Ideal age to wed?

[krimster2]

everything in Moscva was a "closed circle" no outsiders were "allowed in"
one of the EXCEPTIONS to this rule
were REALLY, REALLY BEAUTIFUL and Intelligent/Smart women....
the doors were ALWAYS open for them!!

my daughters could both do WTF they wanted to in Russia, even without my help, cuz they both had such a HUGE network of connections of EVERY KIND that they SHARED!!
the parents of the kids they knew boggled my mind
and I ended up meeting many new customers through them
when I drove their friends home and met their parents in the exclusive west end of Moscow
it really was a small closed circle
everybody knew everybody

now the kids of all these Russians are all over HERE!!!!
I even gotta couple to babysit and teach...who are married to my daughters, and who will eventually become dual citizens

meanwhile, they look after my interests in "the old country" quid-pro-quo
i.e. make sure my mistress is" looked after", without tellin my wife about it!

the older you get, the easier life becomes, because every problem just comes down to delegating responsibility to someone else to solve it for you...
and so you can work on your AI projects or go NIGHT HUNTING with NIGHT VISION with your dawg!!!
or MOST FUN OF ALL...
TROLL REDNECKS on RWD!!!!

PS
the one thing I really miss about Moscow is to just go on these long "walk abouts" to completely random places in City Center, or if the weather is warm, on the southern outskirts of the city, especially along the river...

and find random flea markets, and stores of every possible kind and offices, etc
and just walk in, look around and talk to random people about random things
and just do this for the WHOLE FREAKIN' DAY

I mastered the art of getting a free breakfast at 4 seasons, just by wearing a suit and walkin in like I owned the joint!
and from there I could catch the metro to anywhere, like Tula, for instance
or to any of the museums inside the 3 ring HWY...
you can bring snacks with you on the train, and if ya see a real pretty girl, you can sit next to her and share your snack with her

I found it real easy to talk to women on the metro, cuz you don't have to focus on DRIVING!!!
and I would generally consider metro deavochkie to be more educated/professional than blue collar kiosk robotniki types
and these intelligent, graduate level educated, 30+ yr olds, have NO DATES in Russia AT ALL
and they are so HORNY, they will suck the chrome right off a trailer hitch, if they ever get you alone some where!!

if a woman talks with you for more than about 20 sec, then 100% you can ask for her number...
but this implies you have wheels and a plan of action, like Where, When, What...

you have Motive
you have Opportunity
you have Means



if you want her...
then you must take her...
somewhere where she's never been before
and give her the best time, she's EVER HAD!!!

the first night she sleeps over, let her have one of your t-shirts to wear
let HER initiate sex with you...so be patient, she WILL 100% reach out and touch you during the night
you need to treat her very tenderly...

seriously, solve ALL your sexual anxiety performance issues by reading the book "She Comes First" on Amazon
only way a geezer like me could ever satisfy the budding sexuality of a Ukrainian village girl with a hard body and big naturals, was through knowledge I gained from reading this book!!!

step 1 is to arouse her curiosity...
step 2 - provide her with a unique experience
step 3 - increasing intimicy
step 4 - increasing physical contact

escalating "sexual tension"
then nudity at a private pool or sauna
then the 'ole In/Out/In/Out

what's not to like about this scenario?

[Trenchcoat]

everything in Moscva was a "closed circle" no outsiders were "allowed in"
one of the EXCEPTIONS to this rule
were REALLY, REALLY BEAUTIFUL and Intelligent/Smart women....
the doors were ALWAYS open for them!!

my daughters could both do WTF they wanted to in Russia, even without my help, cuz they both had such a HUGE network of connections of EVERY KIND that they SHARED!!
the parents of the kids they knew boggled my mind
and I ended up meeting many new customers through them
when I drove their friends home and met their parents in the exclusive west end of Moscow
it really was a small closed circle
everybody knew everybody

now the kids of all these Russians are all over HERE!!!!
I even gotta couple to babysit and teach...who are married to my daughters, and who will eventually become dual citizens

meanwhile, they look after my interests in "the old country" quid-pro-quo
i.e. make sure my mistress is" looked after", without tellin my wife about it!

the older you get, the easier life becomes, because every problem just comes down to delegating responsibility to someone else to solve it for you...
and so you can work on your AI projects or go NIGHT HUNTING with NIGHT VISION with your dawg!!!
or MOST FUN OF ALL...
TROLL REDNECKS on RWD!!!!

PS
the one thing I really miss about Moscow is to just go on these long "walk abouts" to completely random places in City Center, or if the weather is warm, on the southern outskirts of the city, especially along the river...

and find random flea markets, and stores of every possible kind and offices, etc
and just walk in, look around and talk to random people about random things
and just do this for the WHOLE FREAKIN' DAY

I mastered the art of getting a free breakfast at 4 seasons, just by wearing a suit and walkin in like I owned the joint!
and from there I could catch the metro to anywhere, like Tula, for instance
or to any of the museums inside the 3 ring HWY...
you can bring snacks with you on the train, and if ya see a real pretty girl, you can sit next to her and share your snack with her

I found it real easy to talk to women on the metro, cuz you don't have to focus on DRIVING!!!
and I would generally consider metro deavochkie to be more educated/professional than blue collar kiosk robotniki types
and these intelligent, graduate level educated, 30+ yr olds, have NO DATES in Russia AT ALL
and they are so HORNY, they will suck the chrome right off a trailer hitch, if they ever get you alone some where!!

if a woman talks with you for more than about 20 sec, then 100% you can ask for her number...
but this implies you have wheels and a plan of action, like Where, When, What...

you have Motive
you have Opportunity
you have Means



if you want her...
then you must take her...
somewhere where she's never been before
and give her the best time, she's EVER HAD!!!

the first night she sleeps over, let her have one of your t-shirts to wear
let HER initiate sex with you...so be patient, she WILL 100% reach out and touch you during the night
you need to treat her very tenderly...

seriously, solve ALL your sexual anxiety performance issues by reading the book "She Comes First" on Amazon
only way a geezer like me could ever satisfy the budding sexuality of a Ukrainian village girl with a hard body and big naturals, was through knowledge I gained from reading this book!!!

step 1 is to arouse her curiosity...
step 2 - provide her with a unique experience
step 3 - increasing intimicy
step 4 - increasing physical contact

escalating "sexual tension"
then nudity at a private pool or sauna
then the 'ole In/Out/In/Out

what's not to like about this scenario?

Thanks Krim, that's interesting stuff, must be great being a part of that scene. The tips on women are good for me also 

Well I got the 'Ancestry' DNA results back. appears that I'm about 60 Percent English, 23 Percent Irish, 8 Percent Scottish, 5 Percent Germanic, 2 Percent Welsh and 2 Percent Viking (Norway).

Uploading the results to the 'My True Ancestry' website to look further back set against DNA finds from ancient samples it told me that my DNA is mostly of Celtic origin of various Celtic groups mostly those which inhabited the British Isles. So I'm well over 80 percent Celtic by origin and this ties up with most British people being similar. They tell me that I'm only about 5 Percent Anglo Saxon, the tribes from South Denmark & North West Germany that came over here, the Angles, the Saxons & the Jutes. Again that's roughly in line with the population of Great Britain.

Mostly it seems that the Celtic population of Britain remained dominant and was never wiped out or changed racially significantly as a result of the Anglo Saxons, like the Romans and the Normans they just imposed themselves on top of the existing population replacing the old hierarchy. No Norman or Roman DNA and this is commonly the case as it's very rare as they were almost solely about replacing the top hierarchy with no large scale population influx as a result of their invasions.

So most of those conquering groups left their mark on the British Isles with their culture, we picked up the Germanic Anglo Saxon tongue which became English and code of laws from the Normans, but little to nothing if their DNA remains. So rather than actually being Anglo Saxon the British Isles are really a Celtic race of various Celtic groups, fascinating for me to find out really

[krimster2]

Trench,
2/3 of the people in me mum's UK family emmigrated, includin me mum!
it makes me wonder why YOUR family didn't GTF outta 'ole Blighty!!!

it looks like generations of ya are hangin around this same desolate place you call "Home"
instead of seekin greener pastures by moving somewhere with a better future to offer!!

I hope "inbreeding" doesn't take hold, cuz then the UK NHS is phuqued!!!

[Trenchcoat]

Trench,
2/3 of the people in me mum's UK family emmigrated, includin me mum!
it makes me wonder why YOUR family didn't GTF outta 'ole Blighty!!!

it looks like generations of ya are hangin around this same desolate place you call "Home"
instead of seekin greener pastures by moving somewhere with a better future to offer!!

I hope "inbreeding" doesn't take hold, cuz then the UK NHS is phuqued!!!

My guess is that your DNA would be an interesting one Krim, some Slavic, some Jewish, etc.

Well one did move to America, but he was not a direct blood relative. He had spent 3 months in jail for manslaughter when the rope of a cage in a mine he was bringing up snapped as he was turning the wheel too quickly and it fell crushing a 13 yr old boy. He subsequently joined the Mormons and crossed the seas to America, his family followed him but found out he had died of Cholera in St. Louis.

The rest, yes all of my blood relatives stayed in Blighty. You're right probably not the best deal, America far more easier and lucrative to make money. However, they stopped making it easy for UK guys to emigrate to America many years ago now and it's now very hard to get in. Now the UK have left the EU and once a President who is willing to work with the UK is in office then maybe they will make it easier, who knows, no certainty on that one at present though.

[Steven1971]

Thanks Krim, that's interesting stuff, must be great being a part of that scene. The tips on women are good for me also 

Well I got the 'Ancestry' DNA results back. appears that I'm about 60 Percent English, 23 Percent Irish, 8 Percent Scottish, 5 Percent Germanic, 2 Percent Welsh and 2 Percent Viking (Norway).

Uploading the results to the 'My True Ancestry' website to look further back set against DNA finds from ancient samples it told me that my DNA is mostly of Celtic origin of various Celtic groups mostly those which inhabited the British Isles. So I'm well over 80 percent Celtic by origin and this ties up with most British people being similar. They tell me that I'm only about 5 Percent Anglo Saxon, the tribes from South Denmark & North West Germany that came over here, the Angles, the Saxons & the Jutes. Again that's roughly in line with the population of Great Britain.

Mostly it seems that the Celtic population of Britain remained dominant and was never wiped out or changed racially significantly as a result of the Anglo Saxons, like the Romans and the Normans they just imposed themselves on top of the existing population replacing the old hierarchy. No Norman or Roman DNA and this is commonly the case as it's very rare as they were almost solely about replacing the top hierarchy with no large scale population influx as a result of their invasions.

So most of those conquering groups left their mark on the British Isles with their culture, we picked up the Germanic Anglo Saxon tongue which became English and code of laws from the Normans, but little to nothing if their DNA remains. So rather than actually being Anglo Saxon the British Isles are really a Celtic race of various Celtic groups, fascinating for me to find out really

Norman French and Latin have had just as big an influence on modern English as the Germanic languages of the Anglo Saxons. Even today English is evolving as it becomes the language of the world.

As Oscar Wilde said about America and England "Two nations divided by a common language"

[Trenchcoat]

So I got my DNA ethnicity results back from My Heritage yesterday as I decided to also do a test with them partly to check the results with Ancestry off against each other for accuracy partly as they do their test by a slightly different method. My Heritage tend to find people with ancestors that have been in the area a very long time and seemingly not moved around, so a smaller group and further back in ancestry than Ancestry who tend to use the same method but go for a larger group on people but don't go as far back.

So that means my DNA sample is set against a slightly different pool of people and so gives a little bit different result, still the main thrust being much the same as Ancestry in being mainly British coming from the same regional areas. The results from My Heritage are nonetheless intriguing they show:

34.2 English (London & West Midlands - same as Ancestry)
24.5 Irish, Scottish & Welsh
21.1 North & West European (around north Germany)
16.9 Scandinavian (Norway, Sweden & Denmark)
1.8 East European (around Poland to Hungary to Ukraine)
1.5 Central Asian (around Kazakhstan)

So it thrilled me to know I have some East European potentially in me!

When I uploaded my DNA results from 'Ancestry' into the 'My True Ancestry' website there was apparently a tiny bit of data to show that ancestor might have come from Hungary direction way back in time so this might sound out.

Of course with My Heritage we are looking back much further than Ancestry. Ancestry results are set against the past couple of hundred years or so. They tend to show results watered down over time as a result I get the impression. So the 2 percent Norway DNA with Ancestry is likely Viking DNA from way back watered down a heap over time since the Vikings were only in the UK a short time and while some stayed in they were small in comparison and for a shorter time. So centuries of essentially mostly Celtic people intermarrying tend to water the Viking intermingling down. The My Heritage results show a much larger proportion of Scandinavian DNA for me as their results tend to go back further from what I understand so hence less watering down of Viking DNA the further you go back in time if Viking DNA feature in your DNA. Sane with the North & West European DNA probably being Anglo Saxon or possibly some of the Scandinavian DNA possibly being Anglo Saxon.

The minor ethnicities of East European & Central Asian are of course very way, way back in time assuming if true. Ancestry doesn't bring up these as way too far back if even true, they quite possibly are but so far back that they aren't a big feature in my DNA. Overall I get the impression that the Ancestry results are pretty accurate for the present day. The My Heritage of course are based on a fewer sample group over a longer period of time so if course are potentially more of a grasp depending on how assured they can be that the smaller sample group are indeed totally accurate.

So for me it's been most intriguing looking at my DNA and most eye opening. A fair amount of the results I expected but some of them were slightly unexpected though quite comforting in a way. I can now say I am a little bit Welsh and possibly a bit East European so have some relationship to those areas, handy when out in those parts

[Bee Farmer]

In regards to the ideal age to wed, it might help to define what marriage means.  If marriage is just a business relationship and companionship, it doesn't really matter.  If you consider marriage to be a lifelong union to create the best environment you can for raising a family, that's a little different.

Since 2000, women who married as virgins have only had a 3% divorce rate.
At least in America, 98% of people have lost their virginity by age 22.
So if you are a woman who wants a lifelong marriage and wants to raise a family, the ideal age to marry is likely before she is 22.

The average marriage age gap in America, the guy is 2.5 years older than the girl.

If the girl has more than one prior sexual partner, you're playing with fire.  (Even in the 1980's, over half of women walking down the aisle had zero or one prior sexual partners.)

Psychologist research shows that men never get over their first love.  They may move on, but they never get over her.  (A breakup hits women harder at first, but they will get over a guy.  Guys never get over their first love.)

So the ideal age to wed would probably best be described as the age that the girl is a virgin, when she is the first love of the guy she is marrying.

[Trenchcoat]

In regards to the ideal age to wed, it might help to define what marriage means.  If marriage is just a business relationship and companionship, it doesn't really matter.  If you consider marriage to be a lifelong union to create the best environment you can for raising a family, that's a little different.

Since 2000, women who married as virgins have only had a 3% divorce rate.
At least in America, 98% of people have lost their virginity by age 22.
So if you are a woman who wants a lifelong marriage and wants to raise a family, the ideal age to marry is likely before she is 22.

The average marriage age gap in America, the guy is 2.5 years older than the girl.

If the girl has more than one prior sexual partner, you're playing with fire.  (Even in the 1980's, over half of women walking down the aisle had zero or one prior sexual partners.)

Psychologist research shows that men never get over their first love.  They may move on, but they never get over her.  (A breakup hits women harder at first, but they will get over a guy.  Guys never get over their first love.)

So the ideal age to wed would probably best be described as the age that the girl is a virgin, when she is the first love of the guy she is marrying.

I think the whole virgin thing these days is probably down to the woman being left in the 'desperate' category and probably getting with a man who is likewise. If two desperados get together they likely know that there is little to no one else left out there for them anyway. If you have options you look, if you don't then you don't look as no point in it.

I think what societal change has caused is giving the ok to people to go looking whatever status their present relationship is in. If they are dating it's ok to look elsewhere, if they are in a committed sexual relationship it's ok to look elsewhere, if they are engaged it is ok to look elsewhere, if they are married it's ok to look elsewhere, etc. Sure the other half may get pissed if they find out but if there isn't a happy even enough match and other options exist for one then you can't blame them. The old system kind of locked each in place with a 'here's the present deal 'the marriage' do you both wish to accept and be locked in 'till death do us part' rather than the present situation of one finding out the deal is no longer good for them an going for a quickie divorce.

Can we imagine people getting married even dating in the 1700s or 1800s carrying on like they do today? They would have been cast out and ostracised by pretty much all women when they see them hitting on other women or doing the dirty deed with another woman (along with the woman). They're options would then be zero anyway and if the woman who they got with didn't stick with them then that's them left on the outside likely forever more.

So changing the system has kind of unleashed all sorts and that can create a lot of problems. That said while divorce tends to be an unhappy situation are people happier now for having that option? Some people have never been happier once they have divorced others less so. The big problem I think though is that people are perhaps too free with options these days that no one seems to owe loyalty to anyone and only the most desperate can be likely assured that their other half isn't cheating on them.

[krimster2]

so you think a successful strategy is to ONLY date from within a pool of virgins who are less than 4% of the general population
and of that 4%, how many are virgins cuz they're not AT ALL attractive, or have physical/mental issues, etc... my guess is the majority...
you should know this, cuz YOU are one of 'em yourself!

no wonder you're an incel

your belief in religious dogma, has completely phuqued your choices in life, but you're incapable of seeing that simple obvious truth
and you have no clue at all regarding how to have a successful marriage, cuz being a virgin is the most irrelevant thing that there is
be like statistics say left handed people stay married longer, so yur lookin for a southpaw....

you need to evaluate the whole person, and not just one completely irrelevant factor
correlation is NOT causality
and doesn't present a complete picture or analysis
but it's something you read in "The Good Christian's Dating Guide" so it's another gospel for you to take as "truth"
like the rest of the BS you believe in

I don't understand how someone your age, has lived his whole life in such isolation as to be this backwards in his beliefs

but I wouldn't worry about this topic AT ALL if I were you...
cuz you are too phuqed up to EVER be able to engage in a male/female adult relationship with any woman
and on top of that, your time is running out...
and your chances of success drop with each passing day...
you are deluding yourself in multiple ways
like your delusion of superiority, when actually you're a major freakin idiot

[Trenchcoat]

I think you're right Krim that you can only ever hope for a contented (enough) Marriage if you date many women. The desperados situation can work out but that's just two folk's with little to no choice. It's only when you date different women that you get to see what you like and don't like and whether you like each other enough to really want to live with each other permanently lifelong. I mean you can date a chick like her a little bit in some ways but not really be all that into her, so is that someone to be permanently with? In the past people were held unhappily in Marriage possibly one person more than the other and were just stuck with it. Often they may have married young and didn't fully recognise that 'fir life' literally meant with each other all the rest of their life for years & years. That's something not easily comprehended at a young age and I think many people later regretted that decision and felt unfairly held to being bound to the deal they struck when they thought they were into it but were just too young to understand the magnitude of the deal they were getting into.

[krimster2]

being able to "compare and contrast" different prospective women, is a must
also having multiple relationships, that were short term, i.e. "didn't work out for the long haul" are great and ESSENTIAL learning experiences

with serial dating, you can see patterns, like the kind of person you are compatible with, and the kind you're NOT
i've seen a lotta guys make incompatible choices, and they have to pay a steep price for that
and compatibility has NOTHING to do with being a virgin, that's just twisted religious BS

[Boethius]

It’s not virginity that lowers the risk of divorce. It’s religious belief. That doesn’t mean the marriage is happy though.

Trench’s musings on virginity are, as usual, vacuous.

[Trenchcoat]

It’s not virginity that lowers the risk of divorce. It’s religious belief. That doesn’t mean the marriage is happy though.

Trench’s musings on virginity are, as usual, vacuous.

I seem to have hit on something there, you don't happen to be one of those desperado's do you Boe?

[Boethius]

No. Your musings generally are not grounded in reality, be it on virginity or 18th or 19th century society. Adultery was prevalent in both those centuries. In fact, Victorian society’s prudery partly was a reaction to high levels of illegitimate children. Shevchenko’s great poem, Kateryna, highlights the problem of illegitimate children among Ukrainian peasants of the time. There are hundreds of scholarly papers written on infidelity in 19th century France.  You don’t even have to read history. Just read literature.

[Bee Farmer]

It’s not virginity that lowers the risk of divorce. It’s religious belief. That doesn’t mean the marriage is happy though.

Correlation does not equal causation.  The facts simply do not support the idea that virginity does not lower risk of divorce.  The facts are quite clear.  While religious belief does lower the risk of divorce, virginity has a magnitude higher effect on divorce risk.

The divorce rate for virgin brides is 3%.  (American data since 2000.)
The divorce rate for religious folks is 20%-25%.  (7-8 times higher chance of divorce compared to virgin brides, but only half about half the divorce rate for non-religious folks.)

Interestingly, the divorce rate for virgin brides has been dropping.  It used to be 6%, but since the 2000's, it is 3%.  This is also at a time when the number of folks with religious beliefs is dropping. 

Marital happiness is harder to measure, but I believe it is correlated to the level of friendship the couple had prior to marriage.  It's my opinion that couples actually took the time to build a close friendship prior to marriages when there are virgin brides. 

There is a secret for increasing marital happiness.  Simply think about the things your partner does good, or the potential in them, rather than fixating on all their flaws.  If either partner thinks more about their partner's flaws rather than the things they admire about them, things go downhill fast.

Many cultures around the world, after centuries of observing family life, have concluded that virgin brides are the ideal for a happy, life-long marriage.  I also believe this is the ideal.

But after your early 20's, the chances of getting an ideal marriage drops off a cliff.  Then it becomes trying to find what's good enough, even if it isn't the ideal.  I compare this to riding in a car with a driver who has been drinking.  A sober driver is ideal, but it doesn't take many drinks to massively increase the chances of a wreck.  Just like the old adage: You can't make a housewife out of a hoe.  The more sexual partners a woman has had, the less she should be considered as "wife material."  (There is a strong correlation between the number of sexual partners a lady has had, and her chances of divorce.  There is also a correlation for men too, but the correlation is much weaker for men than it is for women.)

As people age past their 20's and into their 30's and 40's, what marriage is changes.  As women pass their childbearing years, marriage isn't so much about building the best environment they can for raising children, but often morphs into a business relationship and companionship.

It's also my personal observation that the older people get, the concept of marriage is often focused by selfish desires, rather than focused on the good of everyone involved.

We are too soon old, and too late wise.

[Boethius]

Correlation does not equal causation.  The facts simply do not support the idea that virginity does not lower risk of divorce.  The facts are quite clear.  While religious belief does lower the risk of divorce, virginity has a magnitude higher effect on divorce risk.

The divorce rate for virgin brides is 3%.  (American data since 2000.)
The divorce rate for religious folks is 20%-25%.  (7-8 times higher chance of divorce compared to virgin brides, but only half about half the divorce rate for non-religious folks.)

The studies are not about virgin brides.  They're about virginity in general.


The reasons cited in those studies are religious belief.  If a person is so religious, they abstain from sex before marriage even in a committed relationship, it's the religious belief that keeps them married.  Not virginity.

Interestingly, the divorce rate for virgin brides has been dropping.  It used to be 6%, but since the 2000's, it is 3%.  This is also at a time when the number of folks with religious beliefs is dropping. 

It's also a time with increasing immigration from predominantly Catholic countries, where both virginity and marriage for life are far more prevalent.


But, if you really want to ensure you don't divorce, go for an arranged marriage.  Divorce is extremely rare in India (about 1% rate), where 93% of marriages are arranged.

There is a secret for increasing marital happiness.  Simply think about the things your partner does good, or the potential in them, rather than fixating on all their flaws.  If either partner thinks more about their partner's flaws rather than the things they admire about them, things go downhill fast.

Every marriage is its own world.  What may work for you may not work for me.   

Many cultures around the world, after centuries of observing family life, have concluded that virgin brides are the ideal for a happy, life-long marriage.  I also believe this is the ideal.

Then you are searching in the wrong part of the world. 

[Bee Farmer]

The studies are not about virgin brides.  They're about virginity in general.

No, I was referring to studies that were about virgin BRIDES.

Please don't be so arrogant to think that you know what studies I have been looking at.

The reasons cited in those studies are religious belief.  If a person is so religious, they abstain from sex before marriage even in a committed relationship, it's the religious belief that keeps them married.  Not virginity.

Some studies will cite religious reason as a possible factor.  It's ridiculous to think that the only people who marry as virgins do so because of religious belief.  It's not that difficult to find people who married as high school sweethearts who were not religious, and have had committed, fulfilling marriages.  It's also not that difficult to find folks with religious beliefs who are divorced, often multiple times.

It's also a time with increasing immigration from predominantly Catholic countries, where both virginity and marriage for life are far more prevalent.

In America?  Try India and China.  Those are not Catholic countries, yet that is where a lot of immigration is coming from.  But to be honest, I doubt they really impact the data all that much.

But, if you really want to ensure you don't divorce, go for an arranged marriage.  Divorce is extremely rare in India (about 1% rate), where 93% of marriages are arranged.

I'm not interested in moving to India to participate in an arranged marriage.

Every marriage is its own world.  What may work for you may not work for me.   

No, that is universal around the world, regardless of culture.  If you focus on your partner's flaws, you have less happiness.  If you focus on the good characteristics of your partner, you find much more happiness.  (Some people call that wearing rose colored glasses.)

Then you are searching in the wrong part of the world.

I'm not 20 years old either. 

My reasons for looking for someone are not to find a life-long committed relationship to raise children in, which is what I believe the ultimate intention of marriage should be.  That ship has sailed.  I'm past the age for such, nor do I search for a teenage bride.

I do believe a virgin bride is the ideal.  The marriages I have seen that impressed me the most, with the level of love and happiness that I would have wanted to have if I got married...these marriages have been marriages that had a virgin bride.  Even when they grow old, you can see the love and adoration they have for each other.  And I have never seen that level of love and adoration in a marriage that didn't involve a virgin bride.

I'm past the age of looking for a virgin bride...and I have no delusions about finding that level of love and adoration in a relationship.  I don't delude myself into thinking that single mothers, divorced women, tramps, etc. are relationship material either.

[Trenchcoat]

Wouldn't it be best if we brought the whole virginity test back like they did in the olden days before marriage? Doctor with mirror in hand looking up the inside the woman with the congregation looking on as witness. It could then be announced if the woman was a virgin or shamed as a hoe! Would bring great fun to proceedings

[Grumpy]

Wouldn't it be best if we brought the whole virginity test back like they did in the olden days before marriage? Doctor with mirror in hand looking up the inside the woman with the congregation looking on as witness. It could then be announced if the woman was a virgin or shamed as a hoe! Would bring great fun to proceedings

Knock off the shitposting Trench. You are amusing no one other than your self.

[2tallbill]

crossed the seas to America, his family followed him but found out he had died of Cholera in St. Louis.

That's pretty much the story everyone in America told to keep the UKer's
from coming to live here. 

[Trenchcoat]

Yes, ahem, well back to the topic of the question then...

I would say the ideal age to wed is actually reasonably young, around early twenties.

The thing is, is that once the whole earning money to buy asserts (house) is concerned a guy (or possibly a girl) want to be assured that the person is with them because they want to be with them. The problem is if either has either bought a house either outright or in part and the other hasn't then the one who has the house is potentially laying a lot on the line. So better people get with each other before all of that commences I think.

So for guys tends to be worst for obvious reasons. So a lot of guys as they get older consider what's more important, getting with a girl or a roof over their head. Many opt for the latter.

One thing I would say is marrying young can come with the pitfall that the couple haven't been around as long as to weigh each other up and realise that they have to get to know each other well. Many many not realise that Marriage is (or was) supposed to be a lifelong binding commitment.

I personally think it would be best if all couples had to wait at least 6 months maybe up to a year from first registering an interest to get married before they are allowed to marry. That avoids any too quick decisions to marry and time for the couple to really get to know each other. I personally would suggest that in that time all couples have to fill out a booklet each divised by relationship councillors with questions & exercises to do check the couple really realise what they are getting into and if they are suitable for each other for a lifelong commitment. Completing such along with the waiting period necessary before they get married.

[Boethius]

I think your worry about why someone marries is self defeating.  It will ensure that you will either not marry, or you will find exactly what you seek to avoid.


Every person marrying has to get to know the person they are marrying.  As I've posted before, you are strangers until you live together.  You don't really know a person until you live with them. 


I don't think the timeframe for committing to marriage is at all relevant.  I knew the better half less than two weeks before we decided to marry.  Here we are, four decades later.

[ML]

I think predicting which marriages will fail/be successful is as difficult a task as solving Fermat's last theorem.

[Bee Farmer]

I think your worry about why someone marries is self defeating. 

The number one reason guys marry is availability of sex.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.

I knew the better half less than two weeks before we decided to marry.  Here we are, four decades later.

But you have also said hubby was the one and only man you have been romantically involved with.

But maybe you are right, that virginity doesn't matter to the success of a marriage.  /sarcasm

[Boethius]

I wasn’t a virgin when I married.

I just asked the better half. He said he didn’t need to marry to have sex regularly. It absolutely was not the reason he married.