Why men won't marry you

[elohiym]

This I'd like to address. The prefrontal cortex isn't finished, which means your judgment from a purely biological perspective, until the early to mid twenties. At the very least I'd prefer people refrain from making life long commitments until they're well into or out of college.

When a teenager joins the military, the consequences are lifelong. Seventeen and eighteen year old women are entrusted with mission critical jobs, given responsibility for multi-million dollar pieces of equipment and a share in defending the lives of others.

A girl or a boy who marries in those early years is likely making an uninformed decision, is demonstrably doing math with a bad calculator.

The "girl or boy" who is voting at eighteen is just being manipulated by old men, right?

For instance, if a fifty year old man married a thirty five year old women no one would blink.

I know a woman in her thirties with the mind and looks of a child; she just sits in a chair most of the day stimulating herself by dangling a rag doll in front of her face.

But if a thirty year old man asks a fifteen year old...different and understandable response. It's reasonable to ask what a grown man is doing attempting to establish a romantic relationship with someone at an age where her genetics and/or experience call her judgement into question.

I was in my thirties when I married poster 1Peacemaker when she was eighteen, old enough to vote for the leader of a world super-power. What I was doing was falling in love with an intelligent, attractive, single woman in my church who shared a passion for God and His gospel. Sixteen years and seven children later, neither of us regret that God joined us together.

 

[CabinetMaker]

When a teenager joins the military, the consequences are lifelong. Seventeen and eighteen year old women are entrusted with mission critical jobs, given responsibility for multi-million dollar pieces of equipment and a share in defending the lives of others.

Which changes nothing regarding what TH said, their brains have not finished developing and they decisions they make are affected by this fact.

The "girl or boy" who is voting at eighteen is just being manipulated by old men, right?

Right. That is how politicians get ellected, they manipulate the electorate. Of all ages.

I know a woman in her thirties with the mind and looks of a child; she just sits in a chair most of the day stimulating herself by dangling a rag doll in front of her face.

This is how I know you know that TH made a valid point that you cannot honestly refute. Instead of dealing with general point raised by TH, you pick a specific case and offer that as proof that TH's entire point is wrong. When discussing topics dealing with humans, an observation suck as the one TH made is a generalization: it is generally true. There are always exceptions, both positive and negative, to observations. The exceptions do not the general statement false. That is your fallacy, you are attempting to prove a scientific fact observed in the general population as a false by attempting to use a specific subset of humans.

I was in my thirties when I married poster 1Peacemaker when she was eighteen, old enough to vote for the leader of a world super-power. What I was doing was falling in love with an intelligent, attractive, single woman in my church who shared a passion for God and His gospel. Sixteen years and seven children later, neither of us regret that God joined us together.

I am glad that you two have found each other and made a happy life together. I really am. You deserve each other.

 

[elohiym]

Which changes nothing regarding what TH said,

My implied point casts doubt on his.

their brains have not finished developing and they decisions they make are affected by this fact.

That point seems selectively applied to marriage, which is my point. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to military service or voting?

The "girl or boy" who is voting at eighteen is just being manipulated by old men, right?

Right. That is how politicians get ellected, they manipulate the electorate. Of all ages.

Suddenly it's no longer about age or pre-frontal cortex development.

This is how I know you know that TH made a valid point that you cannot honestly refute.

This is how I know you missed the point I honestly made.

You deserve each other.

Your comments are pointless. Worry about what you got and what you deserve, okay?

 

[CabinetMaker]

My implied point casts doubt on his.

None at all. How many 18 year old officers are there?

That point seems selectively applied to marriage, which is my point. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to military service or voting?

I do.

Suddenly it's no longer about age or pre-frontal cortex development.

Political commentary seemed the appropriate response.

This is how I know you missed the point I honestly made.

You didn't make an honest point. You didn't even try.

Your comments are pointless. Worry about what you got and what you deserve, okay?

So you don't think that you and your wife deserve to be happy together. Interesting.

 

[BOLCATS]

I have never seen a poster more dishonest than you. It is either that or your cognitive dissonance is so strong, it prevents you from having a rational discussion. Everything that comes out of your mouth is a canned cliche. I see zero thought being put into it. I noticed it when I first joined this board with your comments on forced vaccinatio . Before that, I didn't notice you when I was lurking.

 

[elohiym]

How many 18 year old officers are there?

My commander was twenty-four. Was his pre-frontal cortex developed enough to be entrusted with the lives of over a hundred men and women and tens of millions of dollars of equipment?

As a non-commissioned officer, when I sent eighteen-year-old soldiers into the field as medics, I did not send them with an officer to supervise them. It's likely that none of our commissioned officers could perform many of the emergency medical tasks their soldiers were entrusted to perform.

Did you ever serve in the military?

Something to consider is that your point about supervision ignores that marriage is supervised by various officers of the government and other members of society, and it seems to boil down to you believe an eighteen-year-old can be trusted to save someone's life in combat (because you imagine there is a young second-lieutenant supervising him), but a judge in New York with a fully developed pre-frontal cortex can't determine if a fourteen-year-old should be married with parental consent under the state laws that allow for it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I have never seen a poster more dishonest than you. It is either that or your cognitive dissonance is so strong, it prevents you from having a rational discussion. Everything that comes out of your mouth is a canned cliche. I see zero thought being put into it. I noticed it when I first joined this board with your comments on forced vaccinatio . Before that, I didn't notice you when I was lurking.

What, specifically, do you see a me dishonest?

 

[CabinetMaker]

My commander was twenty-four. Was his pre-frontal cortex developed enough to be entrusted with the lives of over a hundred men and women and tens of millions of dollars of equipment?

I believe that TH said that the cortex is fully developed about age 21ish. So a 24 year old commander would have a fully developed cortex and would be in a better position to understand the implication of his commands.

As a non-commissioned officer, when I sent eighteen-year-old soldiers into the field as medics, I did not send them with an officer to supervise them. It's likely that none of our commissioned officers could perform many of the emergency medical tasks their soldiers were entrusted to perform.

How old were you as an NCO?

Did you ever serve in the military?

No.

Something to consider is that your point about supervision ignores that marriage is supervised by various officers of the government and other members of society, and it seems to boil down to you believe an eighteen-year-old can be trusted to save someone's life in combat (because you imagine there is a young second-lieutenant supervising him), but a judge in New York with a fully developed pre-frontal cortex can't determine if a fourteen-year-old should be married with parental consent under the state laws that allow for it.

What point about supervision?

There is a difference between being married and serving in combat. For combat, a brain with a lessor developed cortex leads to poor impulse control and makes a younger person more willing to accept risks that an older person would not.

Marriage, on the other hand, is all about impulse control. You are no longer making decisions that only effect yourself. Your decision now effect your spouse and children.

As to judges deciding things, well, a fully developed cortex does not automatically imply wisdom.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

This I'd like to address. The prefrontal cortex isn't finished....

And after it finishes, it diminishes. Something to keep in mind. Brains start shrinking, memory becomes more spotty, etc.

The aging process can even take the ability to consent to sex away.... let alone marriage.

How do you determine if someone is smart enough not to be conned by their spouse?

How do you determine if a 50 year old isn't being conned into marriage by an 18 year old?

A girl or a boy who marries in those early years is likely making an uninformed decision, is demonstrably doing math with a bad calculator.

What about the difference between hot cognition and cold cognition? Given enough time and counseling, a young 18 year old can make a good decision. They can even master advanced, complex mathematical calculations that would give many a migraine if they made the attempt.

Age differences can be important, depending on where/when they fall. For instance, if a fifty year old man married a thirty five year old women no one would blink. But if a thirty year old man asks a fifteen year old...different and understandable response. It's reasonable to ask what a grown man is doing attempting to establish a romantic relationship with someone at an age where her genetics and/or experience call her judgement into question.

I've personally experienced the blessing of success at a young age. Your counseling is like saying you would rather I waited and my three oldest were not even born.

Many of us are from young progenitors. So dissing young love is dissing much of humanity.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I have never seen a poster more dishonest than you. It is either that or your cognitive dissonance is so strong, it prevents you from having a rational discussion. Everything that comes out of your mouth is a canned cliche. I see zero thought being put into it. I noticed it when I first joined this board with your comments on forced vaccinatio . Before that, I didn't notice you when I was lurking.

I wish I didn't agree.

 

[Town Heretic]

When a teenager joins the military, the consequences are lifelong.

It depends on whether we are at war or peace as to the nature of those consequences, but outside of national necessity I'd counsel against it at that age. And my understanding is that the military isn't looking for someone under 18, which is the age where the law, historically, begins to recognize at least a foundational ability, though some of that law was informed by necessity (life expectancy and agrarian cultures) and most laws relating to minors have trended up as that necessity diminished. The age of consent, by way of.

Seventeen and eighteen year old women are entrusted with mission critical jobs, given responsibility for multi-million dollar pieces of equipment and a share in defending the lives of others.

Mostly not. I don't think you'll find that true of very many 17 year olds and 18 year olds are likely just entering the military and subject to a solid period of indoctrination and training. It's also worth noting that I haven't suggested memory or motor reflex is compromised in the young. In fact, response/reaction is superior then, so a relatively young person can be taught and perform quite well. It doesn't mean you should go to them for life advice though or fail to understand the limitations they're working under, something the chain of command (I guarantee you there aren't any 18 year old first lieutenants, etc.) understand.

The "girl or boy" who is voting at eighteen is just being manipulated by old men, right?

More likely by their passions and suspect judgement. Doesn't mean they won't make good decisions, but it does mean they're much more likely to make mistakes where judgment is concerned. Personally I'd restrict driving, voting and service to people at least 21 years of age.

I know a woman in her thirties with the mind and looks of a child; she just sits in a chair most of the day stimulating herself by dangling a rag doll in front of her face.

I'm sure that's true. And there are exceptional people who manage to overcome nature's restrictions earlier than most, who mature and reflect earlier. They're exceptional and we may make exception for them, but we don't make a rule for the exceptional.

I was in my thirties when I married poster 1Peacemaker when she was eighteen, old enough to vote for the leader of a world super-power.

I take it she was exceptional and I'm happy it worked out for both of you, but the odds of failed marriages with children are much higher the younger you go below twenty five. I noted that a while back when the subject was all the rage. Can't recall the thread, but I posted links on the data.

What I was doing was falling in love with an intelligent, attractive, single woman in my church who shared a passion for God and His gospel. Sixteen years and seven children later, neither of us regret that God joined us together.

I'm happy for you, but mostly that sort of union invites disaster.

 

[Town Heretic]

And after it finishes, it diminishes. Something to keep in mind. Brains start shrinking, memory becomes more spotty, etc.

Not significantly for a very long period of time and not in a way that begins to reach the impairment we're speaking to. And that's without the experiential, which before we understood biology was the foundation of an attempt to shield younger people from serious decisions.

The aging process can even take the ability to consent to sex away.... let alone marriage.

That would be the exception, not the rule and the law addresses competence in any contract.

How do you determine if someone is smart enough not to be conned by their spouse?

It's not about intelligence. You can be a child genius. But you still have the same restrictions. Now at the later end of the teens it's possible to make better decisions and any number of factors can come into play, but the rule is still that most aren't ready and when they attempt it they fail at a rate that should raise alarm when compared to those who wait until their mid twenties. Fewer than half under that mark will make it. The figure is much better thereafter.

How do you determine if a 50 year old isn't being conned into marriage by an 18 year old?

Being conned was never a consideration I introduced. I don't assume anyone is trying to defraud anyone. What I do know is that young girls (that being more the rule in this consideration) aren't really in a good position to know what they want and what they're getting. It's not their fault, it's in their biological stars and the divorce rates support the notion that it's better to wait a bit longer.

What about the difference between hot cognition and cold cognition? Given enough time and counseling, a young 18 year old can make a good decision. They can even master advanced, complex mathematical calculations that would give many a migraine if they made the attempt.

The judgement we're talking about is a bit different from empirical exercises within set formulas leading to particular, repeatable results.

I've personally experienced the blessing of success at a young age. Your counseling is like saying you would rather I waited and my three oldest were not even born.

No, that's your advancing the exceptional and my responding it isn't the rule. And twenty five isn't really that long to wait given what the data tells us about the home you'll more likely raise them in if you don't.

Again, this isn't about you where I'm concerned. It's about the rule. I recognize exception and just plain old good luck. For instance, while you likely weren't in a good position to make the right choice you managed anyway. Congrats on beating the odds and picking the right fellow. Good for both of you, but that's not what mostly happens when the very young take a swing at it.

Many of us are from young progenitors. So dissing young love is dissing much of humanity.

It isn't about dismissing or discounting anyone. It's just science and statistical fact and how those should inform our approach. But as with nearly anything there are exceptions. Whether you were one of those or just got lucky, I'm happy for you.

But I'm not letting my genius son get married at eighteen. :nono: That's rolling the dice against the house and expecting to win.

 

[BOLCATS]

Not significantly for a very long period of time and not in a way that begins to reach the impairment we're speaking to. And that's without the experiential, which before we understood biology was the foundation of an attempt to shield younger people from serious decisions.


That would be the exception, not the rule and the law addresses competence in any contract.


It's not about intelligence. You can be a child genius. But you still have the same restrictions. Now at the later end of the teens it's possible to make better decisions and any number of factors can come into play, but the rule is still that most aren't ready and when they attempt it they fail at a rate that should raise alarm when compared to those who wait until their mid twenties. Fewer than half under that mark will make it. The figure is much better thereafter.


Being conned was never a consideration I introduced. I don't assume anyone is trying to defraud anyone. What I do know is that young girls (that being more the rule in this consideration) aren't really in a good position to know what they want and what they're getting. It's not their fault, it's in their biological stars and the divorce rates support the notion that it's better to wait a bit longer.


The judgement we're talking about is a bit different from empirical exercises within set formulas leading to particular, repeatable results.


No, that's your advancing the exceptional and my responding it isn't the rule. And twenty five isn't really that long to wait given what the data tells us about the home you'll more likely raise them in if you don't.

Again, this isn't about you where I'm concerned. It's about the rule. I recognize exception and just plain old good luck. For instance, while you likely weren't in a good position to make the right choice you managed anyway. Congrats on beating the odds and picking the right fellow. Good for both of you, but that's not what mostly happens when the very young take a swing at it.


It isn't about dismissing or discounting anyone. It's just science and statistical fact and how those should inform our approach. But as with nearly anything there are exceptions. Whether you were one of those or just got lucky, I'm happy for you.

But I'm not letting my genius son get married at eighteen. :nono: That's rolling the dice against the house and expecting to win.

You seem to be talking about what you would advise and specifically what you would do with your own family. Peacemaker and Elohim are arguing against coercion by the state directed towards people you would advise against. ....people the state would lock behind bars with REAL criminals. That is the crux of the matter you are sidestepping.

 

[elohiym]

I believe that TH said that the cortex is fully developed about age 21ish. So a 24 year old commander would have a fully developed cortex and would be in a better position to understand the implication of his commands.

The human brain does not reach full maturity until around age twenty-five, so it's possible that my captain's brain was fully mature; but the same man was surely an officer before his brain was fully mature.

Any NCO will tell you a second-lieutenant's brain isn't fully developed. :chuckle:

How old were you as an NCO?

I was twenty-eight.

What point about supervision?

You asked about officers being eighteen for a reason. Whatever your point was, I served under officers whose brains had not fully matured.

There is a difference between being married and serving in combat.

Not for all men. :chuckle:

For combat, a brain with a lessor developed cortex leads to poor impulse control and makes a younger person more willing to accept risks that an older person would not.

Do you believe medals are given for poor impulse control instead of bravery, daring and skill?

Marriage, on the other hand, is all about impulse control. You are no longer making decisions that only effect yourself. Your decision now effect your spouse and children.

The decision to join the military, fight in a war, vote, drink, engage in sexual intercourse all effect other people, too. And marriage is not all about impulse control.

As to judges deciding things, well, a fully developed cortex does not automatically imply wisdom.

Should wisdom be required to marry?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Rather than concede that I clearly stated a marriageable age of twenty-one you choose to obfuscate.

Why choose 21, when you chose your wife at age 18?

Why contradict your own actions, or did you just say 21 earlier, to distance yourself from your past support of young marriage?

 

[Town Heretic]

You seem to be talking about what you would advise and specifically what you would do with your own family. Peacemaker and Elohim are arguing against coercion by the state directed towards people you would advise against. ....people the state would lock behind bars with REAL criminals. That is the crux of the matter you are sidestepping.

Sorry, Bol, but I'm not side stepping. I entered on a particular point I could speak to and did that. I then did my best to answer Elo and 1 on their responses. That's the extent of my obligation as far as I can see it.

I'm not sure what you mean by coercion by the state. Every state has an age of consent. Most of those have gone up over time for a few of the reasons I mentioned prior.

 

[elohiym]

It depends on whether we are at war or peace as to the nature of those consequences, but outside of national necessity I'd counsel against it at that age. And my understanding is that the military isn't looking for someone under 18, which is the age where the law, historically, begins to recognize at least a foundational ability, though some of that law was informed by necessity (life expectancy and agrarian cultures) and most laws relating to minors have trended up as that necessity diminished. The age of consent, by way of.

I was under the impression that some teen marriages are formed by necessity. Also, you can join the military at seventeen with parental consent; there was a seventeen-year-old kid in my combat parachute jump school class.

Mostly not. I don't think you'll find that true of very many 17 year olds and 18 year olds are likely just entering the military and subject to a solid period of indoctrination and training. It's also worth noting that I haven't suggested memory or motor reflex is compromised in the young. In fact, response/reaction is superior then, so a relatively young person can be taught and perform quite well. It doesn't mean you should go to them for life advice though or fail to understand the limitations they're working under, something the chain of command (I guarantee you there aren't any 18 year old first lieutenants, etc.) understand.

Do you have to be able to give sound life advice to be qualified for marriage?

More likely by their passions and suspect judgement. Doesn't mean they won't make good decisions, but it does mean they're much more likely to make mistakes where judgment is concerned. Personally I'd restrict driving, voting and service to people at least 21 years of age.

If you restrict child bearing to twenty-one and over, it would have disastrous consequences for women's health and society. Can we agree on that point?

I'm sure that's true. And there are exceptional people who manage to overcome nature's restrictions earlier than most, who mature and reflect earlier. They're exceptional and we may make exception for them, but we don't make a rule for the exceptional.

The law in New York is made for the exceptional, as are all the state marriage laws that allow for young teens to marry with a judges consent.

I take it she was exceptional and I'm happy it worked out for both of you, but the odds of failed marriages with children are much higher the younger you go below twenty five. I noted that a while back when the subject was all the rage. Can't recall the thread, but I posted links on the data.

You'll have to show me the research else I have nothing to comment on. Does the data prove an under-developed brain is the cause of failed marriages? I'm skeptical.

I'm happy for you, but mostly that sort of union invites disaster.

Some said that about mixed race marriages, too.

 

[Town Heretic]

I was under the impression that some teen marriages are informed by necessity.

I'm sure that's true.

Also, you can join the military at seventeen with parental consent. There was a seventeen-year-old kid in my combat parachute jump school class.

I understand, being a navy brat. But the armed services aren't out recruiting for 17 year olds who need a special waver. And while war time has been known to dramatically impact the ages of those serving and giving orders, the average age for an army captain today is closer to 27 and that holds true across ranks as I understand it, for a number of reasons, beginning with simple process.

Do you have to be able to give sound life advice advice to be qualified for marriage?

Legally no, but if you're incapable of sound judgment the chances of you making one are pretty much nil and the chance of a marriage that survives about on par with that.

If you restrict child bearing to twenty-one and over, it would have disastrous consequences to women's health and society. Can we agree on that point?

No, but I'm not trying to do that.

The law in New York is made for the exceptional, as are all the state marriage laws that allow for young teens to marry with a judges consent.

Most of the original laws relating to marriage and consent were made prior to our having the science to understand the problem and given the statistics on divorce they might be revisited at some point. But I'm not talking about altering age of consent law. I'm speaking to the wisdom of biologically impaired and experientially lacking youngsters entering into a life long commitment. And I'm noting that it mostly doesn't work, which should concern anyone who is concerned with the institution and the welfare of children.

You'll have to show me the research else I have nothing to comment on. Does the data prove an under-developed brain is the cause of failed marriages? I'm skeptical.

I'll find it again, but it's pretty cut and dried. Over half those marriages under that figure end in divorce. It's not within a statistical variation for happenstance. And the only common denominator across a wide sampling is age. And the prime distinguisher there is judgement. Once upon a time observation led to restrictive laws predicated upon the lack of life experience. We now understand there's a less flexible, biological element to it as well.

I'll go back and dig it out later, but I just came across a NJ Law Firm that referenced the source and quick data:

We always hear that “50% of marriages end in divorce.” That’s a somewhat mythical figure, and in reality, divorce rates have been estimated as landing closer to 30 or 40%. But for people within certain age ranges, the famous 50% statistic is actually low. To quote the National Center for Health Statistics:

60 percent of marriages for couples between the ages of 20 and 25 end in divorce.

For couples were are even younger, the prognosis becomes bleaker still. In their article titled “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the United States,” cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), M.D. Bramlett and W.D. Mosher found that nationally, 59% of marriages to women who were younger than 18 at the time of marriage will end in divorce within 15 years.
​

Some said that about mixed race marriages, too.

Not the same animal, though depending on where you lived I'm sure it was true. The stresses on mixed couples not that terribly long ago would I'm sure have a serious impact on the failure rate.

But those couples, if they were of sufficient age, could understand that in a way young people simply aren't in a position to.

 

[Angel4Truth]

If you restrict child bearing to twenty-one and over, it would have disastrous consequences for women's health and society.

didnt you say in this thread you dont believe they should marry till the age of 21, why yes you did. (in response to trying to distance yourself from others saying you advocated for young marriage like your wife)

Rather than concede that I clearly stated a marriageable age of twenty-one you choose to obfuscate.

So you advocate waiting till 21 to marry but for the womans health, she should have kids before marriage now?

Make up your mind, you are all over the map.

 

[BOLCATS]

didnt you say in this thread you dont believe they should marry till the age of 21, why yes you did.




So you advocate waiting till 21 to marry but for the womans health, she should have kids before marriage now?

Make up your mind, you are all over the map.

Somebody is trying to set a trap. Does that remind anyone of some 1st century religious folks?