Percentage of People Who Get Married

Age and percentage of population that got married

Women
Age 25: 32%
Age 30: 62%
Age 35: 74%
Age 40: 81%
Age 45: 86%
Age 50: 87%

Men
Age 25: 21%
Age 30: 48%
Age 35: 67%
Age 40: 76%
Age 45: 81%
Age 50: 83%

So only 62% of 30 year old women have been married.  And only 2/3 of men have been married by 35.  I guess Im not that much of a lost cause afterall.

Do these stats make you feel better or worse?

Source

And then half of them got divorced.

Neither, because these figures don't include de facto patnerships. The great majority have had long term relationships by their 30s (along with the not-so-long variety).

These stats mean nothing to me. I got married and I got divorced. So what? I am not sure how these numbers are supposed to make me feel, frankly.

I would be more interested in the ages of divorced men and women and the frequency of sex they have at each demographic. Give me numbers that matter. lol

I won't feel as bad by deciding not to get married or have kids.

You could add in the divorce percentages and come up with the how many are single at various age groups (although I have no idea where you'd get the data from!)

Lots of info here, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. The law firm seems to have a good reputation though.
https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/

And then of course there are geographical, cultural and religious variables to take into account.

AmyTheTemperamental said:

And then half of them got divorced.

Click to expand...

More than half now, isnt it?
I think Ive spoken on the subject before so I wont rehash it much, but marriage as a concept was created when roaming armies would run around towns "pilfering" local women leaving babies in their wake, with a bunch of farmers having nomeans to see to their needs. Hence, under threat of fire and brimstone, you gotthe men to marry so both the girl and the kid wouldnt die of hunger. Stayed relevant up to the point where women were finally allowed to work.

Now, it remains a rather pointless tradition that keeps florists, caterers and priests busy and making money, with pretty much no significant advantages and plenty of disadvantages. But people like to have legitimacy under the eyes of the invisible sky daddy, so hey, if thats your thing, be my guest. But the rising rates of divorces lead me to believe its an outdated concept. Surely dont have much to do with love anymore.
Of course, I generalise. Maybe someone who used to be married could sell me on it, but I cant fathom how one could want to bother their LTD relationship and push for a marriage. A breakup can or cannot be dramatic; a divorce ALMOST always is...?

I don't offend easily and am not offended. But I must question the intention or purpose behind using "under the eyes of the invisible sky daddy".

When more than half of humanity believes in a divine creator with many compelling arguments for such a being, including scientists, why then the mockery?

If you don't believe, that's fine. In fact, it's more than fine. Obviously. I just don't understand the NEED so many nonbelievers have to mock.

Pre-nup?

oImbleed_the_freak said:

I don't offend easily and am not offended. But I must question the intention or purpose behind using "under the eyes of the invisible sky daddy".

When more than half of humanity believes in a divine creator with many compelling arguments for such a being, including scientists, why then the mockery?

If you don't believe, that's fine. In fact, it's more than fine. Obviously. I just don't understand the NEED so many nonbelievers have to mock.

Click to expand...

That's what you took out of my whole thought? Also, what makes you think I have zero belief in the divine? Also, it's accurate, for all relegions, even the fake ones; he's invisible, he's in the sky according to most and people live their lives intended on pleasing  him as if he was their daddy. I also told god doesnt exist jokes on sunday school just so the priest and the old ladies there would say I"ll burn in hell. Regardless, im sorry I offended you, because I clearly did despite it, but I was talking on marriage, not on religion. We can debate theplus or minus of organised religion some other time.

How do those figures make me feel? Indiferrent.
Not every couple that gets married stays together, and not every couple that stays together gets married. And just because the people stay together doesn't mean they're happy, what about the married couples that stop having sex because of one partners decision? There's lots of relationships that carry on just for the sake of the kids, appearances etc. Add on top of that the factors mentioned by nibbysaurus and this whole statistic becomes more or less meaningless.

bleed_the_freak said:

I don't offend easily and am not offended. But I must question the intention or purpose behind using "under the eyes of the invisible sky daddy".

When more than half of humanity believes in a divine creator with many compelling arguments for such a being, including scientists, why then the mockery?

If you don't believe, that's fine. In fact, it's more than fine. Obviously. I just don't understand the NEED so many nonbelievers have to mock.

Click to expand...

Those arguments being largely arguments from ignorance, incredulity and the so called "god of the gaps", at least from what I've seen so far.
Also, just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true; flat earthers and anti-vaxxers come to mind.

However, with all that being said, I agree that there's no need for mockery or insults, let's keep it civil.

Richard_39 said:

We can debate theplus or minus of organised religion some other time.

Click to expand...

I advise against that


To quote a code of conduct:
"Religious discussion is allowed on the forum but debates are not, any discussion which turns into a debate will have the thread closed."

However, with all that being said, I agree that there's no need for mockery or insults, let's keep it civil.

Richard_39 said:

We can debate theplus or minus of organised religion some other time.

Click to expand...

I advise against that


To quote a code of conduct:
"Religious discussion is allowed on the forum but debates are not, any discussion which turns into a debate will have the thread closed."

I concur. I'm not the one who brought it up to begin with. You won't hear further on the subject from me.
I just want to point out it wasnt meant as an insult to an entire billions of people mass, however. A mock, yes, because I mock everything, up to and including (especially) myself. I regularly do so where I live, a mass Catholic bastion of believers, all to usual guffaw; I guess it's a "States" thing; it's never funny unless you guys decide it is. 
Kind of like my ex gf;-)

X-1 Alpha said:

Those arguments being largely arguments from ignorance, incredulity and the so called "god of the gaps", at least from what I've seen so far.
Also, just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true; flat earthers and anti-vaxxers come to mind.

However, with all that being said, I agree that there's no need for mockery or insults, let's keep it civil.

Click to expand...

Did you really just lump anti-vaxxers in with flat earthers?  You know, not all anti-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists and spew nonsense....

That's exactly what a flat earther would say.

Richard_39 said:

More than half now, isnt it?
I think Ive spoken on the subject before so I wont rehash it much, but marriage as a concept was created when roaming armies would run around towns "pilfering" local women leaving babies in their wake, with a bunch of farmers having no means to see to their needs. Hence, under threat of fire and brimstone, you gotthe men to marry so both the girl and the kid wouldnt die of hunger. Stayed relevant up to the point where women were finally allowed to work.

Click to expand...

Alternative (hi)story, I'll leave it to each individual to decide which version they like more:
It has less to do with warfare but with a general desire to fashion a safe environment and to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the people of a tribe or between tribes that marry into one another. With the advent of agriculture we started to settle down, divide labor into the harder field labor and the lighter labor and domestic duties etc. And it's about conserving the bloodlines because in a promiscuous environment nobody can confirm fatherhood and while it's clear for women what came out of them, men would have to guess what they are investing in is actually theirs. Which wouldn't make much sense if they primarily married random farmers to widows with kids they have no stake in...I don't know. And wouldn't women with kids have already been tied to a man...who fathered the kid(s)...ergo, some sort of solid relationship or contract...like marriage. Or is this just women that got kids from all the different men in the tribe. If there was no concept of fatherhood already, why would it be a problem if some men die cause the tribe still provides. Am I not making sense here...?

Anyways, it just doesn't add up much to me. Bothered me more than the throwaway skydaddy stuff. And the whole "women couldn't work" thing seems grossly inaccurate. It's not like we had an organized law and a labor market 6.000 something years ago.

Rodent said:

Richard_39 said:

More than half now, isnt it?
I think Ive spoken on the subject before so I wont rehash it much, but marriage as a concept was created when roaming armies would run around towns "pilfering" local women leaving babies in their wake, with a bunch of farmers having no means to see to their needs. Hence, under threat of fire and brimstone, you gotthe men to marry so both the girl and the kid wouldnt die of hunger. Stayed relevant up to the point where women were finally allowed to work.

Click to expand...

Alternative (hi)story, I'll leave it to each individual to decide which version they like more:
It has less to do with warfare but with a general desire to fashion a safe environment and to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the people of a tribe or between tribes that marry into one another. With the advent of agriculture we started to settle down, divide labor into the harder field labor and the lighter labor and domestic duties etc. And it's about conserving the bloodlines because in a promiscuous environment nobody can confirm fatherhood and while it's clear for women what came out of them, men would have to guess what they are investing in is actually theirs. Which wouldn't make much sense if they primarily married random farmers to widows with kids they have no stake in...I don't know. And wouldn't women with kids have already been tied to a man...who fathered the kid(s)...ergo, some sort of solid relationship or contract...like marriage. Or is this just women that got kids from all the different men in the tribe. If there was no concept of fatherhood already, why would it be a problem if some men die cause the tribe still provides. Am I not making sense here...?

Anyways, it just doesn't add up much to me. Bothered me more than the throwaway skydaddy stuff. And the whole "women couldn't work" thing seems grossly inaccurate. It's not like we had an organized law and a labor market 6.000 something years ago.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't claim to have so much of a truth of it as a personal view on it, but I do know of several specific historical occurences where men were forced/coerced into marrying under threat of divine punishment specifically so that women wouldnt become poverts and kids wouldnt become urchins, which oft happenned at a time where both werent considered as much as cattle. But of course, Im no sociologist or historical expert, just a dude with some thoughts.
The bit about women and working is more personal opinion; divorce and spousal support were obviously needed pre-50's when the rare cases of divorce would leave women and children destitute and with the State not wanting to pay, the responsibility of family that would or would not help them, hence the need of spousal support. But with equal rihhts to work (not quite there yet but getting there), paying alimony I think the english word is feels redundant.

There was an interesting interview on TVA (local tv here) with a lawyer in seperation cases stating just that not two weeks ago. I tend to agree with that view. He says its become more of a revenge business than about actually meeting needs, in many cases. Which doesnt sell me on marriage in 2018 being an interesting experience. Not to mention it costs usually over 2ks here whereas just "living in sin"(old expression here) costs nothing.
Also, sidenote, I live in a province that was historicallynunder very very tight catholic church control, priests going to visit once a week to "make sure" you're married or have a sufficient number of kids, with the people practically kicking out religion completely from about 70 onward. That regional thing probably colors my views, which are shared by many of my contemporaries in the province. Ironically, most of us Catholics have no love lost for the concepts of the Catholic church, specifically marriage, stemming from a time not that long ago when you faced the big EX (excommunication) for not being married or not having enough kids.

Man my mind immediately went right to thinking that that higher numbers for women implied a lot of lesbians. I didn't even consider divorce.

Marriage began as a way of determining paternity and inheritance while making sure children were cared for in societies where polygamy was no longer viable. A greater number of men otherwise be shut out of fathering children were able to become invested in those societies, because, assuming they had children they would be more likely to consent to being ruled, cooperate with social/religious mores, work 14 hour days in the fields, and go to war if necessary. Also helped re-enforce the division of labour which was probably essential in early agricultural communities on the edge of starvation.

Now with the advent of artificial contraception and the divorce rate it's just down to how much meaning individuals attach to a formalised commitment.