easier to get a good job then, and college wasn't a necessity to survive well. Now it is pretty much fast food or retail jobs only if you don't have a college degree. Kids rely on their parents for many years longer than my generation...but society has changed so much they almost have to.

I think Phil Robertson's views on women are antiquated for sure, which being that he is only 67 years old is surprising. I do think from watching his show "Duck Dynasty" that he has the utmost love and respect for his wife. And she is only a couple years younger than him.... I actually think she has the upper hand in the marriage and he's just a big talker at this point. 

Back to the OP - I think in this day and time that getting married young is probably not the thing to do - but kids don't seem to want to do that these days anyway. They change partners as often as they change their underwear, and in my opinion that's not a good thing either....


----------



## dkhern (Nov 30, 2012)

i ve been told that since i cant remember. marry young and train your way. even then as now i knew it was toung in cheek


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I think it's a failure of our culture that most females aren't ready to be married by the time they are fully physically mature. Females have an expiration date as far as their ability to naturally conceive children. My opinion is that girls should be ready to get married by 18 and that males should probably hold off until around 30. Yeah I'm sexist, I think boys need more time and outside life experience to become men that girls do to become women.

And household skills are totally marketable skills... just look at War of the Roses!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Oldcountryboy said:


> The other day some outfit tried to hang Phil Robertson on something he said some 5 - 10 years ago about girls needing to get married at a earlier age. Now I don't specifically remember what his reason was. But it got me to thinking about most all of my ancestors were married at very young ages. My maternal grandfather was 20 when he married my maternal grandmother who was only 15 at that time. As well as many other ancestors. I even had one paternal great, great, great, grandfather who married some 5 or 6 times and each bride was only in thier teens.
> 
> Now except for the grandfather who married 6 times, each dieing of some kind of a disease outbreak, etc., they all stayed married for decades and decades. When you think about now days hardly anyone stays married for more then 10 years. Should we not look down on young couples so much who want to marry young? Should we change the law from 18 back to 15?
> 
> I do have one classmate who married when we were just 15 (1975)and she is still married to the same man after all these years.


Going back in the 'way back machine'......
Girls were trained to 'stand by their man'.......even if he beat her, ran around on her, abused her or the children.
Women stood on that arm, stoic, and immovable.
Inside, she was dying.
Pills were created to help her manage.
Booze was available to help her cope.
Although her outside said "I love my man"......her inside told another story.

At some point, women stopped teaching their girls to "stand by this man".....but to run. Run like the wind. Don't put up with this crap.
It's abuse. You are not property, you are a human being with rights....etc.
And this, was a good thing.

But like everything in the world, extremes are never good.

IMHO I do not think a human being (99% of them) is 'mature' enough to make 'life long - life lasting' decisions before the age of 21.....and for some, not even then. 
Who's fault is that? 
Lazy parents, defiant children.

Yeah, marriages used to last 50 years.
Women used to suck it up when they got beat.
Women used to suck it up when they were cheated on.
Women used to hide sexual abuse.
Women used to put on that happy face and felt 'lucky to have a man'.

Not anymore.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Define abuse.

I've seen women who thought any time a man disagreed with them or raised his voice in anger, that they were being abused. I'll take this a little further...I'll say society has actually fostered a meme of the abused, heroic wife...taking her children and leaving the sorry sucker in the middle of the night.

Sometimes that's true. Sometimes that's not. Regardless, when looked at economically, it hurts both man and woman. It especially is bad economically for any children.

Maybe that's why I'm a proponent of covenant marriage. Make marriage harder to get into, and make it harder to get out of. If things are truly bad, people will divorce. If not, maybe not.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Hey I just read an extreme fembot blog where she claimed that ALL sexual intercourse between a male and a female was rape, period the end. So... the definitions of abuse and violence run the gambit from ridiculous to ridiculous on either end of the spectrum.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Maybe that's why I'm a proponent of covenant marriage. Make marriage harder to get into, and make it harder to get out of. If things are truly bad, people will divorce. If not, maybe not.


I WHOLE heartedly agree with this statement. All of it!!

Just because there are no bruises or broken bones, does not mean there is no abuse.
Do I think that the word 'abuse' is over used, sure.
Do I think some women who 'cry abuse' do so fraudulantly? Sure.
But for those who have endured everything from a beat down, to gas lighting....please, do not disqualify them or their story because you cannot see the bruises.....


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

I went on a tour of a victorian cemetery a few weeks back, and they said that the majority of burials there were people in their mid-thirties. Given the life expectancy back then it isn't so surprising that people married in their teens.
Now a days there really is no hurry, I think its nice for our kids to travel and experience more of life before settling into marriage.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

CraterCove said:


> I think it's a failure of our culture that most females aren't ready to be married by the time they are fully physically mature. Females have an expiration date as far as their ability to naturally conceive children. My opinion is that girls should be ready to get married by 18 and that males should probably hold off until around 30. Yeah I'm sexist, I think boys need more time and outside life experience to become men that girls do to become women.
> 
> And household skills are totally marketable skills... just look at War of the Roses!


Yeah, that "expiration date" is more like 38-40, not 20. I would see it as a failure to our culture if women were expected to marry by 18. Women are people too, not just baby makers with one sole purpose in life.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

In the "old days" young women were also encouraged to get married to lessen the burden on their parents to feed and cloth them. Many a teenager was married off to a older neighbor!


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................When I hear someone say "Marry'em while they're still young"...........that translates into..........marry'em before they learn how to separate the lazy idiots , drunks , and druggies from the mature men who will honor their marriage vows ! , fordy


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> Yeah, that "expiration date" is more like 38-40, not 20. I would see it as a failure to our culture if women were expected to marry by 18. Women are people too, not just baby makers with one sole purpose in life.


Yeah, being a woman myself, I think I know that little fact, thanks.

I think it's a complete failure not to expect our young people to actually grow up and reach their potentials as quickly as possible. I held a job by the time I was 15 and started going to college, paying my own way through. Being a child longer than necessary is a waste of time when you only have 100 years.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

*Should 15 - 16 year old girls get married at that age?* 

Oldcountryboy
I thought that was normal for your side of the state, being closer to Arkansas.:stirpot:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Totally different culture today.

Back then 16 meant old enough to be an adult, marry raise a family and take care of them. Now it's considered unacceptable... the dark ages... how could a woman be happy at home raising a family. Women are more than a broodmare!

Today 16 means old enough to have sex with many partners, have many kids out of wedlock with different baby daddy's, live with parents so they can raise them and collect welfare... This lifestyle is encouraged .... she's too young to get married and raise a family better to be out twerking finding someone to hook up with..... better to let her parents and tax payers raise her kids.... notice she's still a broodmare.


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

It use to be that men supported their wives too. That a woman didn't need to worry about the outside world too much because her husband would take care of her and the kids. Not anymore. Lots of deadbeat men out there willing to jump from woman to woman. Morality sucks for both sexes. 
Women today have to take care of themselves financially so they should wait til they have marketable skills. Personally I don't think anyone should get married prior to 25.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I do see and understand what Phil was trying to get across but in these times it is misunderstood. To be yoked together, 2 people with the same goal and be committed to each other. Sweetie didn't know how to cook, she was working part time, her Father had died the year before. Our goal was to have a family. Working together brought us closer. She turned 16, 15 days after, I was 17. We were ready and mature for our ages. We have talked about it many times, what would we do different, nothing seems to come up, we love each other and have had a good life. We were married 5 months after our first date. I only wish we had met earlier, don't know if we would have married younger....probably, IF she would have had me, we were ready.

Today, couples have it tough, 2 different worlds, his and hers. They don't seem committed to each other and the same goal. Argue over little things, that become big things. Things came too easy for them, no real struggle to live, love and work together for the other and a better life. Their mind goes back to themselves and how it was, living at home, having someone else doing everything FOR them, they want their partner to do the same for them, instead of them, living for the other

How many 18 year olds today KNOW what real love is. Giving everything, ALL of themselves to another person. And then finding a MATE that is in the same place....James


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

16 then, did not have the opportunities and possibilities that 16 has now. Travel, employment, education and so much more. Marriage and pregnancy can be very limiting to one's future.

How many parents really want their child to take on marriage and children at that early age? Yes, it is possible and some may be ready for it but really why? You can be perfectly capable and ready for it but you can use those skills and responsibility to do and try other things before you tie yourself down.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

Many of the people born in the last 40 years feel they are entitled to whatever they want. Sex, drugs, instant relationships, disposable children, spouses, virtually everything should revolve around them.

I also know that pre 1970 14 or 15 year old farm kids were much more responsible than today's 17-18 year old city sissified children, and the inner city kids seem beyond helping.

I don't agree with the above Phil's comments and i think he often speaks before thinking, you just can't mix the old and the new together. I think he forgets when and where he's living.

I believe he's a good man, loves his family, and God but he is not the best choice for a TV spokes person regarding how life should be. He is often speaking to get ratings and keep the snowball rolling.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

This is my gggrandmother. Her name was Hannah, she married young and bore 17 children.

Doesn't she look thrilled?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

With all the weird contraptions they wore and counting how long one had to hold still to even take a photograph? Yeah she looks just tickled.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> 16 then, did not have the opportunities and possibilities that 16 has now. Travel, employment, education and so much more. Marriage and pregnancy can be very limiting to one's future.
> 
> How many parents really want their child to take on marriage and children at that early age? Yes, it is possible and some may be ready for it but really why? You can be perfectly capable and ready for it but you can use those skills and responsibility to do and try other things before you tie yourself down.


 
The thing is while they may not be marrying at that young age they are certainly cranking out the kids. I agree though in many cases its not limiting them at all... they just put the responsibility off on others.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

CraterCove said:


> Yeah, being a woman myself, I think I know that little fact, thanks.
> 
> I think it's a complete failure not to expect our young people to actually grow up and reach their potentials as quickly as possible. I held a job by the time I was 15 and started going to college, paying my own way through. Being a child longer than necessary is a waste of time when you only have 100 years.


There's a difference between rushing to get married to have kids before eggs "expire" and growing up and becoming an adult at an appropriate time. I agree that kids should have the responsibility of getting a job and working/paying for college. I did, so I"m not saying they should stay immature forever.


----------



## StarofHearts (Jan 6, 2014)

If CHILDREN now were raised to understand and shoulder the kind of responsibility that being married brings then I would say that they should be able to marry at that age but as most 15 year olds are lucky to remember to do their homework, never mind chores or getting a job, I have to say NO. There are some few kids out there who have the level of maturity necessary to maintain a marriage but largely I agree that we as a society are raising our kids to be too soft, too irresponsible, too weak minded. A marriage that is successful requires a few things and one of those is a pair of strong minds WILLING and ABLE to work together to whether the storms life brings. Most teens now can't handle the relatively mild challenges they face on regular basis without total meltdowns.

I was young when I married, only 20. And my husband and I have been through some hard times, and so have my classmates that got married at an equally young age. ALL of my classmates that married between 18-20 are divorced. Teenagers are not equipped to handle marriage at an early age anymore.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

At 15 I was a dork with a retainer working at a truck stop to help earn my way to college. Marriage was the last thing on my mind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> The thing is while they may not be marrying at that young age they are certainly cranking out the kids. I agree though in many cases its not limiting them at all... they just put the responsibility off on others.


Declining teen pregnancy rates over the last twenty years seem to bely the assertion that they are "cranking out " babies. In fact, the most recent teen pregnancy rates are the lowest seen since statistics were first compiled in 1948 .


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Declining teen pregnancy rates over the last twenty years seem to bely the assertion that they are "cranking out " babies. In fact, the most recent teen pregnancy rates are the lowest seen since statistics were first compiled in 1948 .


Those rates are based on birth certificates not actual pregnancies or abortions.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I can't speak about the girls, but I wouldn't have been at my best as a husband at age 16. 4 years later, I was ready. She told me she was going to spoil me so bad I couldn't live without her, and nobody else would have me around. Mission accomplished. 47 years and counting, and now she claims I turned the tables on her and she is as spoiled as I am.

I think that a person should not marry until they are complete within themselves. Kind of an undefined quality and easier to tell when it's missing thatn when it is present.....Joe


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> Those rates are based on birth certificates not actual pregnancies or abortions.


So you're saying that there are a whole bunch of babies that are being "cranked out" who don't have birth certificates? Care to show some information that shows where and how these children exist.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I WHOLE heartedly agree with this statement. All of it!!
> 
> Just because there are no bruises or broken bones, does not mean there is no abuse.
> Do I think that the word 'abuse' is over used, sure.
> ...


And likewise, a man whose wife is abusing him or the children can leave her and not risk losing his children. That wasn't the case not so many years ago.

I, too think Phil was coming from the angle of marrying young, naive girls so he can treat them any way he wants and they can't leave or don't know better. Why do you think the FLDS men do this, and not go after women their own age?

BTW, I did a bit of genealogy and found out that my paternal grandmother's parents got married in 1903 when they were both 16 years old!  They lived on farms all their life, and had the first of their 9 children two years later. Grandma was born 12 years into the marriage, and they had their last child in 1930.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

JJ Grandits said:


> I say yes they should! That way their children will not be illegimate.


LMAO, thanks jj.:grin:


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Much too young both physically and psychologically for both girls and boys. Because that is all they are. Children. Their brains are not even fully developed. And much better to get an education and some life and work experience then to be raising children when they are just children themselves. 

And at such a young age what are the choices since they have such limited experience and exposure to people. It is a choice of Mr/Ms Right Now instead of Mr/Ms Right. 

If your are 16 years old and have met the partner of your life you can wait a few years to settle down - complete your education and grow into the person you should be - because real love should be able to stand the test of time.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

I think the age of consent and age for draft, drink and contract law should be raised to 22 when the brain is done developing. It's too easy for a fast talker to talk kids into all sorts of bad ideas.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> Those rates are based on birth certificates not actual pregnancies or abortions.


How do you know that? I'd like to know what evidence and statistics you're going by to make that statement.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> So you're saying that there are a whole bunch of babies that are being "cranked out" who don't have birth certificates? Care to show some information that shows where and how these children exist.


 
I think your smart enough to get what I was saying.... teens are getting pregnant... lots of them.... the rates are not going to give true numbers of those pregnancies if they end in abortion. and have no birth certificates.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Oldcountryboy said:


> The other day some outfit tried to hang Phil Robertson on something he said some 5 - 10 years ago about girls needing to get married at a earlier age. Now I don't specifically remember what his reason was. But it got me to thinking about most all of my ancestors were married at very young ages. My maternal grandfather was 20 when he married my maternal grandmother who was only 15 at that time. As well as many other ancestors. I even had one paternal great, great, great, grandfather who married some 5 or 6 times and each bride was only in thier teens.
> 
> Now except for the grandfather who married 6 times, each dieing of some kind of a disease outbreak, etc., they all stayed married for decades and decades. When you think about now days hardly anyone stays married for more then 10 years. Should we not look down on young couples so much who want to marry young? Should we change the law from 18 back to 15?
> 
> I do have one classmate who married when we were just 15 (1975)and she is still married to the same man after all these years.


 
Think I read somewhere depending on what state you live in you can marry anywhere from 14 to 19 and up, it might have changed since I saw it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> I think your smart enough to get what I was saying.... teens are getting pregnant... lots of them.... the rates are not going to give true numbers of those pregnancies if they end in abortion. and have no birth certificates.


Quite a different presumption than teens "cranking out " kids and making them someone else's responsibility, isn't it?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Quite a different presumption than teens "cranking out " kids and making them someone else's responsibility, isn't it?


 
Not at all.... we pay for their kids, we pay for their abortions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> Not at all.... we pay for their kids, we pay for their abortions.


And now I'll point out that the number of abortions has fallen about 25% from its peak in the 1980's further belying that assertion that today's teens are so much worse behaved than previous generations.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> And now I'll point out that the number of abortions has fallen about 25% from its peak in the 1980's further belying that assertion that today's teens are so much worse behaved than previous generations.


 
If you don't think kids are worse behaved than previous generations you may want to remove those rose colored glasses for a bit .
As for your numbers I'll have to take your word for it since I cant find any percentages past 2012. Even if your numbers are correct and taking into consideration your 25% there's still a lot of unwed teenage moms and teenage abortions and tax payers are still footing the bill.


----------



## jacqueg (Feb 21, 2010)

Ardie/WI said:


> In the "old days" young women were also encouraged to get married to lessen the burden on their parents to feed and cloth them. Many a teenager was married off to a older neighbor!


Not so olden days. I once worked with a woman who was married off in this way in the early 70s, when she was 16. Neither she nor her husband were religious, and I don't believe religion was involved.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> If you don't think kids are worse behaved than previous generations you may want to remove those rose colored glasses for a bit .
> As for your numbers I'll have to take your word for it since I cant find any percentages past 2012. Even if your numbers are correct and taking into consideration your 25% there's still a lot of unwed teenage moms and teenage abortions.


I wouldn't expect 2013 numbers to be compiled yet nor would I expect them to deviate drastically from the trends they've been following. I took my rose colored glasses off long ago, particularly as their vision pertains to previous generations. The range of human behaviors hasn't changed much. How we, as individuals, analyze that behavior has.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I wouldn't expect 2013 numbers to be compiled yet nor would I expect them to deviate drastically from the trends they've been following. I took my rose colored glasses off long ago, particularly as their vision pertains to previous generations. The range of human behaviors hasn't changed much. How we, as individuals, analyze that behavior has.


 
I'm not wasting my time going around in circles defending my opinion with you. You don't like the way I feel about it, that's fine....believe me when I say I won't be losing any sleep over it. If you want to believe all women where miserable in their marriages back in the day, have at it. I happen to feel differently about it.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

NO. 

The youngest anyone should get married is 18. Mid 20 's it better. 

I cannot believe anyone is even seriously talking about it this is not the 1800's .

Schooling was a waste of time for women in the past and most men if they went only went till for a few years . As late as the 1920's most did not go past the 8th grade. 

There are other examples of what was acceptable in the past not being ok now.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm not wasting my time going around in circles defending my opinion with you. You don't like the way I feel about it, that's fine....believe me when I say I won't be losing any sleep over it. If you want to believe all women where miserable in their marriages back in the day, have at it. I happen to feel differently about it.


I don't believe I made any comments about the happiness of women in their marriages in any time period, but since you brought it up. I feel that, just as today, there were women who were happy in their marriages and women who weren't. The big difference is that today women have more options to deal with their situations both sociologically and economically. To answer the original question I think it is better for all involved if both parties to a marriage are physically and emotionally mature and have the financial wherewithal to support a family.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

craftychick said:


> I personally think every person, male & female should get some sort of marketable skill before getting married. Those skills can be either college, trade school or on the job training as long as it gives the person the ability to support themselves instead of being dependent on a spouse for their financial support.


I think the man should have a skill to support his family. Women should have their children young, when they are healthiest,the least problems to be expected, and not spaced too far, and stay home to raise them, and I tell you why. Because time flies, and before you know it, those kids are grown and don't need mommy around all the time. Now a woman should get her education. She is still young enough, knows what she wants and her kids are raised and she does not need to worry about them while at work. 
Mothers should get scholarships and incentives.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I sure am glad that my life isn't ruled by other people's opinion--- well it is but not to this extent. Most of what is taught up through the first couple of years in college can be gotten through by a child's mid teens. And that's not with working 12 hours a day 6 days a week on schooling. It's with a pretty relaxed schedule with room for socialization and play and household chores.

I would hope any daughter of mine would have her AA and be working on her bachelor by the time she was 18. I can't believe how many advocate wasting what little time people have. I don't know, perhaps I'm in a minority but I have felt my mortality about me since I was 12 and I'll not waste time.

I think more important than the exact age of the people getting married is whether or not they are growing at a similar rate and if they are counseled by those wiser than themselves on how to grow together as opposed to apart. Marriage doesn't stop education and it doesn't stop learning marketable skills and it certainly doesn't stop life experiences. If you had the option to do those things with someone else or alone without solace and affection, companionship and someone to trust would you really choose to go it alone? And why would you think that's somehow a better way to do it?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I know in my case I don't regret marrying at an early age. Sure we had some rough patches but I don't think waiting to marry would have prevented rough patches in a marriage. We had our kids young and got our grandkids young, hopefully God willing we'll be here and young enough at heart to enjoy our great grandkids in the not too distant future.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

gimpy said:


> I think the age of consent and age for draft, drink and contract law should be raised to 22 when the brain is done developing. It's too easy for a fast talker to talk kids into all sorts of bad ideas.


Actually, the military knows this and that's why they recruit them so young, especially for dangerous things.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Tabitha said:


> I think the man should have a skill to support his family. Women should have their children young, when they are healthiest,the least problems to be expected, and not spaced too far, and stay home to raise them, and I tell you why. Because time flies, and before you know it, those kids are grown and don't need mommy around all the time. Now a woman should get her education. She is still young enough, knows what she wants and her kids are raised and she does not need to worry about them while at work.
> Mothers should get scholarships and incentives.


And how do you define "young"? People should not have their kids when they're "young enough to enjoy them"; they should have their kids when they're OLD enough to enjoy them.

Not only should men have marketable skills, women should too. Forget for the time being that divorce even exists; what if she never marries, or her husband dies or becomes disabled?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

craftychick said:


> I personally think every person, male & female should get some sort of marketable skill before getting married. Those skills can be either college, trade school or on the job training as long as it gives the person the ability to support themselves instead of being dependent on a spouse for their financial support.


And is there some reason they can't do that AFTER they get married ?

I was 20 and my bride of 42 years now was 17.

Some years after we married, she got a BS, Masters and Doctorate degrees over the course of about 15 years.

At retirement, she was earning twice what I did.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I actually quite like the idea of having babies and then when they get a little older and don't need mommy all day all the time going back to school and earning degrees. By the time one might experience empty nest syndrome a lady could be starting a career and her husband could slow down on the time outside the home and semi-retire/ retire or take the new freedom to start a venture of his own.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> I say yes they should! That way their children will not be illegimate.



Pretty sure ALL children are legitimate.....whoever, there are a lot of stupid parents that have no business having children.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

I am a believer in young marriage if they are mature and committed enough to each other. In today's world of promiscuity, sexting, and pornography, I think it is better, if possible to marry (and then stay far away from that garbage). But I would put that age at 18, not 15. 

For some 48 might not be old enough. For some, they should never marry.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Which girls?

I have seen 25 year old adults who were very immature, and I have seen 17 year olds with part-time business that they started and ran. 

People are more than just their ages.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

I married young, 19 and her 17, lasted 12 years with the last chunk working on things.

Well... She got the best of the Deal. 

Me busting butt to house,feed,cloth,and provide luxury (sparten as they may have been)... Before and after! 

Perhaps he was speaking from a fathers perspective... I know her dad did not care for me but I also know he was happy not to provide all I did, unlike her sister which offset the whole deal. 

Had no kids been involved well she would of been curb side sooner then later!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

thesedays said:


> And how do you define "young"? People should not have their kids when they're "young enough to enjoy them"; they should have their kids when they're OLD enough to enjoy them.
> 
> Not only should men have marketable skills, women should too. Forget for the time being that divorce even exists; what if she never marries, or her husband dies or becomes disabled?


 
Learning and growing doesn't end because you married. My husband and I both learned our trade and started each of our businesses after we married and had kids. We helped each other and encouraged each other when giving up might have been easier. One of our dil's went to school and became an RN while married with 2 kids and one on the way towards the end of college. Our middle son dropped out of school but got his ged and learned his trade while married and supporting his wife's schooling.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Illegitimate really has no bearing in today's world. 

As it sits I should be the Clan leader,Eldest Son of the Eldest Son as large as the Family is though, the connections are not there. 

Possible it could be argued the Eldest child which could really make the determination of a clan leader hairy!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

As to having kids young, I've always felt too young, still do and I'll be 50 this summer


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

I was fifteen and married a seventeen year old. We both came from bad situations and literally grew up together by trial and error. We "played house" according to the norms of the time...and it worked. We started a business, adopted a child, helped raise our siblings, had a birth child, etc. Divorced after 24 years but that has nothing to do with our ages at the time of marriage. To this day I think he would jump at the chance for us to get back together. We know each other better than anyone else in this world ever will; for only in our youth were we so naive and filled with dreams, we dared to tell the truth, to be totally vulnerable with each other. 

My middle son met a girl when they were 15 and 16. They have been together for nine years now and are adamant they will be together forever; I believe them. He got his first degree while they were together and she starts school the end of this month. I am so happy he did not go through "sowing wild oats" .

Times may have changed and there are some good things as a result, but in my family, marrying young can be a very good thing.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> Totally different culture today.
> 
> Back then 16 meant old enough to be an adult, marry raise a family and take care of them. Now it's considered unacceptable... the dark ages... how could a woman be happy at home raising a family. Women are more than a broodmare!
> 
> Today 16 means old enough to have sex with many partners, have many kids out of wedlock with different baby daddy's, live with parents so they can raise them and collect welfare... This lifestyle is encouraged .... she's too young to get married and raise a family better to be out twerking finding someone to hook up with..... better to let her parents and tax payers raise her kids.... notice she's still a broodmare.


 I hear Teens getting married what about Preteen. I lived next to a girl that was Grandma at 24, you do the math. My Mom got pregnant with me at 15 when my Dad came home from Korea.

Me I got married at 17 my wife was 16.I was working had my own place. Lasted 10 years, she decided drinking and messing around was more important so I left her for present wife of 31 years.

My Daughter in Law got upset with me the other day. Her Son was talking about dating. I told her she needed to talk with her Son. Oh he is only 15.Girl you need to talk with your Boys I was learning at 13. Her 13 year old Son was about to die laughing for the simple fact he knew what I was talking about :shrug:

Right now I have 18 year old Granddaughter trying to get pregnant by a much younger boy.

big rockpile


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> I actually quite like the idea of having babies and then when they get a little older and don't need mommy all day all the time going back to school and earning degrees. By the time one might experience empty nest syndrome a lady could be starting a career and her husband could slow down on the time outside the home and semi-retire/ retire or take the new freedom to start a venture of his own.


How old are you?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to raise children and go to school, even if you have a spouse or partner who does most or all of the parenting and housework? I sometimes post on a nursing board, and some women have asked what they should do to prepare their families for this, and more than once, I've seen, "Get divorced. You're going to do it at some point while you're in school anyway, so just get it out of the way now."

:stars:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

thesedays said:


> How old are you?
> 
> Do you have any idea how hard it is to raise children and go to school, even if you have a spouse or partner who does most or all of the parenting and housework? I sometimes post on a nursing board, and some women have asked what they should do to prepare their families for this, and more than once, I've seen, "Get divorced. You're going to do it at some point while you're in school anyway, so just get it out of the way now."
> 
> :stars:


34, 3 kids, working on the next, 7 horses, a dairy goat herd, chickens, dogs, home school all three children, married and manage my home, my small business and continuing my education as I can. Those people giving that kind of advice-- well let's just say I think they are full of something smelly and nasty. 

I don't pretend to know what other people go through everyday nor how much they can handle. As big as my imagination is, it's just not that big.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

My niece married young. After struggling with infertility her tenth child is due this year...all single births. While having the children, she built a home to die for, raised a baby born without an esophagus, and got her RN, and worked those long shifts in the NICU. No divorce on the horizon. In fact I guess she is back in college to get the nurse practitioner degree (?). She is about 37 years old now with the two oldest in college.

I realize this is "antecdotal", but reality is, divorce is not inevitable when a girl marries young and goes to school. Supporting each other in personal growth, building strong families is what marriage is about, not bettering one's self just to move on to "greener pastures".


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Ardie/WI said:


> In the "old days" young women were also encouraged to get married to lessen the burden on their parents to feed and cloth them. Many a teenager was married off to a older neighbor!


Ardie, one thing I would like to see come back from the old days is when the prospecting groom would bring the dad a cow or a couple of pigs to give him in return for his daughters hand in marriage. Who doesn't need a extra cow in the pasture? 



Allen W said:


> *Should 15 - 16 year old girls get married at that age?*
> 
> Oldcountryboy
> I thought that was normal for your side of the state, being closer to Arkansas.:stirpot:


Just almost Allen. And we probably would if we was able to marry our cousins like the Arkansawers! But that's illegal here, gosh darnit!



StarofHearts said:


> I was young when I married, only 20. And my husband and I have been through some hard times, and so have my classmates that got married at an equally young age. ALL of my classmates that married between 18-20 are divorced. Teenagers are not equipped to handle marriage at an early age anymore.


Same here, many of my classmates were in a hurry to marry when we graduated. One by one they quickly got married, and then one by one the soon divorced. My best high school friend met and married by the end of the summer and stayed married for 1 month. He turned alcoholic for about 10 to 12 years after that before he finally sobered up. 

=======================================================

"Well I don't think in todays world it would be wise to let marry so young either. In fact, with facebook, twitter, internet, porn books, etc., et., interfearing with todays marriage, I'm not so sure anyone should get married. The gay people maybe the only ones in the future who can make marriage work. That's sad!


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

thesedays said:


> And how do you define "young"? People should not have their kids when they're "young enough to enjoy them"; they should have their kids when they're OLD enough to enjoy them.
> 
> Not only should men have marketable skills, women should too. Forget for the time being that divorce even exists; what if she never marries, or her husband dies or becomes disabled?


I think you misunderstood my post. 
I suggest to reverse the order of career and child raising. And I would not advocate both at the same time. And I am in favor of a woman who has raised her children to get assistance in job training. Not that anyone will listen to me.....


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

When me and my first got married I was working at local Feed Mill and had a 3 room apartment within walking distance.She wanted to get married for one reason yes she was pregnant.

Get married. There was an opening at the Bakery, 100 miles away, I went to work there. Plus worked at Cemetery and Trapping. My wife went to work at a Factory making Toasters. One year had enough for down payment on 6 Bedroom House with Farm.

We had 3 Sons was married 11 years. Would have been longer if she would took the time to talk instead of trying to kill me every time we got together.

Married present wife both worked our tails off. She has two kids by former marriage and we have Son together. Been together 31 years, yes we had problems but never rented, if we wanted to have fun we figured out a way of getting it done. Both retired now.

big rockpile


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Tabitha said:


> I think the man should have a skill to support his family. Women should have their children young, when they are healthiest,the least problems to be expected, and not spaced too far, and stay home to raise them, and I tell you why. Because time flies, and before you know it, those kids are grown and don't need mommy around all the time. Now a woman should get her education. She is still young enough, knows what she wants and her kids are raised and she does not need to worry about them while at work.
> Mothers should get scholarships and incentives.


Healthiest is when the mom to be is done developing, which is 22 but before age related problems start which is generally about 35. Having children younger than 22 is actually harder on the mom and leads to significantly higher risk of health problems later in life like osteoporosis.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> Learning and growing doesn't end because you married. My husband and I both learned our trade and started each of our businesses after we married and had kids. We helped each other and encouraged each other when giving up might have been easier. One of our dil's went to school and became an RN while married with 2 kids and one on the way towards the end of college. Our middle son dropped out of school but got his ged and learned his trade while married and supporting his wife's schooling.


Actually your situation is more the exception than the rule, and kudos to you, but for most people education and training precipitously drop off after starting a household, whether married or just living together and having children.

Most who do make it out of that trap and get further education do so with the help of their parents, not on their own. Also the cost of education is proportionally higher now than ever, much worse than it was 20 years ago. So, you youngsters, it's best for you to not alienate your parents and burn bridges when you run off and marry your sweetheart as soon as you turn 18.


----------



## Veronica (Oct 31, 2008)

I got married at 19, dh was 21, and we're still married 32 years later. So it worked for us. I did have 2 years of college already, and dh had just graduated. 
But 15 or 16, no. And someone 18 or older even dating a girl under 18 is illegal here. Ds was 20, and his girlfriend was 19 and going to another college. Except she wasn't, she lied - to him, and us. She was actually 16, and ds ended up on the registry. Didn't matter that we had written proof that she lied either. I think some laws do need to change, but not for girls that young to get married.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

Sorry about your son and the registry. 

I talk to nephews all the time about this. You cannot hook up , you have to know the person, meet the friends and family. Visit them at work/school. To many cases of what happened to your son going on.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I say, why buy the cow, when you already have the milk!:gaptooth:


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> I say, why buy the cow, when you already have the milk!:gaptooth:


I say why buy the pig just to get a little sausage now and then!:spinsmiley:


----------



## Suzyq2u (May 17, 2010)

We were married young, I was 17 and have been together
since I was 14. Would we have married younger? Absolutely.
We have been engaged since a month before I turned 15.
We've been married 16 1/2 yrs now. 

It absolutely depends on the couple.

If they can support themselves and have decent heads on
their shoulders, why not? I agree with finishing school, that's
important. But that can be done in so many other ways than
in brick and mortar establishments any more. I went back to
high school after we were married. He left for the military and
I remained home with my parents while he finished his training. 
Why not let them pledge themselves to each other instead of having 
to sneak around?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

||Downhome|| said:


> Illegitimate really has no bearing in today's world.
> 
> As it sits I should be the Clan leader,Eldest Son of the Eldest Son as large as the Family is though, the connections are not there.
> 
> Possible it could be argued the Eldest child which could really make the determination of a clan leader hairy!


Let the government cut off all means of financial support and illegitimate would have a huge meaning - just as it always has had, historically speaking.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

Hmmm...this thread is interesting. There is a lot of talk about maturity. My grandmother got married at 16 and in her words she was more mature than girls today. The funny thing is that she had to run off and marry grandpa at the courthouse before her parents caught her. It really didn't sound much more mature than wanting to have marital relations and doing what they needed to do to make that happen. Now days as much as I disagree they are not expected to be married to have those relations. 

Back then girls longed to be wives and mothers. It is what was expected and so when they had the feelings of love or lust like that they got married. It is the same feelings girls at 15-16 have now but we aren't ok with them getting married just to fulfill that need. We expect them to be "mature" enough to know it isn't what they should do. It makes me wonder who is really more "mature." 

I am a grandma now and I want my grandchildren to live a full and moral life. I want them to make good decisions and find a lifelong spouse. I also know with our lack of right or wrong nowdays it is going to difficult but I hope they are strong enough to handle it in a good way. 

DH and I got married when I was 18 and he was 21. We have been married 30 years. I was lucky and married a wonderful and caring man that I love very much. We have been through the good, bad, and ugly and come through the other side. We kind of grew up together. He supported me through my last 3 years of college and I have supported him in his career. I think that is truly the test of maturity. Are you willing to support your spouse in their goals and maybe just maybe the two of you can come up with goals for the family that fit together.

I think the question should probably be about selfish and selflessness and not so much about maturity.


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

Your title asks should 15-16 year olds get married ? well are you sayin to make it a law? I think that we have enough laws !!!! some should,some should not !! parents should make that decision (not the government)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I see no reason for youngsters to not get married... the average 30 yo "adult" seems to have about the same level of maturity as the average 14 year old. You dont believe me? watch Jerry Springer's show sometime or explain to me how Pelosi gets re-elected time after time.


----------



## Zapthycat (Jan 7, 2014)

If the 15-16 year old grew up on a farm or homestead doing chores and knowing life skills, they are going to be far more mature than a 23 y/o growing up in a suburb. 

Just my .02 cents...


----------



## sewserious (Apr 2, 2010)

Got married at 17, 2 days after graduating high school; still married to the same man after 36 years and wouldn't trade a day of it for anything. There are a few out there who are mature enough to handle being married that young but I was raised a lot differently than most girls were at the time (60s and 70s). I could sew, cook, and clean house by the time I was 11. My mom had to go to work (long story) and I took over the household chores and kept straight A grade in school. Graduated with honors. I had no desire to go to college and "have a career"; although, through no fault of my husband's, I ended up going back to school and now work. I still don't have a "career". I have a job that helps pay the bills; but I would quit in a heartbeat. I am not one who thinks that women need to work outside the home to be "fulfilled".


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Allen W said:


> *Should 15 - 16 year old girls get married at that age?*
> 
> Oldcountryboy
> I thought that was normal for your side of the state, being closer to Arkansas.:stirpot:


Hey watch it lol


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

sewserious said:


> Got married at 17, 2 days after graduating high school; still married to the same man after 36 years and wouldn't trade a day of it for anything. There are a few out there who are mature enough to handle being married that young but I was raised a lot differently than most girls were at the time (60s and 70s). I could sew, cook, and clean house by the time I was 11. My mom had to go to work (long story) and I took over the household chores and kept straight A grade in school. Graduated with honors. I had no desire to go to college and "have a career"; although, through no fault of my husband's, I ended up going back to school and now work. I still don't have a "career". I have a job that helps pay the bills; but I would quit in a heartbeat. I am not one who thinks that women need to work outside the home to be "fulfilled".


I'm glad things worked out for you. It doesn't for everybody, and I'm not necessarily talking about divorce either.

I also don't think that a woman HAS to work outside the home to be fulfilled, either. Neither do men, for that matter. It's a decision the couple has to make together. I've met physicians, lawyers, Ph.D.s, and other highly educated people who decided to be a SAHP, for any number of reasons.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I actually quite like the idea of having babies and then when they get a little older and don't need mommy all day all the time going back to school and earning degrees.


That's great as long as the guy sticks around and doesn't leave the woman in the lurch. It's pretty hard to raise kids, support yourself AND go to school at the same time!


----------



## craftychick (Nov 11, 2013)

Having an eduction doesn't mean you are required to have a career outside of the home but having no education/training pretty much guarantees you won't have a career even if you want one; you might get an minimum wage part time job but not a job that you could support a family on without assistance..
An education gives you options & opens doors that just aren't available to those who have no extra training or education.
Yes, a woman can go back to get her education after getting married or having kids but what about the spouse that doesn't want her to get an education or have a means of supporting herself? What if the teenage love story turns violent or neglectful and she has no way of supporting herself so she is stuck being in an abusive or lie based marriage?
Those things happen a lot, they have for decades but now most young women at least can support themselves if the are forced to leave their homes.

An education doesn't = a quick choice to divorce when the going gets tough. I have been married for 40 yrs and have an education. I got married exactly three weeks after graduating from college and after securing my first post graduation job.
I was a SAHM while parenting my kids and went back to work after they graduated from high school.

An education/further training just helps insure that if a woman finds herself needing to support herself & possibly her children, she can. How can that be a bad thing when we always complain about the welfare recipients and them not wanting to work?

What if a husband becomes seriously ill or injured and the young wife has no training beyond housework? What kind of job could she get without any outside work experience that would help pay their bills?
Worse yet is if her spouse dies suddenly. 

Young marriages can work where the wife is not employable at the time of the wedding but so can marriages that are postponed until both partners are trained & employable.


----------



## Zapthycat (Jan 7, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> That's great as long as the guy sticks around and doesn't leave the woman in the lurch. It's pretty hard to raise kids, support yourself AND go to school at the same time!


That's why historically and traditionally women have tried to get married before having kids. It's best for everyone involved...


----------



## Zapthycat (Jan 7, 2014)

craftychick said:


> Having an eduction doesn't mean you are required to have a career outside of the home but having no education/training pretty much guarantees you won't have a career even if you want one; you might get an minimum wage part time job but not a job that you could support a family on without assistance.
> 
> I have been married for 40 yrs and have an education.


An education for many nowdays is a luxury that's simply not affordable. I know of several women that regretted the $40k+ in debt they accumulated for seemingly no reason now that they devote their lives to their children. I also know of women (and men) that have good jobs & careers without higher education.

Just my .02 cents.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Zapthycat said:


> An education for many nowdays is a luxury that's simply not affordable. I know of several women that regretted the $40k+ in debt they accumulated for seemingly no reason now that they devote their lives to their children. I also know of women (and men) that have good jobs & careers without higher education.
> 
> Just my .02 cents.


Aren't those costs more what one would pay if going on to university or college for higher education? In America does it cost $40,000+ for a high school graduate to go to trade school or technical school? Not everyone wants or needs to continue their education at university or college but would benefit from trade schools.

At the very least a student should graduate from high school if they know what's good for them. Kids who drop out in grade 8 or 9 to get married don't do well at finding good paying jobs.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That's why historically and traditionally women have tried to get married before having kids. It's best for everyone involved...


I agree, but it's even better yet when both halves of a couple have the education or training to command the type of job that will support a family. 

As Craftychick pointed out, sometimes even the best-laid plans go awry, and a man is unable to be the breadwinner even if he's willing. 

I don't think anyone should have more children than they are able to support by themselves if necessary.

(That would eliminate the need for welfare, wouldn't it?!)


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> I agree, but it's even better yet when both halves of a couple have the education or training to command the type of job that will support a family.
> 
> As Craftychick pointed out, sometimes even the best-laid plans go awry, and a man is unable to be the breadwinner even if he's willing.
> 
> ...


I agree totally. And no more deductions on income tax either.


----------



## Zapthycat (Jan 7, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Aren't those costs more what one would pay if going on to university or college for higher education? In America does it cost $40,000+ for a high school graduate to go to trade school or technical school? Not everyone wants or needs to continue their education at university or college but would benefit from trade schools.


Finishing high school or getting your GED is an obvious beginning.

Studies show that the way to avoid being poverty is to
1) complete high school
2) marry before having children
3) get a job

if one does all three the chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent and one's chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 percent to 74 percent.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Most kids nowadays have no morals, fortitude, etc. That's why the divorce rate is so high now. Just my opinion.


 
^^^^^^^This!!! ^^^^^^^^^


I got married at 19. My husband was 25. We started dating when I was 15 & he was 20. I could have easily gotten married that young. I had the skills needed to take care of a home & family. All I ever wanted was to be a wife & mother like my mom. 

I did not graduate high school. I was a straight A student. I do not regret it either. I worked in a local restaurant until my first kids (twins) were born. I had started working there when I was 15. I stayed home with the kids, but have taken jobs when needed. I babysat for several years. I have worked in an assisted living/nursing home as a resident aide, cleaning, & also as the maintenance "man". I also had several other cleaning jobs. I now babysit a couple of days a week again so I can be home. I make a variety of things to sell & set up at the farmer's market on weekends during the summer.

My point to the story is, you do not have to have a high education. You have to have the know how & gumption to work. Most teenagers today are not made to work. They get things handed to them & continue to mooch off their parents as long as they can, some into their 30's. My father is very wealthy. He did not finish 9th grade. He married at 18, had 11 children, never took any government assistance in any way. He worked hard his whole life to support his family. In fact, he quit school to go to work because his mother needed help paying the bills. His father had died when dad was 8. So my dad, at 15 was working & paying most of the household expenses. What kid would do that now-a-days? 

We are raising our kids to be pansies. Encouraging them to not work because education is more important. I know several kids going to college that did not want to go, but their parents made them. It's like they aren't allowed to choose what they want to do. I have told my kids if they want to go to college, good for them. If they don't, good for them. My son got accepted to MIT with a full acedemic scholarship. He knew if he wanted to go to college he was going to have to pay his own way with his money or scholarships. What all of my kids know is they are expected to get a job. My son is a senior & works at a local pizza place. He pays $20 a week rent. He also pays for his car, his insurance, his license, his phone, & his clothes. He is learning that living is not free. Our oldest works at a dairy & also pays rent. They are still expected to help out with chores. 

Most kids do not do this. They get out of school & have no idea what it is like to pay bills & what those bills even cost because mommy & daddy didn't think it's necessary to teach them. I take my kids to the store with me & go over how much money we have & how much we can buy with that. They understand budgets.

If that were being done with most kids, then I would say they would be ready at a young age to marry & be on their own. Kids just aren't getting that now. They think they should start out with everything new right away instead of working for it like we have. They think because they want something, it is somehow justified. They spend money on their wants before their needs. 

It has taken us 24 years to get what we have. We have been through a lot of hard times, but divorce was never thought of. You need to have the maturity to stick through it during hard times as well as good. Most kids don't get that.


----------



## sunny225 (Dec 4, 2009)

Molly Mckee said:


> No! That is too young in today's world.


 
mostly this is true because 15-16 year olds today are plainly too stupid to get married. It all depends on the individual & how mature they are.
Government should keep itself out of the marriage business.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.............The simple answer is...........manipulate the sex genes such that the reproductive organs don't develop until about age 30 ! They'll just have to be satisfied with lots of foreplay , pretending to consumate their Lust , until a little later in life . He'll be shooting blanks , (HiHo Silver) and she can't ovulate..........Woe is Me . lol , fordy:sing:


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Wendy said:


> I did not graduate high school. I was a straight A student. I do not regret it either.


How would you have survived and kept your house if lets say, your husband died about 15 years ago, or just flat out walked off and left you and your kids, God forbid!? Housekeeping pays well, if you have good clients, but what about insurance, taxes, upkeep on vehicles, school expenses, gas to get to jobs, etc.??


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

I am not worried about hubby leaving. We understand commitment & divorce is not an option. This was a decision we both made when we married. If he dies, then I'll deal with it then.

I have never had a problem getting a job. In fact I often have people calling me wanting me to work for them. Most of my cleaning jobs paid more than my husband makes per hour now. If we can pay the bills on his income, why would I not have been able to pay them on an income that was even higher? I also have lots of family that I know would help me if I really needed it.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Wendy said:


> I am not worried about hubby leaving. We understand commitment & divorce is not an option. This was a decision we both made when we married. If he dies, then I'll deal with it then.
> 
> I have never had a problem getting a job. In fact I often have people calling me wanting me to work for them. Most of my cleaning jobs paid more than my husband makes per hour now. If we can pay the bills on his income, why would I not have been able to pay them on an income that was even higher? I also have lots of family that I know would help me if I really needed it.


I am not talking about NOW, I am talking about when your kids were small, who would care for them while you worked? I make $21 an hour at the two houses I clean each week so I get it, but that isn't going to pay the taxes, babysitter, food that I couldn't raise, health insurance, school supplies, gas, vehicle maintenance, etc, and onward if you KWIM.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

I honestly think "where there is a will, there is a way".


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

TMI

big rockpile


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Brighton said:


> I am not talking about NOW, I am talking about when your kids were small, who would care for them while you worked? I make $21 an hour at the two houses I clean each week so I get it, but that isn't going to pay the taxes, babysitter, food that I couldn't raise, health insurance, school supplies, gas, vehicle maintenance, etc, and onward if you KWIM.




edited out.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

big rockpile said:


> TMI
> 
> big rockpile


Sorry, wish I could find a way to delete. I just edited it all out.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

There are lots of kids who don't want to go to college, or don't want to go right away, but their parents make them. Professors can spot them a mile away, and it's a waste of the parents' money (if they're paying) anyway. 

I didn't go straight out of HS, and I was working at Target at the time, so I pretty much saw everyone. Lots of people said, "What do you mean, you aren't going? What did your parents say?" and I replied that they were surprised, but were supportive too.

Cut to, oh, October or November, or the first Christmas break. I'd see those kids again and ask how things were at College X, and they'd reply, "! You had the right idea! I'm going to get a job and maybe go to the community college next year."


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> I honestly think "where there is a will, there is a way".


But why make your life more difficult than it has to be?


----------



## craftychick (Nov 11, 2013)

I hear all the time that everyone wants instant gratification. Wouldn't marrying young before being able to fully support oneself be a form of instant gratification? Why wait to enjoy the perks of marriage while getting training/education/supporting wage job when you can have the fun and to heck with worrying about the potential pitfalls that may have been avoided had the couple waited?
Also, what about long engagements? Couldn't a couple make a loving, faithful commitment to each other & a plan to marry in the future after they both get on their feet? If they can't stay faithful/commited for say 2-3 yrs while they get some form of education which Doesn't have to be college; what does that say about their chances for a successful long term relationship?:huh:


----------



## Zapthycat (Jan 7, 2014)

fordy said:


> manipulate the sex genes such that the reproductive organs don't develop until about age 30 !


That's a lot of control! BHO would like to see you in his office. He may have a job for you in his administration...


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I am not talking about NOW, I am talking about when your kids were small, who would care for them while you worked? I make $21 an hour at the two houses I clean each week so I get it, but that isn't going to pay the taxes, babysitter, food that I couldn't raise, health insurance, school supplies, gas, vehicle maintenance, etc, and onward if you KWIM.


Why would a job paying $21 an hour not pay all of those things? My husband doesn't make anywhere near that & we make do. 

Well, I wouldn't have had as many kids if he would have died years ago. I also have 10 siblings & any one of them or my mom would babysit for me if my husband would die. I have a sister that runs a daycare, so paying a sitter would have never been an issue. 

I guess I have my dad's attitude. I will work to take care of my family & find a way, no matter what.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Wendy said:


> Why would a job paying $21 an hour not pay all of those things? My husband doesn't make anywhere near that & we make do.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't have had as many kids if he would have died years ago. I also have 10 siblings & any one of them or my mom would babysit for me if my husband would die. I have a sister that runs a daycare, so paying a sitter would have never been an issue.
> 
> I guess I have my dad's attitude. I will work to take care of my family & find a way, no matter what.


Did you actually read my post, TWO DAYS a week I clean houses, 7 hours each, that is $294 before taxes, and yes, I pay taxes on my cash income. 

Darling, you are fortunate you have so many family members around you, but a lot don't, you realize that right? My Grandfather worked on this farm from the day he could walk until the day he died, he met my Grandma while still in HS and it was important to BOTH of their families that they finish HS and my Grammy even worked for the state for two years before they had my Mom.

It is not that easy for everyone Wendy, and getting married at 17 with no HS diploma, if something were to happen to the main money earner, is not a good way to start off life, it may have worked for you, but it doesn't for everyone.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Did you actually read my post, TWO DAYS a week I clean houses, 7 hours each, that is $294 before taxes, and yes, I pay taxes on my cash income.


So work more than 2 days per week. I was working 3 part time jobs at one point a couple of years ago to help out. I was working 6 days per week besides doing everything I needed to do here at home. Gardening, canning, milking twice a day, housework, & caring for the kids & hubby.

I did not say it would work for everyone. That is why I said 15-16 year olds from today could probably not do it as they do not have the work ethic to do it. Most are lazy.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> Why would a job paying $21 an hour not pay all of those things? My husband doesn't make anywhere near that & we make do.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't have had as many kids if he would have died years ago. I also have 10 siblings & any one of them or my mom would babysit for me if my husband would die. I have a sister that runs a daycare, so paying a sitter would have never been an issue.
> 
> I guess I have my dad's attitude. I will work to take care of my family & find a way, no matter what.


So your way of being independent would have been to take advantage of your family? Expect others to pick up your slack? No. Sorry. Not my idea of planning to take care of my family. I would never impose on the lives of my siblings or parents. Pay your way. And the best way to do that is to make sure that you have the education and/or training to support yourself and any children that you create on your own if your partner becomes too ill to work, dies or leaves.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> So your way of being independent would have been to take advantage of your family? Expect others to pick up your slack? No. Sorry. Not my idea of planning to take care of my family. I would never impose on the lives of my siblings or parents. Pay your way. And the best way to do that is to make sure that you have the education and/or training to support yourself and any children that you create on your own if your partner becomes too ill to work, dies or leaves.


It would not be taking advantage of family. I know my family & that is what we do. I wouldn't have to ask, they would be here in a heartbeat to help me. When my sister died, we all helped my BIL & her kids out. That is what familes are supposed to do. Help other members in a time of need. So glad I don't have some of your families. If you can't help each other out when needed, that's sad.

If you refer back to my posts, I think I made it clear that I would work & do what needed done to take care of my own.


----------



## jim/se kansas (May 10, 2002)

My wife was 15 years old when we got married 47 years ago. Our children are vary successful with great grandchildren. 
Number one son and wife are missionaries to Israel.
Number two son is a nurse practitioner. 
Number three daughter is a nurse practitioner and married to a doctor.
Number four son is a electrician and welder.
When we were married people said that it would not last six months.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Brighton said:


> How would you have survived and kept your house if lets say, your husband died about 15 years ago, or just flat out walked off and left you and your kids, God forbid!? Housekeeping pays well, if you have good clients, but what about insurance, taxes, upkeep on vehicles, school expenses, gas to get to jobs, etc.??


 
Any spouse could die at any time. Better to have known love and lost it than not to have known it at all.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I love the "kids these days" stories. You all realize every single generation says that, right? Every generation is worse than the last, right? But who raises them? The parents who are doing the complaining!

And there's no reason for kids these days to "need" to get married so young! We're not dying young, like we used to. Except for this generation maybe, we're living longer than ever. There's no need to rush out and procreate before you die of old age at 35. :happy2:

Yes, I think kids should have responsibility and not mooch off their parents (or society), but I also think kids shouldn't be rushed to grow up so fast that they don't have a childhood. There's a balance.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Wendy said:


> I am not worried about hubby leaving. We understand commitment & divorce is not an option. This was a decision we both made when we married. If he dies, then I'll deal with it then.
> 
> I have never had a problem getting a job. In fact I often have people calling me wanting me to work for them. Most of my cleaning jobs paid more than my husband makes per hour now. If we can pay the bills on his income, why would I not have been able to pay them on an income that was even higher? I also have lots of family that I know would help me if I really needed it.


I like this answer. At sometime in everyone's life you have to start believeing in the people around you. Marriage would be one of those places. Coworkers are another. Sometimes the trust is misplaced, but it's part of life. Learn to discern.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> It would not be taking advantage of family. I know my family & that is what we do. I wouldn't have to ask, they would be here in a heartbeat to help me. When my sister died, we all helped my BIL & her kids out. That is what familes are supposed to do. Help other members in a time of need. So glad I don't have some of your families. If you can't help each other out when needed, that's sad.
> 
> If you refer back to my posts, I think I made it clear that I would work & do what needed done to take care of my own.


Helping is one thing but creating a situation (or allowing it to happen because you did not anticipate or plan) where others must assume your responsibility is another. My family was always there to help but we were raised to be self-sufficient and to create an environment of safety for ourselves and children. This meant education, the kind of employment that would meet all your needs, disability and death insurance. If something had happened to my husband or myself the remaining partner would have been financially secure and not dependent on others to contribute to their lives. And if something had happened to both of us then the guardians in the family would have had financial security to ensure that the kids were well cared for and not an unmanageable burden. Yes, my family would have taken the kids without money to back them but this would have deprived their own children and that is something that we would not allow to happen.

When I was a child our neighbour ended up looking after her 4 grandchildren every day because her son-in-law died and her daughter had to work. And all she could get with no education or training were low paid menial jobs. She could not afford day care or a sitter.No welfare in those days to help and they did not bother to provide a safety net for the children they created. The oldest was 8 and the youngest 2. After about 2 years Grandma had a heart attack from all the stress and work and the kids ended up in foster care and not all together. The uncle could not afford to take care of 4 more kids and the aunt's husband refused to have them. I met my friend (the 8 year old) many years later and she had not seen her siblings in 15 years.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

sunny225 said:


> mostly this is true because 15-16 year olds today are plainly too stupid to get married. It all depends on the individual & how mature they are.
> Government should keep itself out of the marriage business.


Or to smart?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Think what you want, but you can never be fully prepared for everything life throws at you. I was raised to be self sufficient & take care of my own. I do that. If something happened to my husband, I'd keep on doing that. I don't need a college education to get a job. Most of those jobs are ones I wouldn't want. I would never make it sitting behind a desk all day. If I had to work 3 jobs to pay my bills, I would. If I had to sell my house & downsize to make it, I would. 

You can make all the plans you want & think you are all safe & secure & life will throw something at you to make you realize no matter what you do, you are not always in control.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

It could work if the teens were raised with a good work ethic, were mature and were responsible. 

Unfortunately these days those kids are rarer than unicorn farts.

My MIL is now 82 and she grew up in Ozark MO. Think 'really dirt poor'. Her good friend in school got married off at age 13 to a 19 year old man who had a job because her family saw a chance to get rid of another mouth to feed. The fellow had a job and was a Church-goer so they hitched them up. She had her first baby at 14. All her life was spent within 20 miles of home. Never got to go out and see the world or do much of anything. She was an A student to told my MIL before the baby came that she didn't have time to read anything more than her Bible. They stayed married all of their lives but you have to wonder how her life would have been different if she wasn't so poor she had to be married off.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> Think what you want, but you can never be fully prepared for everything life throws at you. I was raised to be self sufficient & take care of my own. I do that. If something happened to my husband, I'd keep on doing that. I don't need a college education to get a job. Most of those jobs are ones I wouldn't want. I would never make it sitting behind a desk all day. If I had to work 3 jobs to pay my bills, I would. If I had to sell my house & downsize to make it, I would.
> 
> You can make all the plans you want & think you are all safe & secure & life will throw something at you to make you realize no matter what you do, you are not always in control.


True. You cannot anticipate everything but you can plan for the most common occurrences. And when you have children the most important thing is to secure a future for them if their parents are not around. Death and abandonment by one parent are very common. 

Working 3 low paid jobs means less time to spend with your children. One well paid job (and who said a college education was the only way to make adequate money? trade skills are just as profitable) allows you to work and spend quality time with your children - and if one parent is gone then you are filling a dual roll. 

I would not have wanted to have my children raised by others because I had to work many jobs. This isn't laziness. This is working smarter, not harder to achieve a balanced life and upbringing for your children. The most common criticism today is that parents are not around enough to care for and supervise their children. If you work 8 hours a day at a job that pays well that means you can spend 8 with your kids and still sleep 8. If you work 12 or up to 18 hours a day at low wages who is with your kids? And how do you pay your way if you do not earn a viable income?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> True. You cannot anticipate everything but you can plan for the most common occurrences. And when you have children the most important thing is to secure a future for them if their parents are not around. Death and abandonment by one parent are very common.
> 
> Working 3 low paid jobs means less time to spend with your children. One well paid job (and who said a college education was the only way to make adequate money? trade skills are just as profitable) allows you to work and spend quality time with your children - and if one parent is gone then you are filling a dual roll.
> 
> I would not have wanted to have my children raised by others because I had to work many jobs. This isn't laziness. This is working smarter, not harder to achieve a balanced life and upbringing for your children. The most common criticism today is that parents are not around enough to care for and supervise their children. If you work 8 hours a day at a job that pays well that means you can spend 8 with your kids and still sleep 8. If you work 12 or up to 18 hours a day at low wages who is with your kids? And how do you pay your way if you do not earn a viable income?


My kids will be taken care of if something were to happen to us. 

Who says I would have to work 3 low paying jobs. Most of the jobs I have had paid more than my husband's does.

I do not want my kids raised by someone else either. That is why I stay home with them. However, if needed, I will get a job outside the home. 

How do you know I would not have a viable income? You are assuming things.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Logic says that the 3 jobs would be low paying otherwise you would make a viable income from one job. If you are making a viable income from one job why would any parent sacrifice time with their children just to make more money?

It is your choice how you live your life. Nothing to do with me. I am just expressing my opinion which is very clear I think. I believe that every one - man and woman - should have an education. The definition of education is "The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process."

This does not mean only University or college. Lots of trades and apprenticeships will give you the foundation to earn a good income.

And come on. Enough with the slagging off of University and college. Both are extremely important centres of higher education. They built our world. No doctor or other professional can work without education. Lots of complainers who chose the wrong path or just are not good enough even when they graduate but there are millions of graduates who love their chosen careers and are making very successful lives from every dime they spent on educating themselves.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> "The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process."


I have plenty of education, it just wasn't done in a classroom! I never said college wasn't important to some. What I don't like is how most everyone pushes the thought that everyone needs to go to college. Most of the wealthy people I know did not even graduate. I also know several college graduates that don't amount to a hill of beans. 

What matters is if you have the will to work & learn. If you have those 2 things you can go far without spending a lot of money & time furthering your education. My education has been life & I have learned a lot of skills from it that can never be taught in a classroom! 

My son will be going to MIT this fall. A brilliant kid, but when it comes to a lot of skills he should have, he lacks big time. I have tried, but he has no interest. Skills that may be far more important than a lot of the things he knows. I am more concerned about teaching my kids survival skills than how to make a lot of money.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Wendy,

I have two adult sons and one at home. One is as city as can be, the other is only biding his time until he can homestead. Fortunately the little one is thinking like a prepper and homesteader. I am thinking the city boy will be needing his brothers in the future


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> I have plenty of education, it just wasn't done in a classroom! I never said college wasn't important to some. What I don't like is how most everyone pushes the thought that everyone needs to go to college. Most of the wealthy people I know did not even graduate. I also know several college graduates that don't amount to a hill of beans.
> 
> What matters is if you have the will to work & learn. If you have those 2 things you can go far without spending a lot of money & time furthering your education. My education has been life & I have learned a lot of skills from it that can never be taught in a classroom!
> 
> My son will be going to MIT this fall. A brilliant kid, but when it comes to a lot of skills he should have, he lacks big time. I have tried, but he has no interest. Skills that may be far more important than a lot of the things he knows. I am more concerned about teaching my kids survival skills than how to make a lot of money.


True. I know a more then a few people who did not graduate from college who live a very worthy life (wealth does not determine worthiness). I know more then a few people who did graduate from college who live a very worthy life. I know a few people who did not graduate from college who are complete failures at life, period. I know a few people who graduated from college and are complete failures at life, period. The successes far outweigh the failures. 

But all, except one,had an education whether it was college, university, trade school, the military or an apprenticeship. The will to work is part of the equation but if you have nothing to offer that is wanted then being willing will not get you anywhere.
.

We ALL learn life skills. Some of us have a wider experience then others. Some of us put these skills to use, others don't. If you have to learn everything as you go and through life experience then you are actually spending a LOT of time educating yourself. Starting at the bottom in any job means you have a greater distance to go to achieve success and satisfaction.

The wealthiest man I knew never went to school. He was very successful at making money but he could not read so in the end he was completely dependent on someone else to tell him what was going on in his life. And more then a few people did not tell him the truth. He learned that lesson the hard way.

As for your son. Both my father and husband are geniuses and extremely well educated. They tend to be less practical in day to day life then I am but they are not fools. They manage just fine. The work they do is very important and neither would have been able to do it without education. Your son may not be as practical as you but if he graduates from MIT he will probably be one of the great contributors.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Oh I am sure he will get along fine. I just think it's a little sad when a person doesn't know skills that could save their life. He may get out of school & make lots of money, but there may come a day when that money will have no value & what will have value is skills that he hasn't taken time to learn. 

We can just agree to disagree. You think more education is important & that's fine. I think learning valuable skills that can save your life or help you out in case of a job loss, etc. is important. A higher education doesn't gaurantee you a job.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> Oh I am sure he will get along fine. I just think it's a little sad when a person doesn't know skills that could save their life. He may get out of school & make lots of money, but there may come a day when that money will have no value & what will have value is skills that he hasn't taken time to learn.
> 
> We can just agree to disagree. You think more education is important & that's fine. I think learning valuable skills that can save your life or help you out in case of a job loss, etc. is important. A higher education doesn't gaurantee you a job.


I do think that education is important. I don't specify higher education just education - knowledge, training in whatever field you choose. 

There very well may come a time when money has no value but there will never come a time when knowledge has no value. There may come a time when his knowledge will be what the world requires at that time.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I might be missing something but I wasn't aware that one can either have survival skills or an education. I have both and seem to get by just fine. 

I find it interesting that people always equate education to desks and there are a lot of men and women with big ticket degrees working a long way from a desk.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I might be missing something but I wasn't aware that one can either have survival skills or an education. I have both and seem to get by just fine.


And I have both & get along just fine too. I find it interesting that as soon as I post that I did not graduate high school, I am made to feel like my life has been a waste & I have no knowledge to survive or care for my family. That is exactly what has been implied. Because I do not have a diploma I would only be able to find jobs that do not pay well or jobs that would not support my family. I have never had a problem finding a job when I needed one, even after being out of the work force for over 20 years. I also started out making more per hour than my husband makes at his job now. I know several places I could go to now to get a job & most of my former employers told me to call them if I ever wanted to come back to work for them. Heck, maybe my family would hire me in the sawmill if I asked. It doesn't take a genius to work there, afterall, 3 of the 4 brothers that work there didn't graduate either. One is part owner & they do over a million dollars in sales each year. 



> I find it interesting that people always equate education to desks


I find it interesting that people equate a higher education to mean you will get a job when you get out of college & that you will somehow be better off than someone that goes into the workforce instead.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...............If we go back in time to the 1700' , 1800's , the mechanical genius(s) who invented the steam engine , telegraph , wireless radio , and electricial power generation were NOT educated , they were Very smart ! 
...............Today , we're on the cusp of making robots who are capable of thinking and innovating and learning from their mistakes ! Will all physical labor be taken over by robots , will the feds force mfgers to assign a wage scale for each robot and make them pay SS , with holding , etc ? Probably not , but to me it looks as IF we are in 'Reverse' when comparing today's inventions and those referred to previously . , fordy


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm not sure if it is the same in the US or not but in Canada, many trades pay higher than a doctor but statistically speaking, entry level positions for people with secondary education are higher than positions for those without. That doesn't mean that some people get lucky but the law of averages says that many don't. 

I don't think anybody is saying you're wrong or inferior for not completing high school but stating the realities of the current job market.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This is not really about what happened in the past. It is great that young marriages have worked for some but that is not really the point.

Why would anyone wish for today's youth to take on a marriage at that age in today's world? There are no real good reasons for the majority to do this in this day and age. No one needs children that young. If it is because you love someone then there is no obstacle to keep loving them.

We have the luxury of longer lives and boundless opportunities. I see no pressing reason to take that step so early.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I see no pressing reason to take that step so early.


I don't either. 

I do hear often of how people should wait until mid to late 20's to get married. The divorce rate of that age group is just as bad. Most of the people I know that got married younger are still married. I loved a couple from our church. They married when they were 20. Were married 73 years before they passed away. Passed away within a year of each other. She said they had grown up together & had known each other since second grade. They were great to talk to about the trials & tribulations of marriage, but they never once said they regretted it. 

They said it was hard work & that is what most kids don't get now. The majority of kids I know that age are about useless. They have no work ethic & there is no way they could survivie on their own.


----------



## secuono (Sep 28, 2011)

Well, these days there are so many more freedoms, options and such. Kids are far more rowdy, immature and wanting to have fun than before. I wouldn't think it's a good idea for _most_ people under 20 to even drive, let alone get married....But that's just my thought.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wendy said:


> I don't either.
> 
> I do hear often of how people should wait until mid to late 20's to get married. The divorce rate of that age group is just as bad. Most of the people I know that got married younger are still married. I loved a couple from our church. They married when they were 20. Were married 73 years before they passed away. Passed away within a year of each other. She said they had grown up together & had known each other since second grade. They were great to talk to about the trials & tribulations of marriage, but they never once said they regretted it.
> 
> They said it was hard work & that is what most kids don't get now. The majority of kids I know that age are about useless. They have no work ethic & there is no way they could survivie on their own.


That is too bad that so many of the youth you know are not up to snuff. That is not my experience. Yes, I see some with way more than I had at that age but I see them working for it, studying and achieving goals so much earlier than my friends and I did. They know more about the world and it's pitfalls then I ever did.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> And I have both & get along just fine too. I find it interesting that as soon as I post that I did not graduate high school, I am made to feel like my life has been a waste & I have no knowledge to survive or care for my family. That is exactly what has been implied. Because I do not have a diploma I would only be able to find jobs that do not pay well or jobs that would not support my family. I have never had a problem finding a job when I needed one, even after being out of the work force for over 20 years. I also started out making more per hour than my husband makes at his job now. I know several places I could go to now to get a job & most of my former employers told me to call them if I ever wanted to come back to work for them. Heck, maybe my family would hire me in the sawmill if I asked. It doesn't take a genius to work there, afterall, 3 of the 4 brothers that work there didn't graduate either. One is part owner & they do over a million dollars in sales each year.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that people equate a higher education to mean you will get a job when you get out of college & that you will somehow be better off than someone that goes into the workforce instead.


If that is what you took from the comments then it seems like you are looking for a reason to be insulted. I don't see any of this written anywhere. 

The reality is that education (once again all education not just University) gives you much more choice and freedom. The current reality is that many people today are not being hired because they do not have the education (knowledge, training, skills) that is required by industry. In the past industry was willing to absorb the cost of specialized training or on-the-job training but now they don't want to do this. It is up to individuals to find the education they need.

Statistically those with higher education are better off then those with lower education and this includes health not just wealth. This is a simple reality. Those graduating today have a harder time finding employment in their fields because the jobs just aren't there and many are simply taking the wrong courses in the wrong fields. The world does not need anymore lawyers. But then again a lot of people are willing to accept sporadic employment to work in the field that they love. The world only needs so many paleontologists.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is too bad that so many of the youth you know are not up to snuff. That is not my experience. Yes, I see some with way more than I had at that age but I see them working for it, studying and achieving goals so much earlier than my friends and I did. They know more about the world and it's pitfalls then I ever did.


I too wonder about the quality of the youth that so many people write about. The youth I know are amazing. My husband works with a lot of University students and young professionals. He is involved in the hiring (permanent and student work experience positions) and constantly complains that he is spoilt for choice. Could take all of the applicants if there were places. They are all intelligent, hard working and creative. Most have put themselves through University or had parents/grandparents who planned for their education. And what they don't know is because of youth - lack of experience - not education or willingness.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

fordy said:


> ...............If we go back in time to the 1700' , 1800's , the mechanical genius(s) who invented the steam engine , telegraph , wireless radio , and electricial power generation were NOT educated , they were Very smart !
> ...............Today , we're on the cusp of making robots who are capable of thinking and innovating and learning from their mistakes ! Will all physical labor be taken over by robots , will the feds force mfgers to assign a wage scale for each robot and make them pay SS , with holding , etc ? Probably not , but to me it looks as IF we are in 'Reverse' when comparing today's inventions and those referred to previously . , fordy


And educated. To state that the great inventors were not educated is just incorrect. James Watt (steam engine) was educated at Grammar School and through tutors and then served an apprenticeship. Baron Pavel Schilling (electric telegraph) was very highly educated including Graduation from the Russian Military Cadet Corps. Samuel Morse (who improved the telegraph) was a graduate of both Yale College and Yale University.

Many great minds were self taught but that too is education.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Many great minds were self taught but that too is education.


Exactly my point. I was a straight A student, in the top of my class. I didn't quit school because I was dumb. I had my reasons. I have always been a self learner.

Everyone keeps going on about furthering your education. You can do that without a diploma. That is exactly what I did & what I still do. If a person is really smart, they never stop learning. Just because I don't have a degree in something, doesn't mean I couldn't support myself or get a good paying job. That seems to be what most think.

As far as people with a higher education being wealthier, yeah, they may be in money. I do not measure my wealth by that.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> Exactly my point. I was a straight A student, in the top of my class. I didn't quit school because I was dumb. I had my reasons. I have always been a self learner.
> 
> Everyone keeps going on about furthering your education. You can do that without a diploma. That is exactly what I did & what I still do. If a person is really smart, they never stop learning. Just because I don't have a degree in something, doesn't mean I couldn't support myself or get a good paying job. That seems to be what most think.
> 
> As far as people with a higher education being wealthier, yeah, they may be in money. I do not measure my wealth by that.


Who measures success by wealth? I don't. I measure it by freedom and options and acomplishments. And higher education or ANY education does give you those.

You are the one who said that you would get 3 jobs to pay your bills if anything happened to your husband. And in the next sentence you state that you would use your family for babysitting because you would not have to pay. All of this points to low paid jobs - otherwise one job with one viable income would be enough to pay your way. And you state as a comparison that you can already earn more then your husband. Since we don't know what he earns that is not a support of your argument. 

And when you consider how how much you have learned by not going to school it makes me wonder just what you could have achieved with education or training. My father-in-law was a farm boy who decided he needed to know more to keep the family wheat farm alive so he went to University. He became a world famous agronomist and his work has supported and improved the lives of farmers all around the world. His research is taught everywhere. This just proves that you can still do exactly what you want even with education lol! 

If you are satisfied with your life that is all that is important but the original discussion was about whether or not a woman without an education would be able to support her children if left on her own. Most would not as is shown by the many on welfare. Women with good careers aren't on welfare.

My Dad always knew that my Mom could support herself and the entire family with her trade so he never worried about that. He did have a life insurance policy because as he said - I would rather see your Mom a rich widow then a poor one. Thoughtful man.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> You are the one who said that you would get 3 jobs to pay your bills if anything happened to your husband.


I said I would get 3 jobs if I had too. Whatever it takes to take care of my family. That doesn't mean I would have too. Only that I would if that is what is needed.

I also never said I wouldn't pay my family for babysitting. I said any of them would watch my kids. I know they wouldn't charge as much as a daycare would, just like I don't charge my brother as much as a regular daycare to watch my nephew. I do it to help them out.

I'm not the only one reading things that aren't there.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

The intra-family babysitters I have known did not do it for free; they were generally paid in cash. Some may have traded time, but that's not exactly free.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> I said I would get 3 jobs if I had too. Whatever it takes to take care of my family. That doesn't mean I would have too. Only that I would if that is what is needed.
> 
> I also never said I wouldn't pay my family for babysitting. I said any of them would watch my kids. I know they wouldn't charge as much as a daycare would, just like I don't charge my brother as much as a regular daycare to watch my nephew. I do it to help them out.
> 
> I'm not the only one reading things that aren't there.


You wrote

"Well, I wouldn't have had as many kids if he would have died years ago. I also have 10 siblings & any one of them or my mom would babysit for me if my husband would die. I have a sister that runs a daycare, so paying a sitter would have never been an issue." 

Perhaps you could be clearer in your statements or make complete ones instead of adjustments later.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I am very surprised and actually shocked by all the negative comments about the young people. This certainly has not been my experience with the quality of the young of today. 

Of course there are a lot of kids who are royal pains and like ships without rudders but I think people are looking back with rose coloured glasses because these kids were always around no matter what generation you grew up in. 

There may be more now compared to 40, 50, 60, 70 years ago but then the population has more then doubled as well. And of course the negatives are what people talk about and what the media reports. 

Meanwhile there actually are tens of thousands of really good young people working hard to get through puberty and high school and university and begin their family lives. There are a lot of good parents out there making every effort to raise decent citizens and they are doing a great job. They don't make the news because they are "boring".

If the kids you know really are such negative/worthless beings then the parents must be as well because they are the ones raising the kids. Kids learn what they live.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

My daughter gave me grey hair as a teenager but you would not find a better mother today. She and her husband have done a wonderful job of raising their boys but they have been very strict. The boys will be 21 in July and are sophomores in college, living at home, working and going to school. 
I think for the most part, kids are going to be pretty much like their parents have raised them. My grandsons played year round baseball all through high school but their grades came first. My daughter always said that tired boys are good boys.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> "Well, I wouldn't have had as many kids if he would have died years ago. I also have 10 siblings & any one of them or my mom would babysit for me if my husband would die. I have a sister that runs a daycare, so paying a sitter would have never been an issue."
> 
> Perhaps you could be clearer in your statements or make complete ones instead of adjustments later.


I'm sorry. Let me clarify for you since you interpret things the way you want too. Paying a sitter would not have been a problem because they would not charge me what a regular daycare would. I doubt any of them would even take anything at all. So it would not have been a problem. I did make my sister take something when she watched my youngest while I was working one time. She didn't want it, but I would always leave something on the counter without her knowing.

I think I will leave the conversation because it seems no matter what I say you are going to pick it apart & try to bait me into arguing.

Just know that you do not need to worry about me or my family. We will get along just fine.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

No one can pretend to know what motivates and makes a determined and strong, resilient person as opposed to a lazy, childish, eternally immature one. Or rather, they can only pretend that they know.

In my family of three children, all female, all treated I think as much the same as is possible with the same parents throughout the years have all become very different. One is incredibly neurotic and cannot keep up a steady relationship, one has decided it's cool to just be stoned and scrape by and I have a family and farm and am generally ambitious and responsible.

Also know family where the two children are related neither to each other or their parents and both were delusional out of touch with reality space cadets (unfortunately one of them is my mother).

There is nature and nurture and spirit-- you can't predict how they will turn out or if the circumstances that destroy 5 children will produce one of most excellent caliber. It's impossible to quantify the human spirit, one of the reasons that eugenics seems utterly pointless.

In my family we do for each other what we can and we don't ask for compensation. The time will come that we will require assistance too-- Communism only works on a family level and even then not always perfectly. The idea that I would expect one of my sisters to do anything but compensate me for gas and food if I was caring for one of their children is absolutely repugnant to my mind.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Wendy said:


> I'm sorry. Let me clarify for you since you interpret things the way you want too. Paying a sitter would not have been a problem because they would not charge me what a regular daycare would. I doubt any of them would even take anything at all. So it would not have been a problem. I did make my sister take something when she watched my youngest while I was working one time. She didn't want it, but I would always leave something on the counter without her knowing.
> 
> I think I will leave the conversation because it seems no matter what I say you are going to pick it apart & try to bait me into arguing.
> 
> Just know that you do not need to worry about me or my family. We will get along just fine.


I am just expressing a different view. If you consider this baiting then you are over reacting. I did not interpret. Just read. But thanks for the clarification.

I never was worried about your family. Just responding to what you wrote.:spinsmiley:


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> I am very surprised and actually shocked by all the negative comments about the young people. This certainly has not been my experience with the quality of the young of today.
> 
> Of course there are a lot of kids who are royal pains and like ships without rudders but I think people are looking back with rose coloured glasses because these kids were always around no matter what generation you grew up in.
> 
> ...


We probably didn't notice "what kids were like" because we were like that ourselves.:hrm:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I find it sad that so many have the attitude that once you marry your life is over. Marriage isn't the end of life, its just the beginning!


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> I find it sad that so many have the attitude that once you marry your life is over. Marriage isn't the end of life, its just the beginning!


Very good! If more people looked at it in this positive light then maybe more marriages would survive. It is absolutely possible to get more education and have an outside career if that is what you choose. The key is to set goals together and keep working together to achieve them (Both of you).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> I find it sad that so many have the attitude that once you marry your life is over. Marriage isn't the end of life, its just the beginning!


Believing that an individual should learn to survive on their own before getting married does not equate to believing life is over when you get married.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Believing that an individual should learn to survive on their own before getting married does not equate to believing life is over when you get married.


Or perhaps people should get over the 'lone wolf' thing and realize that humans are pack animals. It's not weakness to learn how to survive _together_.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Or perhaps people should get over the 'lone wolf' thing and realize that humans are pack animals. It's not weakness to learn how to survive _together_.


It can be. We see more than enough examples of wives and husbands right here on HT that when experiencing divorce or loss of a partner,are emotionally and financially unable to move forward because they totally relied on someone else to meet their needs.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Then I guess we should just all wait on the benches until we have our phd's in something eternally useful and never take the chance. 

Age of consent to marry just shouldn't be in the government's hands. It should be left to families. And if the couple is determined enough to go it on their own, without family consent then more power to them. 

The shoulds and should nots of this conversation are individual and there really is no good way to respect free will and liberty and regulate these things.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Then I guess we should just all wait on the benches until we have our phd's in something eternally useful and never take the chance.
> 
> Age of consent to marry just shouldn't be in the government's hands. It should be left to families. And if the couple is determined enough to go it on their own, without family consent then more power to them.
> 
> The shoulds and should nots of this conversation are individual and there really is no good way to respect free will and liberty and regulate these things.


There is no need to extrapolate my comments and go to extremes of everyone having a PHD. I neither suggested that or recommended that.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

sorry, forgot to use my /sarcasm tag so you wouldn't read too much into the first line.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> Then I guess we should just all wait on the benches until we have our phd's in something eternally useful and never take the chance.
> 
> Age of consent to marry just shouldn't be in the government's hands. It should be left to families. And if the couple is determined enough to go it on their own, without family consent then more power to them.
> 
> The shoulds and should nots of this conversation are individual and there really is no good way to respect free will and liberty and regulate these things.


I agree, 15 years old is about the right age for a girl to get married. Young enough to be trained to be a proper wife and mother. Young, immature, and uneducated girls make the best wives. There's nothing waiting for them beyond their 15 years. Life should revolve around cleaning house, washing dishes and laundry, changing diapers and following her husbands orders. That's the only path to true happiness 
for a young girl. Sign me up for 6.:bouncy:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> I agree, 15 years old is about the right age for a girl to get married. Young enough to be trained to be a proper wife and mother. Young, immature, and uneducated girls make the best wives. There's nothing waiting for them beyond their 15 years. Life should revolve around cleaning house, washing dishes and laundry, changing diapers and following her husbands orders. That's the only path to true happiness
> for a young girl. Sign me up for 6.:bouncy:


~rolls eyes~

Yeah because all of us that married young do nothing but what you stated. I'm just saying it's probably none of your business.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> ~rolls eyes~
> 
> Yeah because all of us that married young do nothing but what you stated. I'm just saying it's probably none of your business.


Your right, but I would never allow my daughter to marry that young. No matter what church, state and society says.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> Your right, but I would never allow my daughter to marry that young. No matter what church, state and society says.


I agree. I can not think of any really good reason to. Some seem to want to use sex as that reason but then where does it stop? 12 years old, 10 years old? The minute you are able to have sex?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I agree. I can not think of any really good reason to. Some seem to want to use sex as that reason but then where does it stop? 12 years old, 10 years old? The minute you are able to have sex?


You nailed it. Sex is usually the reason but it's not a good reason, it's an excuse.

In this day and age in western society I think the majority of girls who get married at age 15 - 16 do so because they're pregnant. So in that case sex is the reason and such early shotgun marriages are the consequence of parental negligence and ignorance and lack of responsible discrimination. If the girls are not pregnant and are still marrying at that age with parental consent then it's because they're a burden on their parents and the parents are willingly unloading them onto anyone else who'll accept responsibility for them.

It didn't used to be that way in past generations when girls married very young and it was a more formal contract between families. Usually the parents of the girls were strict about their daughters and the girls' acceptable suitors being closely chaperoned during a formal courtship and the parents had the final say in choosing the suitable husbands and families their daughters were allowed to marry into.

It's not like that now of course and daughters aren't the marital commodities they used to be in the past which I think is a good thing for women. However, I think it's unfortunate that many present-day parents have relinquished their marriage responsibilities to their daughters that were common in the past and should still be maintained in society today.


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

I was 23 when I married. Most of my family thought I was an old maid. 
Worked 2 jobs at times and went to school at night. Finally got that BA. Was it easy? Heck No! Would I have done it with a kid or 2? HECK NO!! There is a reason young mothers typically don't have degrees. It is hard. Very, very hard. My ex did not help me at home or with meals. I was expected to be the classical housewife and I struggled. I stayed with him as long as I did because I felt trapped. Once I got my degree, found a career, I had options. His poor treatment was no longer OK and I got the nerve to speak up. 
Get a Degree first. Married second. Kids last, if at all. Women have to be able to support themselves or sadly be willing to suffer the consequences.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I agree. I can not think of any really good reason to. Some seem to want to use sex as that reason but then where does it stop? 12 years old, 10 years old? The minute you are able to have sex?


Wow! This has me wondering just how young you're ok with a girl having sex. 10-12 or younger? With someone she's committed to emotionally or will just any partners do? At the same time you have a problem with her falling in love at 16-17 and committing herself to one person?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

................Maybe we should tryout the 'Afghan' model of letting the family sell a daughter to some old man 65 or so and see how that works out ! There are numerous examples of the Islamic model whereby the daughter was consigned to a specific man of a specific family , but , refused to participate . So , her father OR her brother , decides to murder her , for bringing 'Shame' on their family . One , in particular I remember , the father attempted to run her over with his car . So much for allowing the 'Family' to have greater power for choosing her mate . , fordy


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

fordy said:


> ................Maybe we should tryout the 'Afghan' model of letting the family sell a daughter to some old man 65 or so and see how that works out ! There are numerous examples of the Islamic model whereby the daughter was consigned to a specific man of a specific family , but , refused to participate . So , her father OR her brother , decides to murder her , for bringing 'Shame' on their family . One , in particular I remember , the father attempted to run her over with his car . So much for allowing the 'Family' to have greater power for choosing her mate . , fordy


Nobody is talking about forcing a daughter to marry or forcing her to marry a man 50 years older than her.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Wow! This has me wondering just how young you're ok with a girl having sex. 10-12 or younger? With someone she's committed to emotionally or will just any partners do? At the same time you have a problem with her falling in love at 16-17 and committing herself to one person?


Did I say I was fine with them having sex?

We tell people to wait for sex and I say the same thing about marriage. No need to rush into either for any reason. You can commit yourself to one person and not get married or have sex. What is the reason for getting married that early?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Did I say I was fine with them having sex?
> 
> We tell people to wait for sex and I say the same thing about marriage. No need to rush into either for any reason. You can commit yourself to one person and not get married or have sex. What is the reason for getting married that early?


Did your post read like you where? Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Did your post read like you where? Yeah, pretty much.


Well let me clarify. I don't think sex is a good reason for getting married young. If it was, you would have to let anyone having sex get married and that includes same sex couples and children having sex.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Well let me clarify. I don't think sex is a good reason for getting married young. If it was you would have to let anyone having sex get married and that includes same sex couples and children having sex.


 
Here we go again with the same sex thing. As I've said many MANY times I could care less what they do...and yes my kids where told if your old enough to have sex with him or her, you're old enough to marry them. I don't take fornication lightly and taught my kids not to either. As for children I wasn't the one talking about 10 and younger kids having sex, you where. When my kids where that young my job was to keep them out of situations where that could happen, not turn a blind eye to what was going on.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Here we go again with the same sex thing. As I've said many MANY times I could care less what they do...and yes my kids where told if your old enough to have sex with him or her, you're old enough to marry them. I don't take fornication lightly and taught my kids not to either.


I never implied that you personally did. I am saying that others who equate sex with marriage do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Here we go again with the same sex thing. As I've said many MANY times I could care less what they do...and yes my kids where told if your old enough to have sex with him or her, you're old enough to marry them. I don't take fornication lightly and taught my kids not to either. As for children I wasn't the one talking about 10 and younger kids having sex, you where. When my kids where that young my job was to keep them out of situations where that could happen, not turn a blind eye to what was going on.


So you believe that if you are old enough to have sex then you are old enough to marry? What if your child had sex at 12?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

OMG, sorry this thread is just getting silly now. It's obviously past the point where people have anything to actually contribute to a conversation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> OMG, sorry this thread is just getting silly now. It's obviously past the point where people have anything to actually contribute to a conversation.


Did your post contribute? Did calling others peoples post silly contribute?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sure if it gets you off ridiculousness and back to something worth reading. Not that i really think there's much change of that--- but counter to my nature I try and be optimistic.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Sure if it gets you off ridiculousness and back to something worth reading. Not that i really think there's much change of that--- but counter to my nature I try and be optimistic.


Well thank-you for the judgement on my posts. If you don't feel this conversation is worth having than why are you not just ignoring my or whoever posts you are judging. If you have points that prove or defend your position that our posts are ridiculous than feel free to offer them.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> OMG, sorry this thread is just getting silly now. It's obviously past the point where people have anything to actually contribute to a conversation.


In past discussions I've found the best thing for me to do when I think a discussion has reached a point where other people no longer contribute what I think is worthwhile to me then it's time to let others carry on with the discussion as they see fit and for me to be the one to abandon the discussion without me commenting about how the discussion has become worthless. At that point nobody else will care about my opinion anyway because my contribution is probably just as worthless to them as their's is to me and nobody will miss me when I leave the discussion.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> So you believe that if you are old enough to have sex then you are old enough to marry? What if your child had sex at 12?


Oh my gosh, my children didn't have sex at 12 because I parented them. Really sometimes it goes beyond ridiculous PW. Do you want to have an adult discussion or just argue for the sake of arguing?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Oh my gosh, my children didn't have sex at 12 because I parented them. Really sometimes it goes beyond ridiculous PW. Do you want to have an adult discussion or just argue for the sake of arguing?


I am asking a real question. If your child is old enough to have sex then according to you they are old enough to get married. I am sure that you worked hard to make sure they did not have sex at 12 but they are capable.

I am asking then if they are capable at 12 why is that different than 16 or 25 as an age that they could get married? Where do you draw the line and why? You have already ruled inbeing capable of having sex as a line.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I am asking a real question. If your child is old enough to have sex then according to you they are old enough to get married. I am sure that you worked hard to make sure they did not have sex at 12 but they are capable.
> 
> I am asking then if they are capable at 12 why is that different than 16 or 25 as an age that they could get married? Where do you draw the line and why? You have already ruled inbeing capable of having sex as a line.


 
IMO the question is too silly to even bothering to give an answer. Maybe in your world kids of 12 have the opportunity to have sex but not in mine. Do you even have daughters?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I think she's made a good point though because in one sentence you said you were parenting your children when they were age 12 and in another sentence you said you told your children when they're old enough to have sex they're old enough to get married.

Girls are physically equipped to participate in sex at pretty much any age, boys are masturbating from babyhood onwards and many boys by the time they're 8 or 9 years old are already participating in sexual intercourse and have viable ejaculate. 

What is the right age for a child to have sex and get married? Is it 10, 12, 15, 16 or older? Is it when the child is physically developed enough for a boy's sperm to fertilize an egg and when a girl starts menstruation as early as 10 or 11 years old and can be impregnated?

When does a parent relinquish their parenting duties and let their children's sexual abilities and proclivities become the determining factor in the course their future lives will take? If the child is old enough to have sex then they're old enough to get married then what guide does the parent use to decide the appropriate age that they will permit their child to have an acknowledged active sex life and get married?

I'll repeat the question that started with this topic. What is the right age for a girl to get married? And Why?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I think she's made a good point though because in one sentence you said you were parenting your children when they were age 12 and in another sentence you said you told your children when they're old enough to have sex they're old enough to get married.
> 
> Girls are physically equipped to participate in sex at pretty much any age, boys are masturbating from babyhood onwards and many boys by the time they're 8 or 9 years old are already participating in sexual intercourse and have viable ejaculate.
> 
> ...


 
I never said I gave them that advice at 10-12 and younger which apparently is the age of sexual consent in PW's and your world. As for telling my kids if they where old enough to have sex they where old enough to get married, I'd say they where mature enough to understand that means sex is not to be taken lightly and with it came responsibility. Evidentially some adults in this thread can't grasp that. Believe it or not there are some people who still teach their kids that they shouldn't have sex until they are married, even in this 'everything goes' world.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> I never said I gave them that advice at 10-12 and younger which apparently is the age of sexual consent in PW's and your world. Believe it or not there are some people who still teach their kids that they shouldn't have sex until they are married, even in this 'everything goes' world.


Wrong answer. Please don't patronize me and don't jump to conclusions about what I think is the age of sexual consent. There are laws already established that determine what is the age of sexual consent and it's up to parents to ensure that their children abide by those laws. If they don't then it's the parents who should abide by and pay for the consequences of letting their children consentingly break the law. 

I have already stated in my first post what I think is the appropriate age of marriage for a girl. It is after she has completed her education, gained skills of independency, the ability to run her own household and her body is fully developed into a strong, healthy woman's body that will bear strong healthy babies. A woman. NOT a scrawny, undeveloped, uneducated, ignorant, exploitable girl who will bear scrawny unhealthy babies or die trying.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> I never said I gave them that advice at 10-12 and younger which apparently is the age of sexual consent in PW's and your world. As for telling my kids if they where old enough to have sex they where old enough to get married, I'd say they where mature enough to understand that means sex is not to be taken lightly and with it came responsibility. Evidentially some adults in this thread can't grasp that. Believe it or not there are some people who still teach their kids that they shouldn't have sex until they are married, even in this 'everything goes' world.


You are saying that I believe that the age of consent and the age that someone has sex are some how the same thing? Don't assume because I never said that. This is not about what is legal but about each person believes is the right age to marry.

I don't believe anyone under 18 needs to have sex or get married. I however don't get to decide for others. I however can share my opinion.

You did say that anyone old enough to have sex is old enough to marry. Well at least your are teaching your children that.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Wrong. Please don't patronize me and don't jump to conclusions about what I think is the age of sexual consent. .


 
This.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You are saying that I believe that the age of consent and the age that someone has sex are some how the same thing? Don't assume because I never said that. This is not about what is legal but about each person believes is the right age to marry.
> 
> I don't believe anyone under 18 needs to have sex or get married. I however don't get to decide for others. I however can share my opinion.
> 
> You did say that anyone old enough to have sex is old enough to marry. Well at least your are teaching your children that.


 
PW once again I tried to have an adult conversation with you and once again I am weary of your little childish merry go around games. Best we just agree to disagree.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> This.


We are not asking you what you believe the age of consent is. We are asking if you really believe that if a child is old enough to have sex they are old enough to get married.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> IMO the question is too silly to even bothering to give an answer. Maybe in your world kids of 12 have the opportunity to have sex but not in mine. Do you even have daughters?


Ahhhh yes! I have heard of your world. Kids were sealed in a barrel at birth and fed through the bung until they were 21 at which time a critical decision must be made..... let them out or drive in the bung! 

Kids have lots of opportunities in the real world, just like they have always had. Some parents however just dont seem to realize it. I have raised 4 step children, two boys, two girls. Both girls found opportunities before they were 12. They not only found the opportunities... they capitalized upon them!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhhh yes! I have heard of your world. Kids were sealed in a barrel at birth and fed through the bung until they were 21 at which time a critical decision must be made..... let them out or drive in the bung!
> 
> Kids have lots of opportunities in todays world, just like they have always had. Some parents however just dont seem to realize it. I have raised 4 step children, two boys, two girls. Both girls found opportunities before they were 12. They not only found the opportunities... they capitalized upon them!


 
You're assuming a lot there but if it makes you feel better about your situation ( which I'm sorry to hear about ) go ahead.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> You're assuming a lot there but if it makes you feel better about your situation ( which I'm sorry to hear about ) go ahead.


My situation? My daughters are just fine, they have both raised their families now and are looking forward to having their very own grandkids soon. I couldnt feel better about "my situation". I raised normal, happy, responsible children who have been taking care of their own business for a good number of years now. What more could I want out of parenting?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My situation? My daughters are just fine, they have both raised their families now and are looking forward to having their very own grandkids soon. I couldnt feel better about "my situation". I raised normal, happy, responsible children who have been taking care of their own business for a good number of years now. What more could I want out of parenting?


 
Good for you! Despite your low opinion of me and my parenting skills, my husband and I have done the same.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Good for you! Despite your low opinion of me and my parenting skills, my husband and I have done the same.


I really have no opinion about you or your parenting skills. I do however know that kids will be kids.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhhh yes! I have heard of your world. Kids were sealed in a barrel at birth and fed through the bung until they were 21 at which time a critical decision must be made..... let them out or drive in the bung!
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Yvonne's hubby said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh yes! I have heard of your world. Kids were sealed in a barrel at birth and fed through the bung until they were 21 at which time a critical decision must be made..... let them out or drive in the bung!
> ...


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> What is the right age for a girl to get married? And Why?


It really can't be answered. It depends on the person. I know plenty of people that married young & went on to be married for many, many years. I also know plenty of people that waited until their mid to late 20's to get married & it ended in divorce.

What matters is your mind set when you get married. Realizing it is a lifetime commitment. It should be anyway. Knowing it is not to be entered into lightly. Realizing it is something that will take work & it's not something that should just be tossed aside because suddenly someone is not happy anymore. They need to figure out why they aren't happy & make an effort to fix it. Throwing away a marriage, especially when there are kids involved, should be a very last resort after all other options have been tried to fix it.

Most marriage vows include: for better or for worse, in sickness & in health, for richer or for poorer, until death do us part. 

People need to sit down & read those verses over & over to fully understand what they mean. We have become a throw away society & marriage is included in that. It really has nothing to do with someone's age. I have seen very mature 16 year olds & very immature 40 year olds.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I have read all these posts a few times and still there is no good reason popping out for anyone to get married while in their teens.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I have read all these posts a few times and still there is no good reason popping out for anyone to get married while in their teens.


And after reading these posts I've decided no age is a good time to get married!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I have read all these posts a few times and still there is no good reason popping out for anyone to get married while in their teens.


After reading all these posts I come to the conclusion that none of you are qualified to make decisions about other people's lives and the choices they make.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> After reading all these posts I come to the conclusion that none of you are qualified to make decisions about other people's lives and the choices they make.


That seems to be the canned response when someone can't discuss and explain their position on something and has to resort to making fun of others posts.

I am happy to exchange thoughts and discuss issues. I for on never claimed this was about deciding how and why others make the decisions they do.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

The only suitable answer to this, as with many other situations is that the choice needs to be left to those involved. It's not a cop out it's a non-busy body non-knows it all answer.

You sure do a good job of hiding the fact that you are willing to consider other people's positions or participate in discussion.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I have read all these posts a few times and still there is no good reason popping out for anyone to get married while in their teens.


How about love?? When I was 15 & met my now hubby, I knew he was the one I would marry. We have been married almost 24 years. We dated almost 5 years before we married. It is possible to be in love at that age. It is possible to marry & be happy forever at that age. It may not be right for everyone, but it is an individual choice & really depends on the people involved.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wendy said:


> How about love?? When I was 15 & met my now hubby, I knew he was the one I would marry. We have been married almost 24 years. We dated almost 5 years before we married. It is possible to be in love at that age. It is possible to marry & be happy forever at that age. It may not be right for everyone, but it is an individual choice & really depends on the people involved.


You waited 5 years to get married. You did it the way I would recommend to anyone. Yes it is possible to be in love but why rush into marriage at that age.

We ask children everyday to wait to have sex, why not tell them to wait to get married?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

But I was still a teenager when we married. If it were up to me, we would have married sooner. His family kept giving him grief because I was 5 years younger than him. I finally convinced him it was not their decision to make & we set a date. They finally got over it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wendy said:


> But I was still a teenager when we married. If it were up to me, we would have married sooner. His family kept giving him grief because I was 5 years younger than him. I finally convinced him it was not their decision to make & we set a date. They finally got over it.


Well you had to be pretty close to 20 if you met him at 15 and dated for 5 years. I think his parents did you a favor and obviously they wanted him to be sure before marrying such a young girl.

Did it hurt your relationship to wait? Was it some kind of sacrifice to wait? Sounds like it all worked out great that you waited.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sounds to me you just don't want to admit that what you advocate is not a one size fits all people or situations. There is no reason to wait past a certain point of maturity, which different people attain at different times.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Sounds to me you just don't want to admit that what you advocate is not a one size fits all people or situations. There is no reason to wait past a certain point of maturity, which different people attain at different times.


Every day we hear from teenagers they are ready to do this and that and they are proven wrong more than they are ever proven right. Are you suggesting that all the decisions about when they are old enough to do something should be left up to teenagers?

I am curious if your 14 year old daughter decided that she was ready to marry a 30 year old, would you be hands off because she decided she was mature enough? Would you allow your 14 year old son to go off and join the army because he decided he was mature enough?

What is the need to get married at that age?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................The Marine Corps and the Army , both , like to recruit young soldiers as grunts , because they have NO experience or knowledge of the pain and suffering that they will have to endure once they've been shot or lost a leg or arm to an IED ! Try sending a 35 year old , mature staff sargent(sp) and his platoon into combat and he is going to make sure the officers have a specific plan to maximize the safety of his soldiers and the means to extract them should the need arise . 
....................Experience leads to maturity , and maturity forges lasting memories of mistakes that , in hindsight , should have never been made . , fordy:shrug:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Every day we hear from teenagers they are ready to do this and that and they are proven wrong more than they are ever proven right. Are you suggesting that all the decisions about when they are old enough to do something should be left up to teenagers?
> 
> I am curious if your 14 year old daughter decided that she was ready to marry a 30 year old, would you be hands off because she decided she was mature enough? Would you allow your 14 year old son to go off and join the army because he decided he was mature enough?
> 
> What is the need to get married at that age?


What part of those involved, like the people wanting to get married and their families--- since no matter what else one still cannot enter into a contract at less than 18 without parental consent--- is so hard to understand?

I married at 18 someone 30 years my senior, worked out well enough from my perspective. 

The answer to your questions lies in this theoretical person in a hypothetical situation. I'll not lock myself into a yes or a no because it's not as simple as you seem to think it is. I see no reason to wait. 100 years goes by fast, I'm not wasting mine.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> What part of those involved, like the people wanting to get married and their families--- since no matter what else one still cannot enter into a contract at less than 18 without parental consent--- is so hard to understand?
> 
> I married at 18 someone 30 years my senior, worked out well enough from my perspective.
> 
> The answer to your questions lies in this theoretical person in a hypothetical situation. I'll not lock myself into a yes or a no because it's not as simple as you seem to think it is. I see no reason to wait. 100 years goes by fast, I'm not wasting mine.


18 is more acceptable to most though I personally would never counsel anyone to marry at that age. I see no real need. I also agree that there is never a one answer fits all solution. I just cannot however see that I would ever have a good reason for anyone 15 or 16 to marry. Love is not a good enough reason, if it was then whether they are 14, 15 or 16 if they believe they are in love how can you say no.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I find the notion that life spent without being married as 'wasted' really sad.

I didn't get married until I was 43, I don't consider the previous years to that wasted at all.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

It's good thing your opinion only really effects those you have legal power over. I'm not at all willing to say never to things that don't involve murder or theft.

You don't see any reason ever and find no reason good enough. Good for you. Inflexibility may suit you.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> I find the notion that life spent without being married as 'wasted' really sad.
> 
> I didn't get married until I was 43, I don't consider the previous years to that wasted at all.


Neither did my husband. Never said it was a waste... unless it's what you wanted and you are denied.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> It's good thing your opinion only really effects those you have legal power over. I'm not at all willing to say never to things that don't involve murder or theft.
> 
> You don't see any reason ever and find no reason good enough. Good for you. Inflexibility may suit you.


Hey, I have not heard any compelling reason yet but I admit it always could happen. I have not heard any compelling reason among the posts here or anyone that did have a reason that was willing to really back it up with more than we are ridiculous or silly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> 18 is more acceptable to most though *I personally would never counsel anyone to marry at that age. I see no real need.* I also agree that there is never a one answer fits all solution. I just cannot however see that I would ever have a good reason for anyone 15 or 16 to marry. Love is not a good enough reason, if it was then whether they are 14, 15 or 16 if they believe they are in love how can you say no.


You brought up an interesting point. At what age would anyone counsel another to get married? 12? 24? 50? ever? What would be the "need" for anyone to get married? I am not posing this question to just you, but to anyone who feels there is a need or a proper time of life to marry.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> What part of those involved, like the people wanting to get married and their families--- since no matter what else one still cannot enter into a contract at less than 18 without parental consent--- is so hard to understand?
> 
> I married at 18 someone 30 years my senior, worked out well enough from my perspective.
> 
> The answer to your questions lies in this theoretical person in a hypothetical situation. I'll not lock myself into a yes or a no because it's not as simple as you seem to think it is. I see no reason to wait. 100 years goes by fast, I'm not wasting mine.


I think I read before( maybe last year) that you have been married more than once. Was 18 the first marriage or the second?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You brought up an interesting point. At what age would anyone counsel another to get married? 12? 24? 50? ever? What would be the "need" for anyone to get married? I am not posing this question to just you, but to anyone who feels there is a need or a proper time of life to marry.


I personally believe that everyone should have lived on their own for at least a couple of years, paid the bills and understand how to live with themselves before getting married but that is just me.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I think I read before( maybe last year) that you have been married more than once. Was 18 the first marriage or the second?


He was my first marriage. My second husband was married once before too. Without my first marriage I wouldn't be the person I am today or have my eldest son.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

So marry young and marry often? Is that the ideal?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You brought up an interesting point. At what age would anyone counsel another to get married? 12? 24? 50? ever? What would be the "need" for anyone to get married? I am not posing this question to just you, but to anyone who feels there is a need or a proper time of life to marry.


YH, those questions have already been asked a few times throughout this entire topic. Some people have given their confirmed and very direct answers and some people have hemmed and hawed and skirted around the questions without giving definitive or committed answers.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

mistletoad said:


> So marry young and marry often? Is that the ideal?


Did you miss the part where he was 30 years my senior?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> He was my first marriage. My second husband was married once before too. Without my first marriage I wouldn't be the person I am today or have my eldest son.


While I would not wish you to not have your son, I think you gave me an example for waiting instead of marrying young, as it does not work out for the majority.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> While I would not wish you to not have your son, I think you gave me an example for waiting instead of marrying young. as it does not work out for the majority.


It worked out just fine.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

CraterCove said:


> Did you miss the part where he was 30 years my senior?


No, I didn't. I would assume that raises the possibility of being widowed young and I am sorry if that is how your marriage ended, but if the goal is to marry well and only do it once, perhaps your history is not the best example to follow.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> While I would not wish you to not have your son, I think you gave me an example for waiting instead of marrying young, as it does not work out for the majority.


The majority of our good citizens never get rotten rich either, should we deny them the right to try?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The majority of our good citizens never get rotten rich either, should we deny them the right to try?


So I guess you would be fine with letting anyone get married no matter how old because we should not deny them because it might not work out?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> So I guess you would be fine with letting anyone get married no matter how old because we should not deny them because it might not work out?


Yep, what others do is none of my concern as long as they arent doing it to me or mine. Its that "live and let live" thing.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, what others do is none of my concern as long as they arent doing it to me or mine. Its that "live and let live" thing.


Can you give a direct answer on this? For your own family - if your 15 y.o. daughter or grand-daughter came to you tomorrow and said "I'm not pregnant but I'm in love and I want to drop out of school now to get married" would you give her your blessings and help her to do that or would you counsel her to wait? What would be your response and what would be the reasons for your response?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Can you give a direct answer on this? For your own family - if your 15 y.o. daughter or grand-daughter came to you tomorrow and said "I'm not pregnant but I'm in love and I want to drop out of school now to get married" would you give her your blessings and help her to do that or would you counsel her to wait? What would be your response and what would be the reasons for your response?


Ok, this isnt a hypothetical question in my case. When my eldest step daughter came to me asking to get married she was fifteen. We of course discussed all the possibilities, pros and cons and I gave them my blessings. Sadly I missed the wedding.... broke my leg that morning and spent that week dealing with docs and hospitals. She still claims I did it on purpose so I wouldnt have wear my suit! 

ETA: She did not drop out of school. There was no reason to.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Was she pregnant before she got married?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Was she pregnant before she got married?


Nope. But she sure got busy... gave me a grandson within a year.... and twin girls 9 months and 45 minutes after the boy. She didnt have any more then for quite a while, after her hubby died she remarried another guy a few years later and had the last boy with him. Those kids are all grown now and have families of their own.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

If no one did anything because there was a possibility of failure, what exactly would get done? I think YH's answer is a good and honest one.

It may at one point have been my intention to only marry once, but intentions change. I am happily married to my second husband, have two more boys now and hope to have another child this year and next year--- if all works out.

I'd rather take the chance... the worst that can happen is the same no matter what, in the end everyone dies!


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> What part of those involved, like the people wanting to get married and their families--- since no matter what else one still cannot enter into a contract at less than 18 without parental consent--- is so hard to understand?
> 
> I married at 18 someone 30 years my senior, worked out well enough from my perspective.
> 
> The answer to your questions lies in this theoretical person in a hypothetical situation. I'll not lock myself into a yes or a no because it's not as simple as you seem to think it is. I see no reason to wait. 100 years goes by fast, I'm not wasting mine.


What could an 18-year-old possibly have in common with someone in their 40s?

:ashamed:


----------



## Wollett (Jan 21, 2013)

Something has to be said about life experience. When we are 15-16 or 18 we think we know everything. Life as a 37 year old, I feel like I just woke up. I can see clearly I know what I want for the remainder of life and enjoy everything kids included.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

thesedays said:


> What could an 18-year-old possibly have in common with someone in their 40s?
> 
> :ashamed:


I find this question amusing. It's not what two people have in common that often makes their relationship but how they deal with where they differ.

That said, it's difficult for a girl the age I was to find a guy who knows who EE 'Doc' Smith is let alone find one whose read his books. No, it's not the only thing but it's one thing amongst too many to list here.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

thesedays said:


> What could an 18-year-old possibly have in common with someone in their 40s?
> 
> :ashamed:


Life?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So marry young and marry often? Is that the ideal?


Hey, it's worked for me! ound:


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Hey, it's worked for me! ound:


WG we are from different times and different places and many times on HT we have way different opinions but you make me smile and laugh sometimes(in a good way and not a derogatory way) and for that I thank you.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> I never said I gave them that advice at 10-12 and younger which apparently is the age of sexual consent in PW's and your world. As for telling my kids if they where old enough to have sex they where old enough to get married, I'd say they where mature enough to understand that means sex is not to be taken lightly and with it came responsibility. Evidentially some adults in this thread can't grasp that. Believe it or not there are some people who still teach their kids that they shouldn't have sex until they are married, even in this 'everything goes' world.


You are comparing apples and Chevrolets.

*Nobody* said 12 year olds should be having sex. The opinion of some is that girls should be ready for marriage as soon as they can have sex.

The wording, in my opinion, should be "as soon as they are sexually mature" instead of "Being able to have sex". 

Reaching sexual maturity can be at 12 or younger. However, nobody in their right mind should be advocating this. I have always told my kids that yes, physically they might be able and willing at the age of 16, but emotionally they are not.

So .... let's debate this on that premise.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Kids are perfectly able and willing to drink alcohol at just about any age but we don't let them because we know how irresponsible this would be to their physical, mental and spiritual development. Casual sex and the oft result of pregnancy has the same detrimental affect on the very young. What is the hurry? Kids should live life before they give life.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

emdeengee said:


> Kids are perfectly able and willing to drink alcohol at just about any age but we don't let them because we know how irresponsible this would be to their physical, mental and spiritual development. Casual sex and the oft result of pregnancy has the same detrimental affect on the very young. What is the hurry? Kids should live life before they give life.


Exactly


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Kids are perfectly able and willing to drink alcohol at just about any age but we don't let them because we know how irresponsible this would be to their physical, mental and spiritual development. Casual sex and the oft result of pregnancy has the same detrimental affect on the very young. What is the hurry? Kids should live life before they give life.


OK, I'll bite... just what are these detrimental affects and why do they seem to not affect young folks who grow up in societies that allow them?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK, I'll bite... just what are these detrimental affects and why do they seem to not affect young folks who grow up in societies that allow them?


You might as well ask how many sick and starving weaklings are there in those societies and why are they sick weaklings? It's because of lack of good breeding. A society that responsibly monitors the breeding of its children is a stronger and healthier society than the society that doesn't monitor and allows irresponsible and indiscrimate breeding of children to produce sick, weak mutts out of human puppy mills. We have good breeding programs and practises to ensure strong healthy livestock - why not have good, responsible breeding practises for humans?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Paumon said:


> You might as well ask how many sick and starving weaklings are there in those societies and why are they sick weaklings? It's because of lack of good breeding. A society that responsibly monitors the breeding of its children is a stronger and healthier society than the society that doesn't monitor and allows irresponsible and indiscrimate breeding of children to produce sick, weak mutts out of human puppy mills. We have good breeding programs and practises to ensure strong healthy livestock - why not have good, responsible breeding practises for humans?


LOL, you are really asking for it!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> LOL, you are really asking for it!


Maybe, maybe not. I ask you this. Say someone had a prized first class young female breeding animal and it had just produced its very first offspring due to having been bred earlier than its body was properly developed for. It has its first baby (which has a 50/50 chance of being a defect due to the mother's physical immaturity) and then the very next day or within the first week right after giving birth that mother animal is immediately bred again and gets pregnant again. The chances of carrying the new fetus to full term is highly decreased and the chances of the mother remaining healthy and strong while feeding milk to the first baby and her body supporting the new fetus is also decreased. If the new baby survives through the pregnancy and goes full term instead of being born premature the chances of the new baby being defective are very high, and if it is born prematurely and survives the chances of it being very defective are astronomical. Plus the mother might suffer irrepairable damage or even die because of the trauma her body has just been put through.

Do you know of any responsible animal breeders who are good stewards of the animals in their care that would condone and take joy in such a heinous breeding practise?

I don't know any responsible animal breeders that would condone or subject their animals to such a despicable practise but for some strange reason it's okay to do it to young girls and someone like YH takes pride in the fact that the very exact same thing was done to his own young girl and he boasts about it.

I don't understand how any parent could put so little value on the life of their daughter and grand children and I don't understand how any girl in this day and age can be allowed and encouraged to be so ignorant and uneducated with her own life.

This society needs more education and needs to conduct much better breeding practices with its human breeders and not treat them like third or fourth rate breeding animals that have no value to society except to produce more defective runts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bowdonkey said:


> LOL, you are really asking for it!


I see the potential here for an interesting discussion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I ask you this. Say someone had a prized first class young female breeding animal and it had just produced its very first offspring due to having been bred earlier than its body was properly developed for. It has its first baby (which has a 50/50 chance of being a defect due to the mother's physical immaturity) and then the very next day or within the first week right after giving birth that mother animal is immediately bred again and gets pregnant again. The chances of carrying the new fetus to full term is highly decreased and the chances of the mother remaining healthy and strong while feeding milk to the first baby and her body supporting the new fetus is also decreased. If the new baby survives through the pregnancy and goes full term instead of being born premature the chances of the new baby being defective are very high, and if it is born prematurely and survives the chances of it being very defective are astronomical. Plus the mother might suffer irrepairable damage or even die because of the trauma her body has just been put through.
> 
> Do you know of any responsible animal breeders who are good stewards of the animals in their care that would condone and take joy in such a heinous breeding practise?
> 
> ...


I have been breeding up a small herd of cattle for about 20 years and simply have not witnessed these "defects" you speak of. My calves bring top dollar on sale day, far better than they did when I began. 
Perhaps you have data that backs up your claims of runts and or increased incedents of birth defects in humans who give birth at ages 16 or 17?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been breeding up a small herd of cattle for about 20 years and simply have not witnessed these "defects" you speak of. My calves bring top dollar on sale day, far better than they did when I began.
> Perhaps you have data that backs up your claims of runts and or increased incedents of birth defects in humans who give birth at ages 16 or 17?


I have no way of knowing if your calves actually do bring top dollar or if this is just more boasting on your part. However, if you have been husbanding your cattle in the same poor manner as I described for the above noted animal (which was based on your account of your daughter's husbanding) and then say you have not witnessed defects in them then I believe you, and I believe you have not and will not ever see defects whether they're there or not. 

As to the rest of it, you clearly haven't paid attention to the historical accounts of the plights of young girls giving birth and them and their defective babies dying, and you haven't paid any attention to some of the posts here relating historical stories of the multiples of young wives and defective babies _per husband_ that have died because of their husband's poor husbandry and their own father's poor husbandry for putting them there.

Clearly in some cases not much has changed.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Well, here is a hard truth we've been dancing around:

Most religions, notably Christianity, forbid premarital sex. However ...

The average age at which an American teen loses his or her virginity is 17.

So conservative parents are in kind of a pickle. They're forced to either endorse early nuptials (despite the evidence that those who marry young are more likely to divorce) or accept the likelihood that their child will have sex outside of marriage. 

Further complicating matters, highly conservative/religious parents probably are not encouraging their unmarried children to be proactive about using birth control -- after all, fornication is a sin! -- so if those youngsters take the premarital plunge, they're probably less likely to be armed with contraceptives. 

In fact, a 2008 study that followed the sexual trajectory of some young people who had taken purity pledges found:


> Unmarried pledgers, however, were less likely than non-pledgers to use birth control (64 percent of pledge takers and 70 percent of non-pledge takers said they used it most of the time) or condoms (42 percent of pledge takers and 54 percent of non-pledge takers said they used them most of the time).
> ... Rosenbaum is concerned that abstinence-only sex education programs that promote virginity pledges may also promote a negative view of condoms and birth control. The result may be teens and young adults who are less likely than their peers to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.
> 
> 
> ... "Studies find that kids in abstinence-only programs have negative, biased views about whether condoms work," she says. Since such programs promote abstinence only they tend to give only the disadvantages of birth control, she says. Teens learn condoms don't protect you completely from human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes, which is true, but they may not realize that they protect against all the "fluid-based STDs," she says. "People end up thinking you may as well not bother using birth control or condoms."



http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I'm pretty darned conservative... but if I expect the best way to teach my children to be safe with firearms why would I not feel the same way about sex?

Education, teaching safety and teaching responsibility are hallmarks of a conservative libertarian. I think you are strictly speaking of the highly religious.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Well, yes -- it is the religious underpinnings that would make people feel that sex outside of marriage is such a big sin that it would be preferable to marry young, although statistics about young marriages are not encouraging, and women who marry and have children before developing any marketable skills may have a hard row to hoe later if the marriage fails.

I've actually heard speakers on conservative religious programs like "Focus on the Family" advocating marriage for young adults. :facepalm:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I have no way of knowing if your calves actually do bring top dollar or if this is just more boasting on your part. However, if you have been husbanding your cattle in the same poor manner as I described for the above noted animal (which was based on your account of your daughter's husbanding) and then say you have not witnessed defects in them then I believe you, and I believe you have not and will not ever see defects whether they're there or not.
> 
> As to the rest of it, you clearly haven't paid attention to the historical accounts of the plights of young girls giving birth and them and their defective babies dying, and you haven't paid any attention to some of the posts here relating historical stories of the multiples of young wives and defective babies _per husband_ that have died because of their husband's poor husbandry and their own father's poor husbandry for putting them there.
> 
> Clearly in some cases not much has changed.


It would appear that not only am I missing out on these birth defects.... professional cattle buyers seem to be overlooking them as well. perhaps you have a keener eye and can point them out to me?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Well, yes -- it is the religious underpinnings that would make people feel that sex outside of marriage is such a big sin that it would be preferable to marry young, although statistics about young marriages are not encouraging, and women who marry and have children before developing any marketable skills may have a hard row to hoe later if the marriage fails.
> 
> I've actually heard speakers on conservative religious programs like "Focus on the Family" advocating marriage for young adults. :facepalm:


Marriage period doesn't have good statistics. It's not marriage that's the problem its the throw away culture and the 'until love ends' kind of vows. That passionate and warm fuzzy feeling doesn't last forever and is not constant--- it's just there to get two people started. It's commitment that get's one through the low spots. 

It's a prozac nation and feminazi mentality that I personally blame for marriage statistics, regardless of age. People seem to think that if it's not a thorn-less bed of rose petals all the time then they need to 'stand up for themselves' and demonize then ditch whoever they are with. If you aren't a Soma addict who speaks in a calm soft voice all the time you are an insane person, if you drift into a doldrums you are clinically depressed and require drugs-- if you are anxious about anything you need drugs, if you aren't having sex with your partner like a goat in rutt, you need drugs because somehow a normal life is just unacceptable anymore.

It's ridiculous. And stating that young marriages are soooo doomed that no one should ever do it is just as ridiculous. Just think of how much damage you would be doing to a young couple simply by talking in the manner some people have here about the idea of marriage. You and people like you help to create those self fulfilling prophecies, wringing your hands and twirling your mustaches in the wings waiting to pop up with that ever so helpful, "I told you so!"

No thing worth doing is easy and no life worth living doesn't take risks.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Marriage period doesn't have good statistics. It's not marriage that's the problem its the throw away culture and the 'until love ends' kind of vows. That passionate and warm fuzzy feeling doesn't last forever and is not constant--- it's just there to get two people started. It's commitment that get's one through the low spots.
> 
> It's a prozac nation and feminazi mentality that I personally blame for marriage statistics, regardless of age. People seem to think that if it's not a thorn-less bed of rose petals all the time then they need to 'stand up for themselves' and demonize then ditch whoever they are with. If you aren't a Soma addict who speaks in a calm soft voice all the time you are an insane person, if you drift into a doldrums you are clinically depressed and require drugs-- if you are anxious about anything you need drugs, if you aren't having sex with your partner like a goat in rutt, you need drugs because somehow a normal life is just unacceptable anymore.
> 
> ...


Excuses, excuses and more excuses. Sharing and teaching people that there are known downfalls to getting married to early is not setting up self fulfilling prophecies. Just another excuse people that have failed like to trot out to justify their failures.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> You and people like you help to create those self fulfilling prophecies, wringing your hands and twirling your mustaches


My first wife (who I married when I was 25) used to twirl her mustache.... I just hated that!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Excuses, excuses and more excuses. Sharing and teaching people that there are known downfalls to getting married to early is not setting up self fulfilling prophecies. Just another excuse people that have failed like to trot out to justify their failures.


Whose failures? Yours? But I never expected anything from you.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> Marriage period doesn't have good statistics. It's not marriage that's the problem its the throw away culture and the 'until love ends' kind of vows. That passionate and warm fuzzy feeling doesn't last forever and is not constant--- it's just there to get two people started. It's commitment that get's one through the low spots.
> 
> It's a prozac nation and feminazi mentality that I personally blame for marriage statistics, regardless of age. People seem to think that if it's not a thorn-less bed of rose petals all the time then they need to 'stand up for themselves' and demonize then ditch whoever they are with. If you aren't a Soma addict who speaks in a calm soft voice all the time you are an insane person, if you drift into a doldrums you are clinically depressed and require drugs-- if you are anxious about anything you need drugs, if you aren't having sex with your partner like a goat in rutt, you need drugs because somehow a normal life is just unacceptable anymore.
> 
> ...


Quoted for Truth.

Nowadays, what with sitcoms and "reality" TV shows, their is a distorted view of what marriage is and means. According to (American) society: Couples who marry young are more likely to get divorced, it's acceptable for an older man to marry a younger woman but not the reverse, birth control is a non-issue because abortions are free and many others.

It's much "easier" for someone who is in a less then perfect relationship to just pack up and leave then try to work harder to make the relationship work for both parties. I understand that there are situations where moving on is the better option, but too many people nowadays throw away something that, with time and effort, can be an amazing thing.

Like someone starting a homestead and then moving back to the city or something because they didn't realize how much work it would be.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Excuses, excuses and more excuses. *Sharing and teaching people that there are known downfalls to getting married to early is not setting up self fulfilling prophecies.* Just another excuse people that have failed like to trot out to justify their failures.


This depends on where the couple is at emotionally and psychologically.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vash said:


> This depends on where the couple is at emotionally and psychologically.


If they can't process advice because of where they are emotionally and psychologically then getting married is not a very good choice in the first place.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> If they can't process advice because of where they are emotionally and psychologically then getting married is not a very good choice in the first place.


I am thinking this is true regardless of age.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> If they can't process advice because of where they are emotionally and psychologically then getting married is not a very good choice in the first place.


It also depends upon whether or not this 'sage' advice is given in a generally venomous manner or not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> It also depends upon whether or not this 'sage' advice is given in a generally venomous manner or not.


I am sorry that the people in your life offered advice in a generally venomous manner. Would you have considered it sage if they had offered it a different way?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I am sorry that the people in your life offered advice in a generally venomous manner. Would you have considered it sage if they had offered it a different way?


I'm not talking about myself.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> I'm not talking about myself.


Are you surprised that painterswife made this personal? :teehee:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Naw, not really... about par for this course, lol.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My first wife (who I married when I was 25) used to twirl her mustache.... I just hated that!


 ...........She must have had a large number of facelifts , that was a real 'Stretch' ! , lol , fordy


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been breeding up a small herd of cattle for about 20 years and simply have not witnessed these "defects" you speak of. My calves bring top dollar on sale day, far better than they did when I began.
> Perhaps you have data that backs up your claims of runts and or increased incedents of birth defects in humans who give birth at ages 16 or 17?


You've been breeding a small herd of cattle for 20 years! That's pushing the limits YH. To each his own I guess. :gaptooth:


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Putting aside sexual behaviour, incomplete development of bodies and brains and complete lack of experience in real life I think the question of financial capability is also a big part of the equation. 

A child has very little ability to earn. Comparing what a 16 or 18 year old can earn compared to what a 25 or 28 year old with an education can earn clearly shows that in this day and age young marriage and producing children at a young age leads to poverty for the young - unless they are dependent on family or the government. An 18 year old with no education cannot adequately support children - give them the daily needs and medical and dental care that they require or they have to depend on others to provide the funds to raise their children. 

Two children working together just might be able to make a minimum life for themselves and their kids. The common denominator when talking to children who married young is the poverty of their early life together.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

emdeengee said:


> Putting aside sexual behaviour, incomplete development of bodies and brains and complete lack of experience in real life I think the question of financial capability is also a big part of the equation.
> 
> A child has very little ability to earn. Comparing what a 16 or 18 year old can earn compared to what a 25 or 28 year old with an education can earn clearly shows that in this day and age young marriage and producing children at a young age leads to poverty for the young - unless they are dependent on family or the government. An 18 year old with no education cannot adequately support children - give them the daily needs and medical and dental care that they require or they have to depend on others to provide the funds to raise their children.
> 
> Two children working together just might be able to make a minimum life for themselves and their kids. The common denominator when talking to children who married young is the poverty of their early life together.


I have also found that the majority of people that I have known that marry early are trying to fill an emotional hole in their life. It is more often than not that they don't realize this until later in their lives when they have time to reflect.

Marriage being used as a tool to escape their home situation is also another situation I have noticed as well.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Already asked and answered.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> An 18 year old with no education cannot adequately support children - give them the daily needs and medical and dental care that they require or they have to depend on others to provide the funds to raise their children.


I'll tell my dad that, since he quit school in the 9th grade & married at 18. Raised 11 kids without any assistance from anyone. It can be done, it depends on the people doing it.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Never been reliant on my parents or the government as an adult, and earned between 80 and 120k a year in California. Married early, didn't finish a college degree until I was 'single' (one is never single when they have a child) again. Never used my college degree to earn much of a living either-- that is the one really wasted thing I did. Should have stuck to the Mathematics major or the Veterinary because changing my major to be 'marketable' on some advice was nothing but a waste of money and time.

Of course I made that much money based upon my ability to convince people to pay me good money doing things that should be utterly useless. I took expensive dogs on 'playdates' and did nothing but play with other people's pets all day... so silly rich housewives could watch soap operas or whatever else it is they do? Instead of care for their family animals.

It was fun until their husband's started going broke. Then in Georgia I started a company assisting the elderly and infirm (or the overworked) with shopping, cleaning and cooking. Handed my client list to one of my sisters that was recently divorced and jobless (and she waited until she was 27 to get married). Now she does that part time while going back to school and running a small town library branch.

When my husband's line of work dried up for a two year period I still cared for my family, earned enough to supplement his unemployment and get our property in GA started in renovations and fencing. I prefer he goes to work and I stay here and not work directly for other people though. Let's me waste an inordinate amount of time online.

I don't regret my earlier decision to give up going to college to care for my husband and his family and my son. I still plan to go back after the kids are grown and all but the last couple are out of the house.

Money is out there to be had, formal education or not, high IQ or not--- and really super lazy or not, you just have to go out and find it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bowdonkey said:


> You've been breeding a small herd of cattle for 20 years! That's pushing the limits YH. To each his own I guess. :gaptooth:


It does crowd the limits of feed production, but I soon learned those limits and maintain the herd size to fit the farm without buying extra feed. I started with four cows and a bull... had hay left over every year so expanded picking up 3 more. When a cow gets to be about 13 I save back a heifer to replace her with, the bull gets replaced about every 4 years. I currently have 5 cows, the herd bull (the great, great grandson of my original bull), and one heifer. I just sold last years calf crop at an average price of 155 live weight picked up at my farm. According to area livestock sales, that put me ahead of the game by approx 10 cents per pound. Buyers seem to like my calves.... birth defects and all.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It does crowd the limits of feed production, but I soon learned those limits and maintain the herd size to fit the farm without buying extra feed. I started with four cows and a bull... had hay left over every year so expanded picking up 3 more. When a cow gets to be about 13 I save back a heifer to replace her with, the bull gets replaced about every 4 years. I currently have 5 cows, the herd bull (the great, great grandson of my original bull), and one heifer. I just sold last years calf crop at an average price of 155 live weight picked up at my farm. According to area livestock sales, that put me ahead of the game by approx 10 cents per pound. Buyers seem to like my calves.... birth defects and all.


Oh, now I understand. Wow, I was really worried about your post. My bad. What was i thinking. I can't believe I went there.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Dutchie said:


> You are comparing apples and Chevrolets.
> 
> *Nobody* said 12 year olds should be having sex. The opinion of some is that girls should be ready for marriage as soon as they can have sex.
> 
> ...


 I think your misunderstanding the point I made with my kids, which was if your old enough to be out messing around having sex your old enough to marry that person.,,,in other words don't take sex lightly and be playing around. Not that they should be having sex and marrying at 12. That was PW statement.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> I think your misunderstanding the point I made with my kids, which was if your old enough to be out messing around having sex your old enough to marry that person.,,,in other words don't take sex lightly and be playing around. Not that they should be having sex and marrying at 12. That was PW statement.


*It was not my statement.* I asked you if as you say "if your old enough to be out messing around having sex your old enough to marry that person" that means you are fine if someone marries at 12 because they are having sex.

Your statement reads that you believe anyone having sex is old enough to get married. I know am reading from this post that you actually meant " You should not have sex until you are old enough to get married"

Two very different thoughts but you did not explain it well.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I agree. I can not think of any really good reason to. Some seem to want to use sex as that reason but then where does it stop? 12 years old, 10 years old? The minute you are able to have sex?





painterswife said:


> So you believe that if you are old enough to have sex then you are old enough to marry? What if your child had sex at 12?





painterswife said:


> I am asking a real question. If your child is old enough to have sex then according to you they are old enough to get married. I am sure that you worked hard to make sure they did not have sex at 12 but they are capable.
> 
> I am asking then if they are capable at 12 why is that different than 16 or 25 as an age that they could get married? Where do you draw the line and why? You have already ruled inbeing capable of having sex as a line.





dixiegal62 said:


> I never said I gave them that advice at 10-12 and younger which apparently is the age of sexual consent in PW's and your world. As for telling my kids if they where old enough to have sex they where old enough to get married, I'd say they where mature enough to understand that means sex is not to be taken lightly and with it came responsibility. Evidentially some adults in this thread can't grasp that. Believe it or not there are some people who still teach their kids that they shouldn't have sex until they are married, even in this 'everything goes' world.





painterswife said:


> *It was not my statement.* I asked you if as you say "if your old enough to be out messing around having sex your old enough to marry that person" that means you are fine if someone marries at 12 because they are having sex.
> 
> Your statement reads that you believe anyone having sex is old enough to get married. I know am reading from this post that you actually meant " You should not have sex until you are old enough to get married"
> 
> Two very different thoughts but you did not explain it well.


I explained what I meant several times already not about to do it again. I never brought 12 year olds into this discussion, you did repeatedly.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> I explained what I meant several times already not about to do it again. I never brought 12 year olds into this discussion, you did repeatedly.



I did bring in 12 year olds and asked for a clarification on your statement as did others. You are the one who stated old enough to have sex is old enough to get married, over and over.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I did bring in 12 year olds and asked for a clarification on your statement as did others. You are the one who stated old enough to have sex is old enough to get married, over and over.


You may want to re-read the order of the discussion...just sayin


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I did bring in 12 year olds and asked for a clarification on your statement as did others. You are the one who stated old enough to have sex is old enough to get married, over and over.


Your assertions are beneath the rest of this conversation because let's face it, technically a female can have intercourse when she is born as all the appropriate orifices exist. You are the one who keeps bringing in lower and lower ages when the discussion was about 15-16 year olds. Heck it seems by your reckoning many of the people on this board should never have been allowed to marry even though they were at an age of majority when they did it. Most of them seem to be doing just fine.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Marriage being used as a tool to escape their home situation is also another situation I have noticed as well.


And they often end up in a situation far worse than the one they left.

This is more common in girls; boys are more likely to join the military, or in past generations work for the railroad.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Your assertions are beneath the rest of this conversation because let's face it, technically a female can have intercourse when she is born as all the appropriate orifices exist. You are the one who keeps bringing in lower and lower ages when the discussion was about 15-16 year olds. Heck it seems by your reckoning many of the people on this board should never have been allowed to marry even though they were at an age of majority when they did it. Most of them seem to be doing just fine.


Thanks for making my point for me. Again I ask what age is alright then? When you are able to produce offspring?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Just out of curiosity - in America at what age does a kid have to be in order to legally marry without needing parental consent? Is it the same age nation-wide or does it vary from state to state?


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Just out of curiosity - in America at what age does a kid have to be in order to legally marry without needing parental consent? Is it the same age nation-wide or does it vary from state to state?


Differs by state. Some as low as 14.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Try reading the past answers to just that question. You really aren't trying very hard to keep up.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> Try reading the past answers to just that question. You really aren't trying very hard to keep up.


I haven't seen anyone else ask that particular question and I haven't seen any other posts that state what the legal age is for kids to marry without parental consent either. I have seen lots of people stating or asking for _opinions_ about what _they think should be_ old enough for kids to get married.

At what age does the law have to be consulted to gain either approval or denial by the law to parents who want to give their consent for their children to marriage? For example, if a parent wants to consent to their child marrying at age 9 or 10, will the laws refuse to let the parents give consent and will the laws refuse a marriage license to such young children?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Vash said:


> Differs by state. Some as low as 14.



What states allow a 14 year old to marry without parental consent?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I haven't seen anyone else ask that particular question and I haven't seen any other posts that state what the legal age is for kids to marry without parental consent either. I have seen lots of people stating or asking for _opinions_ about what _they think should be_ old enough for kids to get married.
> 
> At what age does the law have to be consulted to gain either approval or denial by the law to parents who want to give their consent for their children to marriage? For example, if a parent wants to consent to their child marrying at age 9 or 10, will the laws refuse to let the parents give consent and will the laws refuse a marriage license to such young children?


 
The laws for marriage with consent vary from state to state from 14 on up. I would imagine a simple google search would give you the answers you're looking for. If your state has the age of 15 for consent the it makes sense your parents can't give you consent at the age of 10.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

In Mississippi the law is 15 for a female and 17 for a male to marry without parental consent, but with no age limit for parental consent though a judge must also agree to it. 

Most (all?) other states have 18 as the age for no parental consent and the lowest age with parental consent appears to be 12 (Massachusetts). 

Many states allow for parental consent at ages younger than the general law in the case of pregnancy - I see no wording about the absolute minimum age on those.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Well, I did go look on internet. It was interesting. The marriage laws are all different for each state and territory. 

Most states marriage without parental consent is age 18 for both and in some states 17 for girls. It is age 21 in Peurto Rico. 

Underage, many states require not only parental consent but also a judicial court order has to be applied for. Some states also require marriage counselling and a waiting period before a license will be given, and some states require a medical examination to show proof of no venereal diseases in both applicants and no rubella in the female. There's a couple of states where marriage with parental consent and judicial court order are permitted at age 12 but only under extenuating circumstances. No child under the age of 12 is permitted to marry in any state. There are other sets of rules for couples that have already been living common-law or where a baby has already been born, and in some states common-law before marriage is not recognized or grounds for approving a marriage license.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage


----------



## That'll Do Pig (Jan 23, 2014)

Hopefully this will bring some of the "young people" haters down to earth...

I'm 24 and my wife is 26. We've both gone to college and my wife has an engineering degree. We rented a crummy apartment and worked while going to school. We both worked full time and bought a home two years ago. We have a 7 month old son. My wife quit her job because we could afford to and I work from home. Now we're building a sustainable homestead.

We're not all failures just so you know.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yeah, marriages used to last 50 years.
> Women used to suck it up when they got beat.
> Women used to suck it up when they were cheated on.
> Women used to hide sexual abuse.
> Women used to put on that happy face and felt 'lucky to have a man'.


Come on, most women didn't drink to cope with abuse or have husbands who cheated or sexually abused them. Both men and women tend to hide or even deny sexual abuse. I dare say men hide being abused than women do. 

It is no longer social suicide to have children outside of marriage or to divorce. People divorce because they are no longer "in love" instead of working on their marriages. Love is a decision, not an ooey gooey feeling. It is a commitment. 

In the past, people paid attention to the Biblical command against divorce and remarriage. There are only three reasons why Christians can Biblically remarry: death, desertion by an unbelieving spouse, and sexual immorality. Anymore, even Christians divorce and remarry without much thought. 

Saying all that, I wouldn't want my 15 year old to marry. She is nowhere ready to do so. Oh, if Phil really thought 15 year olds should marry one would expect him to encourage his granddaughters to get married and now!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There are only three reasons why Christians can Biblically remarry: death, desertion by an unbelieving spouse, and sexual immorality.


Ladies, take note! The fact that your husband beats you is NOT Biblical grounds for divorce. Ditto the fact that he's a drunk or drug addict.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

That'll Do Pig said:


> Hopefully this will bring some of the "young people" haters down to earth...
> 
> I'm 24 and my wife is 26. We've both gone to college and my wife has an engineering degree. We rented a crummy apartment and worked while going to school. We both worked full time and bought a home two years ago. We have a 7 month old son. My wife quit her job because we could afford to and I work from home. Now we're building a sustainable homestead.
> 
> We're not all failures just so you know.


You may not be failures but you aren't 15 years old either, you're both in your middle 20's.

I didn't see anyone posting in this topic coming across as "young people" haters.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Ladies, take note! The fact that your husband beats you is NOT Biblical grounds for divorce. Ditto the fact that he's a drunk or drug addict.


 
You can divorce but not remarry unless he commits adultery, and lets face it once you walk away from the marriage bed it's only a matter of time before he fills that space then you're free to remarry or not.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> You can divorce but not remarry unless he commits adultery, and lets face it once you walk away from the marriage bed it's only a matter of time before he fills that space then you're free to remarry or not.


I did not know that, not being a Christian. If the other half doesn't remarry do you have to be celebate, cause how do you know he is adulterous unless you witness it? Not trying to be picky just curious.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Ladies, take note! The fact that your husband beats you is NOT Biblical grounds for divorce. Ditto the fact that he's a drunk or drug addict.


He raises a hand to me divorce will be the least of his worrys!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

14 years old, dumber than a box of rocks, and hot to trot. That looks pretty good from out here in the bog.:gaptooth:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Ambereyes said:


> I did not know that, not being a Christian. If the other half doesn't remarry do you have to be celebate, cause how do you know he is adulterous unless you witness it? Not trying to be picky just curious.


 
Different Christians have differing beliefs just like everyone else. This just so happens to be my belief on the matter of having to stay married to an abusive spouse. I don't know any passage in the NT that states you have to stay in an abusive marriage, it does however say under what circumstances you can remarry. To me that is implying there are ways to leave an abusive marriage. I do feel that some things in the Bible are a matter of your personal conscience and are between you and God.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Different Christians have differing beliefs just like everyone else. This just so happens to be my belief on the matter of having to stay married to an abusive spouse. I don't know any passage in the NT that states you have to stay in an abusive marriage, it does however say under what circumstances you can remarry. To me that is implying there are ways to leave an abusive marriage. I do feel that some things in the Bible are a matter of your personal conscience and are between you and God.


Thanks for your answer.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Paumon said:


> You might as well ask how many sick and starving weaklings are there in those societies and why are they sick weaklings? It's because of lack of good breeding. A society that responsibly monitors the breeding of its children is a stronger and healthier society than the society that doesn't monitor and allows irresponsible and indiscrimate breeding of children to produce sick, weak mutts out of human puppy mills. We have good breeding programs and practises to ensure strong healthy livestock - why not have good, responsible breeding practises for humans?


Yeah, someone tried that before. His name was Hitler.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Ambereyes said:


> Thanks for your answer.


 

I should have been more clear in my original statement and started it with..my belief is


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Work horse said:


> Yeah, someone tried that before. His name was Hitler.


Are you being willfully dense for the sake of being contrary or do you truly not comprehend what I said? Hitler wanted to create a pure race, I never said anything about race or about people breeding to create a pure race. 

I'm talking about all people of all races exercising healthy breeding practises - being responsible about girls marrying at a mature enough age where they are physically healthy and developed enough to have healthy pregnancies and produce strong, healthy babies.

And in many cases it sure wouldn't hurt for people to be more responsible about the suitability and equality of who they are selecting for marriage whether it be for race, wealth, education, morals, physical capabilities. What would be the point of taking a promising young girl who is educated, healthy, intelligent, responsible and motivated and yoking her up with a penniless, irresponsible couch potato lout who comes from a chronically sick family of inbred mental deficients and is an ignorant drunkard that won't earn an honest living and beats his wife and children and keeps his wife perpetually pregnant?

Would you want your daughter marrying and producing sick babies fathered by someone like that?


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Who gets to decide suitability? That's the thing. 

I agree people should consider whether they themselves possess good genes to pass along -- but no one thinks twice about making babies, even when they have major health problems that run in their family, mental deficiencies, substance abuse issues, etc. Or at least, no one I've ever met.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Work horse said:


> Who gets to decide suitability? That's the thing.
> 
> I agree people should consider whether they themselves possess good genes to pass along -- but no one thinks twice about making babies, even when they have major health problems that run in their family, mental deficiencies, substance abuse issues, etc. Or at least, no one I've ever met.


If children are underage and will need parental consent to marry then it is the parents responsibility to decide about suitability and what's in the best interests for their children. That's part of what giving parental consent is supposed to be all about. If the kids are past the age of needing parental consent, well, love is often blind and many people do marry other people that are not suitable. One hopes that most young people have caring parents who raise their children wisely and help their children to know how to choose mates wisely.

I agree, people today don't think twice about making babies and passing on good or bad genes. But I think that if more people would take that into consideration and be more discriminating then our western society in general would be healthier in mind and body than what it is now.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Ok, gotcha. In Canada the age of consent is 16, which was up until recently, 14. So I hadn't factored into this discussion parental consent. Although at 15/16 I think I was perfectly capable of choosing my own mate, thankyouverymuch! 

My husband and I have been living together as man and wife since we were 18yrs old, although we waited until age 29 to actually tie the knot.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You can divorce but not remarry unless he commits adultery, and lets face it once you walk away from the marriage bed it's only a matter of time before he fills that space then you're free to remarry or not.


You are correct that you just need to hold out a bit longer than your estranged spouse -- then he becomes the adulterer and you receive a "Get Out Of Marriage Free" card!

I wonder how many good Christian wives simply withhold their favors in hopes that their husband eventually will go elsewhere and give them the justification they need for a divorce?

I've even heard callers to a Christian radio show ask whether their husband's penchant for pornography entitles them to a Biblical divorce that will allow them to try, try again. Some, it appears, already have a new partner in mind ...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Work horse said:


> Ok, gotcha. *In Canada the age of consent is 16, which was up until recently, 14.* So I hadn't factored into this discussion parental consent. Although at 15/16 I think I was perfectly capable of choosing my own mate, thankyouverymuch!
> 
> My husband and I have been living together as man and wife since we were 18yrs old, although we waited until age 29 to actually tie the knot.


I don't know what parts of Canada it might ever have been age 14 unless you're thinking of age of consent to sexual activity - the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 to 16 on May 1, 2008. Additionally, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person. 

In BC, age of consent to marry without parental consent has always been 19. In all other provinces but BC (19) and Quebec (16) it's required that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental consent.



> The provinces set additional rules governing who can get married.
> 
> In Alberta, anyone 18 or over can get married. A person between the ages of 16 and 17 can get married with the consent of both parents. No one under 16 can get married; this does not apply to a female if a physician's certificate shows she is pregnant or the mother of a living child. There is no requirement for residency.[3]
> In British Columbia, anyone 19 or over can get married. A person between the ages of 16 and 18 can get married with the consent of both parents. Under the age of 16, a person needs the consent of the Supreme or County Court. There is no requirement for residency.[4]
> ...


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Ladies, take note! The fact that your husband beats you is NOT Biblical grounds for divorce. Ditto the fact that he's a drunk or drug addict.





dixiegal62 said:


> You can divorce but not remarry unless he commits adultery, and lets face it once you walk away from the marriage bed it's only a matter of time before he fills that space then you're free to remarry or not.





willow_girl said:


> You are correct that you just need to hold out a bit longer than your estranged spouse -- then he becomes the adulterer and you receive a "Get Out Of Marriage Free" card!
> 
> I wonder how many good Christian wives simply withhold their favors in hopes that their husband eventually will go elsewhere and give them the justification they need for a divorce?
> 
> I've even heard callers to a Christian radio show ask whether their husband's penchant for pornography entitles them to a Biblical divorce that will allow them to try, try again. Some, it appears, already have a new partner in mind ...


Willow, there are three Biblical grounds for remarriage (death, infidelity and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse). It isn't God's best plan for us to divorce. Certainly, it is not in His best plan for us to sin by beating our spouses or do drugs. God doesn't want any of us to sin. I would hardly call infidelity a get out of marriage free card. I would call it a painful betrayal. 

Lots of people try to give themselves wiggle room that doesn't exist so they can get what they want. Would I want my husband to look at porn or even think about another woman? No! Neither constitutes the physical infidelity that allows for remarriage. 

There are lots of so-called good Christian women who are not true believers. Oh, it is sinful to withhold sex from one's spouse. 

Fact of the matter is that humans have a sinful nature and we all what we want when we want it.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Joshie said:


> Oh, it is sinful to withhold sex from one's spouse.


That's open to debate. There are certain instances where a person must withhold sex from a spouse to save their own life. In such cases it can't be a sin for a person to attribute more importance to their own life than to sexual duties to a spouse.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There are lots of so-called good Christian women who are not true believers.


If they weren't true believers, why would they be concerned about meeting the Biblical standard for a divorce?


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Paumon said:


> I don't know what parts of Canada it might ever have been age 14 unless you're thinking of age of consent to sexual activity - the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 to 16 on May 1, 2008. Additionally, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person.
> 
> In BC, age of consent to marry without parental consent has always been 19. In all other provinces but BC (19) and Quebec (16) it's required that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental consent.


Thank you for clearing that up for me... I misunderstood.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> If they weren't true believers, why would they be concerned about meeting the Biblical standard for a divorce?


Because any individuals standards are the only valid evidence of being a true believer. It's much easier to defend your religion as being the only one and true if you can use any behavior by others who claim the same religion as you as evidence that they're not really an part of your religion. You can lump all the bad behaviors by those of other religions together as evidence of how bad that religion is but still keep your own pure by denying the actions of those of your own faith.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If the kids are past the age of needing parental consent, well, love is often blind and many people do marry other people that are not suitable.


Hence the term, "starter marriage." ound:


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Paumon said:


> That's open to debate. There are certain instances where a person must withhold sex from a spouse to save their own life. In such cases it can't be a sin for a person to attribute more importance to their own life than to sexual duties to a spouse.


We are talking apples and oranges. 



willow_girl said:


> If they weren't true believers, why would they be concerned about meeting the Biblical standard for a divorce?


Honestly, I don't know. Maybe some people call themselves Christians because they think they should. Maybe people are trying to get what they want even if they know it is wrong. Hey, I know of a person who calls herself Christian but says she does not believe the Bible.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Ambereyes said:


> He raises a hand to me divorce will be the least of his worrys!


A man who raises a hand to his wife has to sleep sometime, doesn't he? And females don't fight for position, they fight for blood. Especially when they know their opponent outmatches them in strength. Women don't accept their position of power over men and it's a sorry thing.

No woman worth her salt doesn't know about poison or how to not help when her husband is in a precarious situation. Men who cross women are stupid.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

LMAO, now this is more like it! Did any of you ladies play hockey?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Hockey, field hockey, lacrosse, baseball, basketball, soccer, track and swimming. 

Sticks, bats, balls, dunking and holding my breath for long periods of time and being able to run you down either in a sprint or a marathon. If you messed with me - Who needed poison?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

No hockey Texas border rat here. Soccer, track, baseball and martial arts. But hockey looks like fun!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

It is fun. This is where we used to skate. Not us in the film
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwvfYmpYdaM[/ame]


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

emdeengee said:


> It is fun. This is where we used to skate. Not us in the film
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwvfYmpYdaM


Beautiful and it looks like a blast!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Clear ice like that is rare but even when it is just ordinary lake ice it is beautiful.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Joshie said:


> Oh, it is sinful to withhold sex from one's spouse.





Paumon said:


> That's open to debate. There are certain instances where a person must withhold sex from a spouse to save their own life. In such cases it can't be a sin for a person to attribute more importance to their own life than to sexual duties to a spouse.





Joshie said:


> We are talking apples and oranges.


Fruit is still fruit by any name or color. You're saying it's a sin to withhold sex from a spouse. What would you suggest in a situation like this? 

I had a client, a devout, lovely, healthy young woman who married at age 21. She had remained virgin until marriage and her husband had courted her for a full 2 years before they married. He had never asked for sex from her during their 2 year courtship. A year after they married she was desperately underweight, exhausted and ill and considering leaving the marriage. Her husband had been demanding and rutting on her very roughly 2 or 3 times a day every day and wouldn't ever take no for an answer under any circumstances. She had got to the point where she was making regular trips home to stay with her mother just to get away from his daily attentions. 

He said it was her duty to submit to him and that he had 'needs' that couldn't be denied. Funny how he was able to be civilized and court her for 2 years without having to have his 'needs' fulfilled then but as soon as he married her he turned into a rutting horny goat who wouldn't leave her alone and used her devotion to her religious beliefs as a sword over her head. He refused to go for counselling or consult with a physician.

How would you counsel a young woman who was being made ill like that from what amounted too much sex for her and practically verged on being rape? How would you counsel the husband? Who in the partnership is the most sinful? Hopefully you will realize that there's a big difference between animalistic rutting and making love.... one is oranges, the other is apples, but it's still fruit.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

That poor woman. To me that IS rape and psychological abuse. So many people give this a pass if it's within marriage or a relationship, but to me, sexual intercourse against a person's will IS RAPE.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Less-is-more said:


> That poor woman. To me that IS rape and psychological abuse. So many people give this a pass if it's within marriage or a relationship, but to me, sexual intercourse against a person's will IS RAPE.



Totally agree!! This is absolutely sick, who would raise there daughters without instilling in them their worth as human beings?

That "man" needs to spend sometime in a jail cell with a predator, learn how it feels.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I bet she wasn't a hockey player Paumon? Come on ladies, you're being a little tough on us guys.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Fruit is still fruit by any name or color. You're saying it's a sin to withhold sex from a spouse. What would you suggest in a situation like this?
> 
> I had a client, a devout, lovely, healthy young woman who married at age 21. She had remained virgin until marriage and her husband had courted her for a full 2 years before they married. He had never asked for sex from her during their 2 year courtship. A year after they married she was desperately underweight, exhausted and ill and considering leaving the marriage. Her husband had been demanding and rutting on her very roughly 2 or 3 times a day every day and wouldn't ever take no for an answer under any circumstances. She had got to the point where she was making regular trips home to stay with her mother just to get away from his daily attentions.
> 
> ...


Well obviously this man wasn't a Christian no matter what he called himself, or even a human for that matter. The Bible does say to for husbands and wives to give each other their due in a marriage..... what it doesn't say is under every circumstance, common sense has to be used.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> Well obviously this man wasn't a Christian no matter what he called himself, or even a human for that matter. The Bible does say to for husbands and wives to give each other their due in a marriage..... what it doesn't say is under every circumstance, common sense has to be used.


Evidently they had different versions of common sense!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> Evidently they had different versions of common sense!


In this day and age common sense is a rare commodity indeed. I would also include people who always find the worst example of a Christian and use to them to measure all Christain's by in the group lacking it. 

If I wanted to I could find the worst example in every group of people no matter what their belief. I know a person who calls himself and family homesteaders, they are dirty, lazy and thief's... I don't measure all homesteaders by them. I also have a nephew by marriage who turned out to be gay... he is a vial person, hateful as the day is long... I don't measure all gays by him. My step grandfather was an atheist, another nasty spirited person who lived his whole life making it his mission to be as cruel as he could to anyone who believed in God... should I judge all atheists by his actions?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> Come on ladies, you're being a little tough on us guys.


Absolutely not and a decent man would feel exactly the same about this sort of abuse.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> In this day and age common sense is a rare commodity indeed. I would also include people who always find the worst example of a Christian and use to them to measure all Christain's by in the group lacking it.
> 
> If I wanted to I could find the worst example in every group of people no matter what their belief. I know a person who calls himself and family homesteaders, they are dirty, lazy and thief's... I don't measure all homesteaders by them. I also have a nephew by marriage who turned out to be gay... he is a vial person, hateful as the day is long... I don't measure all gays by him. My step grandfather was an atheist, another nasty spirited person who lived his whole life making it his mission to be as cruel as he could to anyone who believed in God...
> should I judge all atheists by his actions?


I would hope not!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> Absolutely not and a decent man would feel exactly the same about this sort of abuse.


I swear you have a chip on your shoulder!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> Fruit is still fruit by any name or color. You're saying it's a sin to withhold sex from a spouse. What would you suggest in a situation like this?
> 
> I had a client, a devout, lovely, healthy young woman who married at age 21. She had remained virgin until marriage and her husband had courted her for a full 2 years before they married. He had never asked for sex from her during their 2 year courtship. A year after they married she was desperately underweight, exhausted and ill and considering leaving the marriage. Her husband had been demanding and rutting on her very roughly 2 or 3 times a day every day and wouldn't ever take no for an answer under any circumstances. She had got to the point where she was making regular trips home to stay with her mother just to get away from his daily attentions.
> 
> ...


Sounds as if he could be bi or gay, and using her as a dog would use a fire hydrant; as a place of relief of pressures.

I knew someone in a similar situation and that's pretty much how it turned out when all was known in the end.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> Clear ice like that is rare but even when it is just ordinary lake ice it is beautiful.


And rivers more rare, but a remote river frozen perfectly (which happens once every 10 years?) is an unforgettable skating experience. Gliding silently for miles, it's heaven on earth.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Ambereyes said:


> Totally agree!! This is absolutely sick, who would raise there daughters without instilling in them their worth as human beings?
> 
> That "man" needs to spend sometime in a jail cell with a predator, learn how it feels.





bowdonkey said:


> I bet she wasn't a hockey player Paumon? Come on ladies, you're being a little tough on us guys.





dixiegal62 said:


> Well obviously this man wasn't a Christian no matter what he called himself, or even a human for that matter. The Bible does say to for husbands and wives to give each other their due in a marriage..... what it doesn't say is under every circumstance, common sense has to be used.


Okay, before anyone else gets irate about the above noted story I want to address these comments and I'll start by saying that story did have a happy resolution for the young couple.

The young husband was a Christian, I won't say which one but they were members of one of the stricter denominations. He wasn't an inhuman beast either. He was in all other ways a good husband who treated his wife well. A good provider, had a good job, was well educated, responsible with his finances, respectful to his elders and family, was well liked and did volunteer work in their church. Except for the abusive bedroom activities he treated his wife like a princess. To see the couple together it was obvious he loved his wife and that she adored him and was devastated with the prospect of leaving the marriage. He didn't recognize that he had a problem and she had started off into the marriage thinking that this was normal behaviour for a newlywed husband and that his ardour for her would cool down after some passage of time. She didn't know any better and was ashamed to tell anyone what was happening, not even to tell her mother until several months had passed.

The reason their sex problem came to my attention is because she was desperate for some last resort measure and hopeful that I would have knowledge of herbs that she could introduce into his meals that would reduce his passions and his rough _urgency_. Instead, I took her to see her pastor and we sat down with him and had a good long talk. The pastor then intervened with the young husband and after some counselling came to the same conclusion that I had, that the husband actually had a medical problem, so the pastor MADE the husband go to see a physician. The young man was reluctant, and also feeling ashamed and angry with his wife, but he went to a physician. Long story short, they resolved the sexual problem through medical intervention and the pastor's counselling and that young couple is still together, happy, having a much more normal sex life and they now have 2 delightful children with a 3rd on the way.

Now the problem, and it's the reason why I brought that story up in the first place, is that sexual abuse within marriage of a husband holding religion as blackmail over an obedient wife's head _does_ happen more often than is realized by the general public. I know because I've had involvement as a women's advocate in shelters for battered women and I've seen it. So it annoys me when somebody says _"Oh, it's a SIN to withhold sex from a spouse"_ - to even say that is blackmail - because devout women who really believe that are the ones who are often the worst victims of sexual abuse from their husbands who believe the same thing. They feel degraded and ashamed, they don't dare tell anyone what's happening because they're convinced it's their wifely duty to submit to the husband and that to withhold makes them a sinner so they suffer in silent _'obedience' _and nobody else knows about it.

I say again, this kind of thing happens more often than people realize, so don't go trying to make other devout women feel guilty and ashamed by saying that it's a sin to withhold sex because you don't know what's happening in their bedrooms. And if you have young daughters that you're going to be sending off into marriage then do your proper parental duty by them. Don't tell them it's a sin to withhold sex and make sure they know exactly what constitutes sexual abuse and what doesn't because sometimes even husbands don't have common sense nor recognize when they're being sexually abusive because nobody told _them_ what is or isn't abusive.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> I swear you have a chip on your shoulder!


No chip. I however wonder why decent men include themselves (using the term "us" for instance) in a conversation concerning evil and depraved men and/or their behaviour? When a woman comments about "men" in this context why do you think we are being unfair to you and all men?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Okay, before anyone else gets irate about the above noted story I want to address these comments and I'll start by saying that story did have a happy resolution for the young couple.
> 
> The young husband was a Christian, I won't say which one but they were members of one of the stricter denominations. He wasn't an inhuman beast either. He was in all other ways a good husband who treated his wife well. A good provider, had a good job, was well educated, responsible with his finances, respectful to his elders and family, was well liked and did volunteer work in their church. Except for the abusive bedroom activities he treated his wife like a princess. To see the couple together it was obvious he loved his wife and that she adored him and was devastated with the prospect of leaving the marriage. He didn't recognize that he had a problem and she had started off into the marriage thinking that this was normal behaviour for a newlywed husband and that his ardour for her would cool down after some passage of time. She didn't know any better and was ashamed to tell anyone what was happening, not even to tell her mother until several months had passed.
> 
> ...


 
In one post you're painting the picture of a cruel man using his wife for only his pleasure with no concern for her happiness and well being then you post again defending his as a good husband and family man That's like saying except for a daily beating he treated his wife like a princess.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> In one post you're painting the picture of a cruel man using his wife for only his pleasure with no concern for her happiness and well being then you post again defending his as a good husband and family man :shrug:


Well that's your read on it, isn't it? He was both. Now go back and read both posts again and look at the questions I asked at the end of the first post. Did you answer the questions or did you jump to conclusions about sin with your response? There's always two sides to every marital sex abuse story and it's usually best to delve deeply to look at both sides of the story before passing judgement about what is or is not a sin in accordance with your religion. The young husband was suffering from a treatable medical condition called _hypersexuality_ but neither he nor his wife knew that until someone else who recognized the condition pointed it out to them and directed them to appropriate resources for counselling and treatment.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Well that's your read on it, isn't it? He was both. Now go back and read both posts again and look at the questions I asked at the end of the first post. Did you answer the questions or did you jump to conclusions about sin with your response? There's always two sides to every marital sex abuse story and it's usually best to delve deeply to look at both sides of the story before passing judgement about what is or is not a sin in accordance with your religion. The young husband was suffering from a treatable medical condition called _hypersexuality_ but neither he nor his wife knew that until someone else who recognized the condition pointed it out to them and directed them to appropriate resources for counselling and treatment.


First I never said withholding sex was a sin. Second you can't be both cruel to your spouse and a good spouse. I've already re-read the post and stand by my statements.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> First I never said withholding sex was a sin. Second you can't be both cruel to your spouse and a good spouse. I've already re-read the post and stand by my statements.


No, you didn't say whithholding was sin - someone else said that - but you did say something else about the husband.

I disagree with your conclusions that you can't be both cruel to your spouse and be a good spouse but that's okay, we can both agree to disagree. Sometimes cruelty happens inadvertently.

My own opinion is that the first year of their marriage need not have been so sexually miserable for both of them if neither one of them had been kept so abominably ignorant about their sexuality before entering into marriage and if they had not both been so fearful, superstitious and dogmatic about what constitutes a marital sin in their religion.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> No, you didn't say whithholding was sin - someone else said that - but you did say something else about the husband.
> 
> I disagree with your conclusions that you can't be both cruel to your spouse and be a good spouse but that's okay, we can both agree to disagree. Sometimes cruelty happens inadvertently.
> 
> My own opinion is that the first year of their marriage need not have been so sexually miserable for both of them if neither one of them had been kept so abominably ignorant about their sexuality before entering into marriage and if they had not both been so fearful, superstitious and dogmatic about what constitutes a marital sin in their religion.


 
You deliberately left out important information about this couple then got your knickers in a knot when people commented on half the story. Was he a good husband while abusing his wife...no. Can people change...yes. Is he a good husband now... only his wife and God know for sure. Would a rapist with this disorder that followed his urges still be a rapist.. you betcha.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> No chip. I however wonder why decent men include themselves (using the term "us" for instance) in a conversation concerning evil and depraved men and/or their behaviour? When a woman comments about "men" in this context why do you think we are being unfair to you and all men?


Probably because men is plural. And having known more than a few feminazis it usually ends with a bash on anything remotely connected to the male gender.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I disagree with your conclusions that you can't be both cruel to your spouse and be a good spouse but that's okay, we can both agree to disagree. Sometimes cruelty happens inadvertently.
> .


 
There is a HUGE difference in saying or doing something inadvertently to hurt your spouse than raping them. JMO of course.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wow - that story had an interesting twist to it.

Let me just say that if it were me, there would be no going back. I read things like that and feel there's a fine line between forgiveness/doormat. The fact that it happened over and over to her, and she still remained in the marriage....wow. And _"To see the couple together it was obvious he loved his wife" _ doesn't sit well with me. 

Love does not force sex when it's unwanted.


p.s. thanks for your work in women's shelters. I know they appreciate it. It's very eye opening to sit down with one of these women and hear their stories..gut wrenching. I'm thankful so many seek help but fear for every person who does, there's many more who are afraid to or tried.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> Wow - that story had an interesting twist to it.
> 
> Let me just say that if it were me, there would be no going back. I read things like that and feel there's a fine line between forgiveness/doormat. The fact that it happened over and over to her, and she still remained in the marriage....wow. And _"To see the couple together it was obvious he loved his wife" _doesn't sit well with me.
> 
> ...


I relate to what you say about the story having a twist to it, and about how love doesn't force sex where it's unwanted, and about there being a fine line between foregiveness/doormat. 

But here's the thing - that's easy for you and me to say we wouldn't put up with it because WE are not as ignorant as they were and we likely may not ever get into that kind of situation because of archaic ignorance or bad common sense. That young couple were both ignorant about a lot of things that they need not have been if not for their upbringing. About what is normal, healthy sexuality, about their religious fears and dogma, their marital responsibilities to each other, her fear of saying no because she loved him and didn't want to be a sinner, him not recognizing he had a medical condition and believing that what was happening with him was normal, etc. They both had 2 years of courtship and engagement period where all was well and very loving between them with no abuse happening because there was no sexual activity happening. I suspect if they'd had a much shorter engagement period she might have given up on him shortly into the marriage without trying a last resort to save the marriage after a year of doing her 'duty' and waiting for things to get better.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> Probably because men is plural. And having known more than a few feminazis it usually ends with a bash on anything remotely connected to the male gender.


Men is plural and is used to denote many men because many men are abusers. If you are not one then why lump yourself in with them? Why assume that you are lumped in with them?

Having known many, many (in fact several generations of) mascunazis I can absolutely state that the bashing that men have taken is nothing as compared to the bashing women have taken.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Paumon said:


> I relate to what you say about the story having a twist to it, and about how love doesn't force sex where it's unwanted, and about there being a fine line between foregiveness/doormat.
> 
> But here's the thing - that's easy for you and me to say we wouldn't put up with it because WE are not as ignorant as they were and we likely may not ever get into that kind of situation because of archaic ignorance or bad common sense. That young couple were both ignorant about a lot of things that they need not have been if not for their upbringing. About what is normal, healthy sexuality, about their religious fears and dogma, their marital responsibilities to each other, her fear of saying no because she loved him and didn't want to be a sinner, him not recognizing he had a medical condition and believing that what was happening with him was normal, etc. They both had 2 years of courtship and engagement period where all was well and very loving between them with no abuse happening because there was no sexual activity happening. I suspect if they'd had a much shorter engagement period she might have given up on him shortly into the marriage without trying a last resort to save the marriage after a year of doing her 'duty' and waiting for things to get better.


I'd say she was fortunate to find you. Someone who could step back and find a solution that met this woman's needs, not your own. Too many would have immediately jumped to their conclusions based on their own preconceptions and agendas and fought for a solution that would make themselves feel good regardless of how the two involved felt. Good for you for stepping back and looking at the whole picture.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I'd say she was fortunate to find you. Someone who could step back and find a solution that met this woman's needs, not your own. Too many would have immediately jumped to their conclusions based on their own preconceptions and agendas and fought for a solution that would make themselves feel good regardless of how the two involved felt. Good for you for stepping back and looking at the whole picture.


Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that.

Not so very long ago young women were told that when they married they made their bed and had to lie in it come what may (even when they didn't want to marry but had no choice but to do what their fathers decided for them) because first their father and then their husband is their head. Mothers only told their daughters the very bare basics about marital duties (if at all) instructed their daughters to expect to be mistreated, never say no because it was a sin, to do their duty and produce lots of babies so they'd be kept sheltered and fed. That was their role. In the past 70 years that attitude has been changing dramatically but it still pops up in some places where people think a girl doesn't need to be educated and only needs to marry early and have babies for the man who keeps her.

Hypersexuality is a common ailment that has always been known about but until recent years it's never been treated as a medical condition, it's been treated as a shameful sin or a type of insanity. It can happen with both boys and girls. 

In boys it was called satyrism and in girls it was called nymphomania. With both boys and girls it most often presents in early stages as obsessive excessive masturbation and there is a dreadful urgency to it. Nobody wanted to talk about it, if it was happening with a family member a blind eye was turned and people pretended it wasn't happening. 

Boys might be encouraged to sow their wild oats to "get it out of their system" until they could marry but otherwise it was ignored and their fathers never counselled them - and then after marriage - well nobody else cared what happened to the bride because she was there to do her duty and fulfill his sexual needs. If the man didn't marry he usually turned to a life of sexual deviancy but he could survive on his own.

If girls were stricken with the condition their lot in life wasn't as easy as for boys. They were unacceptable, called sinful nymphomaniacs, whores or harlots, most often were shunned and cast out of their family home at an early age to fend for themselves or else sold into servitude or prostitution. They were unmarriageable because good God-fearing girls were not supposed to be interested in frequent sexual activity and so they had two choices if left to fend for themselves - they could become some married man's kept mistress on the side or choose a life of brutal prostitution, disease and a very early death.

Now hypersexuality is better understood as a medical condition and not a sin or insanity and in most cases it is easily medically treatable if it is recognized by parents who will seek proper medical attention for their children rather than turn a blind eye.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I wonder how Muslim men treat their wives and why is it that it seems it's always a Christian that is doing wrong in the minds of liberals? I guess it's Christianphobia! !! :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bowdonkey said:


> I bet she wasn't a hockey player Paumon? Come on ladies, you're being a little tough on us guys.





emdeengee said:


> Absolutely not and a decent man would feel exactly the same about this sort of abuse.


Ummmmm yeah, I have noticed a pretty tough stand by the ladies toward men in general throughout the course of this thread as well as several others in the past. I can honestly say having been married three times and having various other relationships over the years that having sex two or three times a day (if not before breakfast) is neither abnormal nor abusive during the first few years of a relationship. At least that's been my experience.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmmm yeah, I have noticed a pretty tough stand by the ladies toward men in general throughout the course of this thread as well as several others in the past. I can honestly say having been married three times and having various other relationships over the years that having sex two or three times a day (if not before breakfast) is neither abnormal nor abusive during the first few years of a relationship. At least that's been my experience.


 
Almost lost my coffee this morning reading this one....:thumb: not if the husband knows what he's doing, evidentially the man in the story was so bad at it his wife had to run for help!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmmm yeah, I have noticed a pretty tough stand by the ladies toward men in general throughout the course of this thread as well as several others in the past. I can honestly say having been married three times and having various other relationships over the years that having sex two or three times a day (if not before breakfast) is neither abnormal nor abusive during the first few years of a relationship. At least that's been my experience.


I totally agree. Back in my day of mindless animalistic rutting the ladies I dated went by that old maxim" a hard man is good to find". Of course there were the prudes and you gave them a wide berth. At least an arms length if they were hockey players.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

bowdonkey said:


> I totally agree. Back in my day of mindless animalistic rutting the ladies I dated went by that old maxim" a hard man is good to find". Of course there were the prudes and you gave them a wide berth. At least an arms length if they were hockey players.


You'd better have made it a stick's length.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

YH - how do you get anything done?? LOL. Maybe you multitask.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Less-is-more said:


> YH - how do you get anything done?? LOL. Maybe you multitask.


Organization and focus.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmmm yeah, I have noticed a pretty tough stand by the ladies toward men in general throughout the course of this thread as well as several others in the past. I can honestly say having been married three times and having various other relationships over the years that having sex two or three times a day (if not before breakfast) is neither abnormal nor abusive during the first few years of a relationship. At least that's been my experience.


 
If both parties are willing participants. If one party is being influenced, coerced, blackmailed, pressured or threatened then that is not normal. That is NOT a relationship. And this is not just about men. There are women who require much more then their husbands are capable of or willing to give and they also use and abuse.

There are several subjects running through this thread. The tough stands are justified for some of the subjects.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> I totally agree. Back in my day of mindless animalistic rutting the ladies I dated went by that old maxim" a hard man is good to find". Of course there were the prudes and you gave them a wide berth. At least an arms length if they were hockey players.


 
It isn't that a hard man is good to find. In fact the odds are good. The problem is that the goods are odd.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Less-is-more said:


> YH - how do you get anything done?? LOL. Maybe you multitask.


Quantity is not all it is cracked up to be. Many men can be done in 30 seconds so it barely interrupts their day. On the other hand attention to detail takes time.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> It isn't that a hard man is good to find. In fact the odds are good. The problem is that the goods are odd.


Well maybe todays maxim should be "An odd man is hard to find"? Or "an odd man is good to find"? Or " a good hard man is odd to find"? I don't know, there's no pleasing them, so why try? Baby, it's my way or the highway!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> Well maybe todays maxim should be "An odd man is hard to find"? Or "an odd man is good to find"? Or *" a good hard man is odd to find"?* I don't know, there's no pleasing them, so why try? Baby, it's my way or the highway!


I'll agree with that. They are rare birds.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Told DH it maybe time I put my hockey stick up, :indif: seems I may not be a good girl.. After I explained and he quit laughing, he asked me to promise him I would never do that. His reason if something happened to him he knew I would take care of myself. But he is a strong man, a good man and he knows me and my experiences. 

There are great men in this world and I have been beyond privileged to be married to two of them. The first I lost to a car accident and this one I plan on keeping as long as possible.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Sorry about your first husband. I'm glad you were able to find love again.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmmm yeah, I have noticed a pretty tough stand by the ladies toward men in general throughout the course of this thread as well as several others in the past. I can honestly say having been married three times and having various other relationships over the years that having sex two or three times a day (if not before breakfast) is neither abnormal nor abusive during the first few years of a relationship. At least that's been my experience.


Has it ever occurred to you that maybe all that every day sexual hyperactivity going on for a few years in each one of those many past relationships is the reason why you had so many failed relationships and why you're so physically burned out now before your time? As noted below from the "Shadow of myself" topic. Just a thought. :shrug:



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its not easy to accept that you simply cant do the everyday things you used to take for granted. .......


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe all that every day sexual hyperactivity going on for a few years in each one of those many past relationships is the reason why you had so many failed relationships and why you're so physically burned out now before your time? As noted below from the "Shadow of myself" topic. Just a thought. :shrug:


2 or 3 times before breakfast is not hyperactivity! That's just getting the pump primed.:gaptooth:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

bowdonkey said:


> 2 or 3 times before breakfast is not hyperactivity! That's just getting the pump primed.:gaptooth:


...deleted.. thought better of it.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Less-is-more said:


> ...deleted.. thought better of it.


I was thinking that this reminds me of a puppy and a table leg.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

:heh: :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe all that every day sexual hyperactivity going on for a few years in each one of those many past relationships is the reason why you had so many failed relationships and why you're so physically burned out now before your time? As noted below from the "Shadow of myself" topic. Just a thought. :shrug:


Nope, my relationships that failed had nothing to do with having a healthy sex life. They failed due to several other factors. Usually manipulative control tactics along with deception and outright lies. My health issues stem from injuries and other nonsexual abuses to my body... smoking drinking poor diet etc.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> ...deleted.. thought better of it.


You can always PM me!:grin:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Let's just say it had something to do with the praying mantis mating ritual.

*leaves thread now* :whistlin:


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> Let's just say it had something to do with the praying mantis mating ritual.
> 
> *leaves thread now* :whistlin:


LMAO, that made my day. That was so good we would allow you admission to our ice house.


----------

