I wouldn’t consider myself to be at this point yet, but at what point (or age) is a mediocre marriage better than no marriage at all? When one is 35 years old? 40? 45?
I don’t mean a *bad *or *unhappy *marriage; that’s something to be avoided. I mean mediocre, neither-good-nor-bad marriage. At what point, or age, do you say, “OK, if my only options are a mediocre marriage, versus never getting married at all, then the first option is better?” Obviously, the best is a happy marriage, but we live in a world of limited options.
I guess it depends on what you want the neither-bad-nor-good marriage for. What does it add to your life? Not happiness, if it’s neither good nor bad, then it should have no overall impact on your happiness, right? Presuming, of course, you don’t grow to resent your choice.
Increased financial security? Someone to co-parent with? Just because not getting married is some kind of failure in your mind? Without knowing the why, there’s not much to say.
If you want a kid, there’s probably some point at which a zero-sum marriage is worth it for the kid benefit, right? I dunno, I would have quite happily been a bachelor-for-life, but I happened to meet the right girl in college. Luck as much as anything, though I’m certainly happy it worked out. Best of luck.
Okay, for there is no age when a mediocre marriage is better. I don’t want children, and so don’t need a partner in raising them (or to provide DNA for them). I would only marry if marrying would make me happier, and I don’t know how a mediocre marriage would do that. I could see staying a mediocre marriage because I was afraid of the change of being alone, I guess (or the financial cost or whatever). But I’m already alone, and I’m good with that, so why make a life-change that I don’t think would make me happier?
Never. Marriages you go into thinking “mediocre, but I’ll take what I can get” rarely work out in the long term. Where do you think all those bad marriages came from?
If you’re super lonely and you feel alienated from your married friends and associates, then I suppose having a “mediocre” marriage is better than being alone. Also, if you’re poverty-stricken, getting partnered up with someone who is not quite so poverty-stricken can improve your life.
But there are costs to everything. Who wants to share a bedroom with someone who they don’t really care about? I think I’d rather be lonely in solitude than lonely in the presence of another person.
At this point in my life, never. Marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient in my mind to having a rich, rewarding, and meaningful life.
Around the OP’s age, as my short marriage was coming off the tracks I would have said differently. For a while in my early 30s when I realized if I was ever going to have kids I should really focus on finding someone…and then life happened and I had things to do that were more of a priority. Next thing I knew I was closing in on 40 and not seeing kids being in the cards. With that, I realized I didn’t care whether I ever remarried. I’m not opposed. I’m not so scarred I can’t see doing it. It has to be right though or …why bother with all the opportunity costs let alone the risks.
If you met someone and fell head over heals mediocre with each other, wouldn’t the appropriate level of commitment be other than full cohabitation, sexual exclusiveness and intermingled finances?
If “marriage is the tomb of love,” then it’s got to be the murder’s forest body dump of couples with no more than a grudging respect for each other.
Are you talking about a mediocre marriage as opposed to having relationships without being married, or as opposed to not having any relationship at all? That makes a big difference.
In any case, it’s going to depend a lot on individual character. Some greatly need companionship, and are very unhappy living alone, others not so much.
Personnally, my answer would be : “never”. I’m 50, single, and I’ve exactly zero interest in living with someone who wouldn’t be a great match. I’m much better off alone. An average match would make for a relationship, but living separately. A mediocre match would make me more unhappy than I am, and very probably quickly resentful.
ETA : some mentioned children. I would have wanted children, I had the opportunity to have children and declined. But I’d have been even more demanding from the potential mother of my potential kids. There’s absolutely no way I would have had children with someone I would have considered “mediocre”. So, rather than encouraging me to lower my expectations, the idea that I want children would make me raise them, at the contrary.
I think it’s beneficial to have realistic expectations of what a marriage will be like rather than unrealistically high standards, no matter what age you are. One person’s “realistic” might be another person’s “mediocre”, I suppose.
Is your real name Charlotte Lucas? Are you considering marriage to Mr Collins rather than accepting a life of spinsterhood? To remain in one’s parents’ home & perhaps eventually be forced to accept a post as companion or governess? How dreadful! Collins may be a sycophantic toady, but he’s not a cad & a bounder like Wickham. We can’t all expect to find our Mr Darcy, after all…
Sorry. I live in the 21st century. Be realistic–all-consuming romantic passion can’t be expected to last throughout married life. But–to begin a marriage with mediocrity in mind sounds horrible. (Spinster here. Still better than in a bad marriage. Or being a bitter divorcee.)
Well, I’m 49 and I haven’t reached that point yet. I don’t have any younger relatives, though, and I do sometimes wonder what will become of me during my dotage.
There’s also this:
Even if you (I address this to Velocity) decide to settle for a mediocre marriage, I’m not sure how you’d go about finding one. Would you be looking for someone who also finds you to be mediocre? Is that really any easier than finding someone for a good and happy marriage?
I question the premise a bit. I was 29 when I married my then 32 yo wife. It was the first marriage for each of us.
27 years later we’re still very happy. Life has been immeasurably better together than it would have been apart.
If the OP is conflating “I’m over 25” with “I’m doomed to a mediocre-at-best marriage”, then IMO the OP is very confused and his pessimistic attitude may turn into a self-fulfilling prophesy to his detriment.
If instead the OP is asking “What’s the right age to marry somebody I don’t really like”, the answer is “never.”
If instead the OP is asking “What’s the right age to admit I’m not going to attract a super model nympho who craves both my body and my relatively boring middle-class lifestyle”, the answer is “ASAP, and preferably a few years ago.”
I tried for a mediocre marriage. I’m now separated.
Don’t do it.
On the other hand I have never known what it’s like to be head-over-heels in love. So, I guess it’s my problem. I don’t think I’ll ever get married again. Too difficult.
I’m guessing the OP is NOT looking for mediocre, but rather maybe he’s considering lowering his expectations.
I once knew a woman who married a guy who did not knock her off her feet. They had some chemistry, but it was more like a ten-year-old’s chemistry set than Mr. White’s meth lab. I had only known her for a few months when she started telling me about how unhappy she was. Thing was, she had been married before and it hadn’t work out. She just didn’t know how or didn’t want to be alone. She ended up having a kid. Don’t know if they are still together. I wouldn’t be surprised if she weren’t. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if she is still “enduring”.
Marriages of convenience have existed since the beginning of time. Doesn’t make them ideal, but it’s not like what the OP is suggesting is completely unheard of.