[AlphaSigma]

Lots of good discussion.
I've really enjoyed all that you guys have shared. I want to raise a general question:

In our day, age, and culture (Western society) generally is better to wait for a later marriage (after 28) or get married sooner (21 or younger) given all the factors to consider?

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

In our day, age, and culture (Western society) generally is better to wait for a later marriage (after 28) or get married sooner (21 or younger) given all the factors to consider?

IMO, it's entirely dependent on the people and circumstances involved. I don't see much sense in trying to generalize.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

IMO, it's entirely dependent on the people and circumstances involved. I don't see much sense in trying to generalize.

Agreed. Some people are mature enough by 17 or 18, whereas others are immature at 67. I would say much younger than 18 you really are starting to see a point that is almost universally too young though.

[Nomes]

Hello girls and boys,

Epaphras, thanks for posting that. It was an extremely well thought out and well written article. I agreed with a great deal of it.

In general I feel more time should be committed to discussing these issues to see what we encourage and discourage and how the church approaches the issues of sex and marriage.

In my own life, I feel like I was totally screwed up by the way sex and marriage was presented to me. It was a combination of "of course you won't have sex until you're married" from my parents, "Don't have sex, OK, it's bad" from church, "it's worth the wait" from church, "sex is about the other person, don't think of yourself, that's selfish" implied from church, "yay! let's have sex" from society. I've been married for 3 years and there is still baggage from that left over which I still need to work through.

As for getting married young - I'm not against it. I got married 2 weeks after I turned 22. I wouldn't call that early, but.. I still had/have a lot of maturing to do. And it has been hard to do with someone else to consider. But I think it's been a very enriching experience. We're living by the "I decide what my marriage looks like, and I decide what being a grown up means in our situation". It's great fun to build together and argue and realign and philosophise over what our marriage is and how it works.

[Nomes]

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

Lots of good discussion.
I've really enjoyed all that you guys have shared. I want to raise a general question:

In our day, age, and culture (Western society) generally is better to wait for a later marriage (after 28) or get married sooner (21 or younger) given all the factors to consider?

I don't think there is a norm. Everyone is different. But I definately don't believe marriage should be discouraged when you're young just because you're young. There are plenty of other reasons it might be discouraged, but just youth alone is not a decent reason.

Originally Posted by Skeeter

Interesting. I had a conversation with some friends of mine based around the idea that the church overemphasises early marriage; maybe that's a local issue rather than a national one.

My experience of the church in Australia has been that they don't encourage young marriages. They seem to emphasise marrying "the right one" or "the one", which I think is just rubbish.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Nomes

I don't think there is a norm. Everyone is different. But I definately don't believe marriage should be discouraged when you're young just because you're young. There are plenty of other reasons it might be discouraged, but just youth alone is not a decent reason.

If I can take this off on a tiny tangent, could you expound on that? Not for argumentation purposes --- I'm actually interested.

[tlj009]

Does anyone want to address sexual peaks? I mean if women don't truly hit their sexual peak until their early 30's, then it makes sense that people would be getting married later and later since the women's rights movement.

[Kentl]

[QUOTE=tlj009;3444452]Does anyone want to address sexual peaks? I mean if women don't truly hit their sexual peak until their early 30's, then it makes sense that people would be getting married later and later since the women's rights movement.[/QUOTE]

why? you act like women don’t want to get married

[tlj009]

why? you act like women don’t want to get married

It gets a little more complicated than that. That is why I left it at what I did. It would take a considerable discussion about the effects of sexual peaks on marriage.

For example, the argument was made in the first post "it really is unreasonable to expect someone to wait for sex until age 28. Honestly.". Well, men reach their sexual peak between 18 and 22, which would mean that their strongest temptations regarding sex would begin around 18. By the time a man reaches 28, he is on the downhill slope. So by asking men to remain celibate until 28, they are asking us to remain celibate throughout the time when sexual temptation is at its peak.

Women on the other hand would reach their sexual peak around 30. Right around the same time that we are supporting marriage.

Now with the women's rights movement, women became far more independent. They have careers, etc. There is desire for companionship, sex, family, etc. but why not wait? There will be time for that later. Yes, there are more pressures involved and it gets more complicated. But the point is that all other things being equal, women don't have the incentive that men do to find some sexual relief. And the only valid recourse according to the Church is to get married.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by tlj009

It gets a little more complicated than that. That is why I left it at what I did. It would take a considerable discussion about the effects of sexual peaks on marriage.

For example, the argument was made in the first post "it really is unreasonable to expect someone to wait for sex until age 28. Honestly.". Well, men reach their sexual peak between 18 and 22, which would mean that their strongest temptations regarding sex would begin around 18. By the time a man reaches 28, he is on the downhill slope. So by asking men to remain celibate until 28, they are asking us to remain celibate throughout the time when sexual temptation is at its peak.

Women on the other hand would reach their sexual peak around 30. Right around the same time that we are supporting marriage.

Now with the women's rights movement, women became far more independent. They have careers, etc. There is desire for companionship, sex, family, etc. but why not wait? There will be time for that later. Yes, there are more pressures involved and it gets more complicated. But the point is that all other things being equal, women don't have the incentive that men do to find some sexual relief. And the only valid recourse according to the Church is to get married.

My original comment about it being 'unreasonable' (poor choice of words, I admit) was more along the lines of a couple who met and started dating in college, but didn't marry through grad school and mid-20s, waiting for whatever until they were "ready". For a couple like that, how can they date for 6-8 years living independently (or together...) and remain chaste? I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but how many couples do you know have waited 8 years during their 20s to have sex?

The comments on the article on the Christianity Today website are interesting. There are a surprising number of people who post as parents of late teens and early 20s kids who are dating or whatever, and they say they'd rather have them have protected, monogomous premarital sex rather than marry too soon, especially in today's economy where you need (according to them) to get established in a career before getting married. Basically they are coming down hard against marrying early primarily for sexual reasons. Other people harp on them for condoning sin, but it points out the fact that it's a real dilemma. In a way it points out what the author of the article was getting at: we as a church know how to deal with premarital sex; what we don't know how to do (or have neglected to address) is how to address the changing values and attitudes surrounding marriage in the culture today. Premarital sex is more or less set-in-stone, but the other issues of being financially stable enough to join homes and potentially start a family right away, or the maturity issues, etc. are definitely more vague in scripture and thus more open to interpretation, which means a less coherent voice in the church siding either way. In the meantime young adults are left with no input and no mentors in this area and are essentially on their own or subject to their parents' restrictions.

[tlj009]

My original comment about it being 'unreasonable' (poor choice of words, I admit) was more along the lines of a couple who met and started dating in college, but didn't marry through grad school and mid-20s, waiting for whatever until they were "ready". For a couple like that, how can they date for 6-8 years living independently (or together...) and remain chaste? I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but how many couples do you know have waited 8 years during their 20s to have sex?

During which time the man is in his sexual peak and the woman is not. At that age, I have to say that it is usually the woman who regulates sex. Most men are going to give in if the woman does. The temptations are extremely high. But that doesn't mean that the woman doesn't have any pressure because she certainly does but her pressures are less than they have been in the past before women were as independent as they are today. I am just saying that sexual peaks probably should weigh into the discussion.

The comments on the article on the Christianity Today website are interesting. There are a surprising number of people who post as parents of late teens and early 20s kids who are dating or whatever, and they say they'd rather have them have protected, monogomous premarital sex rather than marry too soon, especially in today's economy where you need (according to them) to get established in a career before getting married. Basically they are coming down hard against marrying early primarily for sexual reasons. Other people harp on them for condoning sin, but it points out the fact that it's a real dilemma. In a way it points out what the author of the article was getting at: we as a church know how to deal with premarital sex; what we don't know how to do (or have neglected to address) is how to address the changing values and attitudes surrounding marriage in the culture today. Premarital sex is more or less set-in-stone, but the other issues of being financially stable enough to join homes and potentially start a family right away, or the maturity issues, etc. are definitely more vague in scripture and thus more open to interpretation, which means a less coherent voice in the church siding either way. In the meantime young adults are left with no input and no mentors in this area and are essentially on their own or subject to their parents' restrictions.

That is just pointing out that we change the rules to meet our wants. Financial stability, for example, is addressed in scripture. We just don't like the answer. The answer is that we shouldn't worry about what to wear, where we live, etc. We should depend on God to supply our needs. But our wants are for our family to have the best. The problem is that the Church tries to fulfill the values of the secular world while also trying to maintain Christian values. This creates a conflict and results in postponing marriage (and sex), thereby fulfilling Christian values, until you have achieved expectations of the secular world such as financial stability.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

During which time the man is in his sexual peak and the woman is not. At that age, I have to say that it is usually the woman who regulates sex. Most men are going to give in if the woman does.

My dating experience, and the experience of working with youth, tells me that this is frankly untrue. Guys say no to willing girls frequently. It is going to be both.

I really find this sort of thing rather offensive because I mentor a few boys in this situation saying no.

The temptations are extremely high. But that doesn't mean that the woman doesn't have any pressure because she certainly does but her pressures are less than they have been in the past before women were as independent as they are today. I am just saying that sexual peaks probably should weigh into the discussion.

Peaks are peaks, but you are assuming women ain't horny before 30 in your assesment. If I could, I would let you try to deal with containment of some of the girls in the youth group I work in. Predatory does not begin to cover it.

A peak is a peak, but even then, whose would you suggest was proper to marry at?

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by Billgamesh

Peaks are peaks, but you are assuming women ain't horny before 30 in your assesment. If I could, I would let you try to deal with containment of some of the girls in the youth group I work in. Predatory does not begin to cover it.

Yeah tlj009, you are talking about the difference between 90% sexual peak and 100%. It's negligible. The man goes from 100% to 90% from age 20 to 30, and the woman goes from 90% to 100% from 20 to 30. But they are both raging horn-dogs during the 20s, pardon my frankness.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The problem is that the Church tries to fulfill the values of the secular world while also trying to maintain Christian values. This creates a conflict and results in postponing marriage (and sex), thereby fulfilling Christian values, until you have achieved expectations of the secular world such as financial stability.

This is an excellent point, well-stated.

My parents' argument (and many like them) to the "Let God provide" argument is, what if God's provision for your family is for the breadwinner to pursue an education and secure a job with benefits and high enough pay to provide for the family? In other words, that is no less miraculous provision than an anonymous envelope for the exact amount of rent on your doorstep. And in today's economy, a job with high pay and benefits might be even more miraculous than ever before .

[tlj009]

My dating experience, and the experience of working with youth, tells me that this is frankly untrue. Guys say no to willing girls frequently. It is going to be both.

I really find this sort of thing rather offensive because I mentor a few boys in this situation saying no.

Yes. And I said no when I was younger too. But I am talking about a constant temptation for several years, instead of individual instances. But I am a long way from being an expert, so if you say that I am wrong, then so be it.

Peaks are peaks, but you are assuming women ain't horny before 30 in your assesment. If I could, I would let you try to deal with containment of some of the girls in the youth group I work in. Predatory does not begin to cover it.

I am not assuming that women "ain't horny before 30". I am assuming that level of horny isn't constant for several years in a row. Also, I would suggest that other issues factor in to a girls predatory behavior other than just sexual desire.

A peak is a peak, but even then, whose would you suggest was proper to marry at?

I wasn't really suggesting which would be proper to marry at. I was suggesting one possible reason for why the age that people get married at is getting pushed back. It really has more to do with the secular society but that in turn affects the Church since we are living in it.