| Marriage delayed carries another big social and personal benefit: it’s cut down the divorce rate. Studies have consistently shown that couples who marry before age twenty-five are more likely to find themselves in divorce court.14 Our own research based on data from the National Fatherhood Initiative Marriage Survey supports this conclusion: women who marry in their early twenties and especially in their teens are significantly more likely to end up divorced than those who marry in their midtwenties or later (see Figure 12 on page 20). Some people conclude that this finding implies that the older a couple is when they marry, the less likely it is that they will split up. This is true, but only up to a point. As divorce insurance, marriage after the midtwenties has diminishing returns.As divorce insurance, marriage after the midtwenties has diminishing returns; a twenty-five-year-old bride is at not much greater risk of splitting up one day than is a thirty-five-year-old bride.15 Still, discouraging early (especially teen) marriage has helped to drive the divorce rate down from its record highs in the early 1980s. At that point, experts estimated that about half of all first marriages were ending in divorce. Since then, the rate has been declining, and experts now put the number at closer to 40 percent.16 In general, couples who wait till their midtwenties or later enjoy more maturity and financial security, both factors that make it easier to sustain a lifelong marriage. |
Do you believe the decline in church attendance is an attributing factor to this? I think there might be a connection.
A dirty ho (Pr 30:20, 1 Pet. 3:1–7). :AMR:
| ”Back When Tim McGraw With Lyrics" | |
Those sinners are a minority of men. They are the 20% of the men that the 80% of women are destroying themselves with.
"Or made women of weak, abusive or those who fail to protect them,men - learn how to stand up and lead their family that he wont lead.... men dont become the leaders because they want to usually, its because they have to." They aren't allowed to lead by law. And the funny part is that a majority of women got exactly what they wanted (and even funnier is that the remaining minority doesn't get worked up about it)!
Telling women what to do is God's protection. Never forget, men want women but women need men.
There is a reason that God never told men to respect women but love them, and why He told women to respect their male leader but not to love him (except for the passage referring to women loving her man in a physical way). That reason is a matter of authority. Thus, men CAN'T respect a woman, and a woman CAN'T love a man.
The good news is that most men will love their wives and families and won't lead them off a cliff. And the other good news is that men are usually smarter than their wives and know better than her how to avoid cliffs.
But they don't. They are the shamed demographic. Men are told to "man up" but women are never told to "mother up" like they should.
Yes. But you aren't going far enough. The reason men advanced their standing by being married was because they actually had to be a good person to lead/protect/support a family.
The truth is that a breakdown of the family leads to death of both society and eventually humanity. And a man is the only possible leader, in general, of a family. Thus, once the men are out of the family, there won't be families.
That doesn't work with women because the more partners they have the bigger a problem they have with bonding with their husbands. The research is available, and it affects women more than men.
Beyond the above problem listed, women spend more time getting the attention of high status men and leave the low status men to stew. Thus the reason the number of partners a woman has doesn't line up with the number of women men have because women are only being with the high status men and the high status men go through a lot of them.
The disparity of the treatment I give is kosher.
It would not be better to say. The evil natures of men and women present themselves in different ways. And the current culture promotes the evil nature in women, and does not promote the evil nature in men.
No, I'm agreeing that the less a party girl a woman is the better she will be as a wife and mother. Thus, the call for women to stop partying in repentance, or never start, and mother up.
So if they start down that road they should ride it all the way out?
Only because women influence this economy for the worse, particularly with the way they vote.
The comment about tattoos was not listed because tattoos on women are bad but because the type of women that get them are party girls.... , unless a woman marries a professional or someone with a good business. Tattoos are just a next generation thing. In mine it was mostly carny folk.Then it was football players with boring tribal arm tattoos and girls with ankle tattoos. Then it went flying by in a handbasket. :shocked:
Now my niece, the architect, and most of her friends have one or two. And Harrison Ford has an earring. Go figure. People.
It would be better for women if this is how things were. But it isn't even the case that men sow wild oats and pick a woman of his choosing (in a way - there is a caveat to this). The fact is that women are the keepers of who they pair up with. The problem is that women who sow their wild oats choose poorly.
One in Christ can love (Eze 36:26, 1 Jn 4:7, 1 Co 13:8).
Mostly (1 Ti 5:8, KJV).
Tit 2:3-5
I'd be curious about the data. Do you have any links?
That really doesn't run against my suggestion though. I didn't say we are the same, only that we should both behave a certain way.
I think you're just about as wrong as you can be there. From what I see the culture is actively promoting a narcissistic hedonism across genders.
Your division made you misapprehend my point:
An economy and culture still dominated by men.
I think that way of thinking reflects your generational understanding. I get that. In my day it wasn't far removed, but it isn't the same now.
