An ultimately unconvincing but nonetheless thought-provoking post about the case for marrying earlier, from Karen Swallow Prior at The Atlantic:
Of course, the basis for marriage has changed considerably over the course of history, and the changes in the ages at which people marry merely reflect these shifting foundations. For much of human history, marriage was based on economic expediency, its purpose being political and financial maintenance or gain. Then in the modern age, as an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation and its emphasis on the individual, the ideal of the companionate marriage arose. The basis of the companionate marriage was neither “romantic love” (a la the Arthurian legends and Romeo and Juliet) nor economic and political expediency. Its foundation was a “reasonable love” that made two people well-matched partners (companions) for marriage, one which carried with it obligations including, but also going beyond, the temporal realm of the private household.
File this one under extremely good sentences:
Under the hedonistic model of marriage, it makes sense to stay single long enough to accumulate the things that can be brought into an eventual union as a kind of experiential dowry.
I don’t know if this means anything, but she seems to be religious, and she’s a regular church attendee. Might social pressure also make a convincing case for earlier marriage?