

The Case for Getting Married Young - saadmalik01
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/the-case-for-getting-married-young/274293/?fb_action_ids=4669171372783%2C4669168452710&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%224669171372783%22%3A176873405796530%2C%224669168452710%22%3A345768852189906%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224669171372783%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%2C%224669168452710%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

======
simonsarris
Color me unconvinced of marriage per se.

Literally zero of the things in the author's marriage are necessarily
attributable to the marriage itself, or necessarily consequences of marriage
for that matter.

And never mind co-habitating, all of the transformative stuff could have
happened regardless while simply living with an upbeat roommate.

"The case for living with or near positive people that share similar ideals"
probably wouldn't get as many eyeballs, but it would be more to-the-point and
true, I think.

Maybe I should write that article anyway. I've had roommates literally my
entire life, sharing a room with my brother until college, then dorming with
one guy, then seven people, then two guys, then three girls, and now that I've
graduated I live in a huge victorian-era house and rent to three friends (my
"rent" therefore is free, sans house upkeep). I've been fortunate enough to
never have a bad roommate, and communal living can be a lot of fun,
significant other or not.

I think living and working alongside loving and caring people is great, but I
think restricting it to marriage is maybe a tad myopic. I love all micro-
societies and think they have very similar values.

~~~
fusiongyro
From the article: "...[A]mong the women that report being "highly satisfied"
with their lives, 29 percent are cohabitating, 33 percent are single, and 47
percent are married."

That would seem to suggest that "upbeat roommates" are, on average, worse for
women than singledom or marriage, no? Your personal experience
notwithstanding, the statistics (at least for this claim) are on the side of
the article.

~~~
perokreco
No it wouldn't. This statistic is highly misleading and the article author is
basically lying by putting it in the article. If there are twice as many women
who are married than there are those who are cohabitating then cohabitating is
on average better than marriage.

~~~
fusiongyro
I'm guessing she took that from this graphic:

[http://twentysomethingmarriage.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/0...](http://twentysomethingmarriage.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Figure13A1-532x1024.png)

Note that 33 + 29 + 47 = 109, not 100. Her wording makes it sound like they
computed from one pool of "very satisfied" people the amount that were single,
cohabitating and married, but the numbers in the infographic don't support
that interpretation. It looks like instead they separated the groups by gender
and status, and then tallied up the number that said they were "very
satisfied" which I don't think is vulnerable to your rebuttal.

------
purplelobster
You don't have to be married to be in a committed relationship. A large
percent of couples (> 30%) in Scandinavian countries for example never enter
into a marriage, or people might marry 5, 6, 7, 8 years after they're first
together. In that sense the marriage is a capstone, but there is no difference
between that couple and a couple that got married right away and have been
together for 8 years.

~~~
refurb
_In that sense the marriage is a capstone, but there is no difference between
that couple and a couple that got married right away and have been together
for 8 years._

I always laugh when I hear this. People also say "Marriage is just a piece of
paper."

My answer is "tell that to judge when you want to get out of a marriage."

Does a marriage certificate make your relationship more serious? No. Are you
entering into a legal contract when you get married? Yes.

~~~
purplelobster
Does that legal contract affect your happiness? In general, no. If your
culture tells you so, perhaps.

------
drcube
I got married at 18. I joined the Army, did two tours in Iraq, came back home,
went to college and got a job as an engineer. I couldn't have done any of that
without my wife.

I hesitate to generalize, but in my particular case getting married early was
a great decision.

~~~
nawitus
Note that you can't really say with certainty you couldn't have that without
marriage (as you can have a relationship with someone without marrying her).
In addition, there's also many single men who've done the same without
marriage.

------
callmevlad
In my family's culture (Russian Protestant), getting married early is not only
common, but expected. My wife and I got married when I was 24, which was
almost shocking in a community where the average was around 20. I've had many
awkward conversation (of the "I will pray for you" type) with my grandmother,
who sincerely believed I was making a huge mistake by choosing school instead
of marriage.

Personally, I feel like I got married at the perfect time in my life (I was
done with school, had a great job lined up, etc), and have never regretted
that decision. My wife helped me re-focus on the important things, and
inspired me to pursue my dream of starting a company.

However, the majority of my Russian friends who were married in their very
early 20s have seemingly stagnated in their professional (and even personal)
pursuits. Most were married either before or during college, and have either
dropped out or are pursuing their education on a very limited part-time basis.

My experience is completely anecdotal, but it seems like getting married early
(18-21) has significant drawbacks. Perhaps the sweet spot is somewhere between
there and the current late-20s average.

~~~
inafield
In 2009, my Great-Opa (1907-2010) asked me why it took my (then girlfriend)
and I so long to decide to date and consider marriage, having met online 8
years prior and only 6mo earlier decided to start long distance dating. He met
his first wife in his village around the age of 20 and was married 5 weeks
later. And at his "advanced age" at the time, the village had been concerned
he and his wife weren't going to find anyone to marry. She was 16 or 17 at the
time.

Even at his advanced age, he had a great sense of humor. As we were leaving,
he pulled my girlfriend aside and said with a twinkle in his eye, "Next time
you come back, bring your husband!"

------
smoyer
I'm yet another example of a successful early marriage (I was 22 and she was
19). She finished her undergrad and masters degrees after we married and we
also started "with nothing but each other". After 30 years, I still can't
imagine being with anyone else ... it makes life so much better if you have
someone to share your happiness with - and if there are two of you to tackle
life's problems together.

~~~
Axsuul
Does your wife know that you still __can __imagine being with someone else?

~~~
smoyer
No ... it's a very well-kept secret. One that I apparently kept even from
myself, but couldn't be repressed from my right pinkie and left pointer
fingers.

(sorry dear)

------
troebr
Causality dilemma? People who get married young are different from those
getting married later. The age at which people get married is more a
reflection of a life style, than what drives a particular life style; which is
what this article suggests.

~~~
jessriedel
Here's libertarian economist Bryan Caplan on the difficulty in disputing the
causal relationship between marriage and success.

[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume.html)

He doesn't talk about the timing per se, but I think a lot of the same
arguments apply. Certainty, if you believe that marriage causes success, it's
not that great a leap to think that earlier marriage causes more success
earlier (with the obvious caveats about getting married when you're 12.)

------
wmeredith
It's a hell of an argument and it matches my own personal experience of
getting married at 23 when I we had nothing and built two successful careers
before moving on to parenthood (our daughter is two).

No stats or anything, though. I'd like to see some well structured research on
this, as marriage itself is a fascinating part of our human culture.

------
kscaldef
"Unmarried twenty-somethings are more likely to be depressed, drink
excessively, and report lower levels of satisfaction than their married
counterparts"

Let's all say it together: Correlation is not causation.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Do you have a hypothesis why "happiness" would correlate with marriage without
their being any causative relationship?

Correlation does suggest causation though. Isn't it generally sound to assume
causation until the position can be falsified?

~~~
Contero
The causation could easily be backwards. Who wants to marry a depressed,
unsatisfied drinker?

> Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be
> falsified?

Not really, no. Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption
typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? There
are many similarly insane correlations that you wouldn't be so quick to assume
causation about. It's biased to assume causation (based solely on statistics)
when you want it to make intuitive sense.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically
> increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall?_ //

I can't really conjure an imaginary causation because for your imagined one
[?] I'm not sure what your claim is - do you mean 30% more breakfast cereal is
_eaten_ (as opposed to purchased) on the Tuesday following heavy rain, in all
areas (globally??). If it were a local statistic to the USA then one could
argue that when the weather is bad people stay in at the weekends and drink
more, then they miss breakfast on a Monday because they're hungover, then on
Tuesday they resolve to better health and so eat breakfast cereals, they of
course give up on Wednesday on the whole and the cycle repeats.

There are no real causes for imagined realities so there is no gain in asking
- or answering - the question if it is indeed made up.

It's entirely plausible that there is an explanation for a similarly absurd
sounding but real statistic that relies on causation.

> _you wouldn't be so quick to assume_ //

You're right, I try not assume much but FWIW I only asked if it were sound or
not, not if one were likely to do it.

You say it's "biased", I don't understand what you mean. If you always assumed
a causative chain when first encountering [direct, gross, longitudinal]
correlation where would the bias lie?

------
auctiontheory
This article is a statistical catastrophe. Sample bias is just the most
blatant of many problems.

She might have a different perspective if she'd interviewed a few (dozen)
folks who married young and wrong, before they had matured enough to really
know themselves or their spouse.

------
Zimahl
_The average age at which a woman first gives birth (25.7) is now earlier than
the average age of first marriage (26.5), a phenomenon Knot Yet calls "The
Great Crossover" and which brings with it all of the well-documented concerns
that surround the rearing of children outside of wedlock._

I wonder what these values were historically. I just don't think that those
two numbers are ever too terribly far apart.

I mean, if a unmarried woman got pregnant in 1950 she would be married
probably within the 9 months before the baby was born and the lack of birth
control historically could have lead to many pregnancies immediately following
marriage. Both of these would push the first child age to be later than first
marriage.

Although, logically, one would think the advent and superfluousness of birth
control would prevent unwed pregnancies and allow married couples to wait on
having children (should they desire to wait), driving the first child age way
up. But that's not the case - intriguing.

I guess in current times people have the means (and typically the lack of
social scorn) to wait to get married and don't have to just because of an
accidental pregnancy.

------
alexjeffrey
as someone who got married at 21, I can honestly say it's the decision I'm
most happy about in my life so far.

However, we had been together for over 7 years by that point and I'd be very
wary of advocating getting married young to everyone, as I know at least here
in the UK there seem to be quite a few teenage/early-twenties couples who
decide to get married after a few months to a year, and end up divorced 6
months later. The facts in this article could be also taken as very
misleading, especially considering that the happiness survey they took made no
mention of age.

~~~
alberich
> However, we had been together for over 7 years by that point

Just for curiosity... did you start your relationship with 14 y/o? I guess
playing video games was all I cared when I was this age :D

~~~
alexjeffrey
13 actually - funnily enough it started with video games; we met on Runescape!

------
jessriedel
> One student told him that her parents "want my full attention on grades and
> school." But such advice reflects an outdated reality, one in which a
> college degree was almost a guarantee of a good job that would be held for a
> lifetime.

I really don't think the outdated-ness of this advice has anything to do with
the value of a college degree.The modern open dating offers lots of varied sex
to those who can navigate it well. This seems like way more time intensive,
especially in terms of displacing constructive activities like studying, than
a committed relationship.

------
tunesmith
I think this is kind of a false issue. I got married later, but it was just
because it didn't happen until then - I'd guess that that is usually the
reason, rather than meeting what feels like a soulmate at age 22 and dumping
her because you'd rather get married at 32.

------
msg
I was married at 22, wife was 21. Worked for me!

Beyond that, what can you say? If marriage is wrong for you personally, all
the statistics in the world wouldn't and shouldn't convince you otherwise.
Your not wanting to get married might be correlated with your being on the
wrong side of those statistics.

If marriage is right for you, I doubt this kind of article is how you would
find out.

A better article would have listed pros and cons. For instance, pro: the pool
of candidates is larger when you're younger; con: the pool of candidates is
better when it's smaller. Or whatever is really going on under the numbers.
That would be interesting to know.

------
j4ke
This is also my experience: I was 22, she was 19 (married 10 years now). We
finished school (3 BS, 1 MS, and a PhD between the two of us) and worked
before having kids. I feel like we got married before we were each too
stubborn and set in our ways to change. We met in the middle and grew into a
single individual, greater than the sum of its parts. My (non-scientific)
feeling is that in general, those I know who waited to get married had a more
difficult time assuming a new identity that incorporates another individual.

------
m_d
Anyone else find it interesting that the author is from Liberty University?

------
zeveshe
'29 percent are cohabitating, 33 percent are single, and 47 percent are
married'

And that is total of 109%. How's that?

------
largesse
One thing that the article did not touch upon is that there seem to be health
advantages for children who are born of young parents - they have better
telomere length [1] and possibly greater longevity. When you add to that
general issue of gene damage over lifetime and how it can impact the children
we conceive as we age, it seems that nature favors young parents.

The problem is that our economic system favors delaying child-bearing in an
unprecedented way. I wonder what it would be like if we inverted incentives
and encouraged people to have kids very young, provided social and economic
support, and a ramp up to high impact careers as their kids approached their
teens.

[1] Paternal age at birth is an important determinant of offspring telomere
length - <http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/24/3097.long>

