The decline of the family has unleashed an epidemic of loneliness

I don't think the decline of the family is the primary issue today. My own perspective is that the "epidemic of loneliness" has more to do with the prevalance of, and addiction to, social media in its various forms.

It is easier than ever to form and maintain all your relationships, acquaintences, friends, and family, online via social media. You can see what people are up to, even "participate" to some degree via commentary/messaging, and it leaves people feeling like they've done their part in keeping the relationship alive. My observation is that because relationships kept this way are increasingly normalized, people are less interested in getting together in the physical world because it takes a lot more effort, and requires a much more significant investment in time.

On the plus side, it means you can keep relationships alive across great distances, and even during times where life is so busy that you have limited spare time.

But the problem is that forming meaningful relationships becomes an increasingly difficult task, to the point where you can begin to wonder if there is something wrong with you due to not being able to form those relationships. Further, you feel increasingly disconnected and isolated, when you have a lot of skin-deep relationships, but none which are truly meaningful.

I consider myself lucky to have a wonderful wife, and her company is more than enough to sustain me even when nobody else is around; but both of us still feel the isolation when we are unable to get together with friends for too long. We moved away from my home state, and she immigrated from another country, so both of us have left friendships behind, and been trying to form new relationships near where we live. It has been harder than expected, and I think it is in part due to people finding it really easy to blow off getting together in person when there is even the slightest inconvenience, especially knowing that they don't have to actually meet in person to keep the relationship alive.

As a result, my pet peeve these days is when people, when asked why they keep blowing off getting together, say "I've been so busy". For one, it is a meaningless statement, most people are busy, it is just the nature of having to work at least one full-time job and then fit in the other activities you want to do in the time left over. Most people still find time to get together with friends at least once in awhile. Thanks to the perpetual need to post everything on social media, it is usually evident that the "busy" person is not really actually busy, and instead what they really meant was "I've been too busy doing things I value more than our friendship, but am too uncomfortable to tell you that".

I don't know if it is related or not, but in my experience, the detachment derived from social media seems to go hand in hand with avoiding anything that is perceived as unpleasant, such as being honest with someone when it is a hard truth, e.g. "hey, my life is full, I'd like to keep in touch, but I'm not in a position to add new friendships right now".

This probably comes off as a rant against social media, but I'm not really anti-social media, I just think the way we find ourselves using it has real, detrimental effects on human relationships, in a way that we don't really understand and are only really starting to see the impact of.

Which places are different?

Last night, I said something to my spouse about a conversation I had with a "single serving friend", and she didn't know what I was talking about. I said it was a Fight Club reference, then went farther and explained that I had a five minute conversation with a complete stranger (just walking down the street together), and I had to explain this idea to her, because she's an introvert and would never, ever engage in a conversation with a stranger.

You don't understand mother nature, women, and love.

One of the secrets to a good love relationship is from the woman's often really, really strong romantic feelings when she is in her teens. That's just a fact, Jack. Live and learn that fact or suffer the consequences of ignorance. Some movies will say "That old zing" -- well, teen girls are awash in the propensity to "zing".

Sure, we'd all like some thoughtful, planned, rational, etc. relationship -- alas Mother Nature didn't get or like that memo. The relationship gets a LOT of that young women propensity or gets, net, less.

Bluntly, the woman is able to be good at marriage and motherhood years before a man is able to be good at marriage and being a father. That's just Mother Nature's way. In particular, the woman with a baby needs to feel that her husband is strong, wise, and cares about, cares for, and will take care of his wife and children. If he is close to her age, then that's super hard -- possible with some special circumstances but otherwise improbable.

Or, when she is 18 she is old enough; when he is 35 he is still young enough; and that's enough. Besides, in general, and especially for the case of this thread, he will make a much better husband and father at 35 than 19, 25, or 30.

For her at 18, she will need help, from her husband, yes, but also, as I outlined, from the rest of the older family members.

So, date her when she is 15-16 or so and marry her when she's 18.

I'm not nearly the first person to observe or even recommend such age differences.

I know; I know; the currently strongly politically correct view is that we should ignore any such gender/age differences as I outlined. But, bluntly, that's one of the reasons we're rapidly going extinct, literally, from birth rates too low from bad family formation.

It's just the facts of life.

I once believed as you did: At 18 she was fully ready to be married and a mother, totally awash in love. Would have made a terrific mother. But I was only 4 years older, and we planned. Lots of good, rational planning. She was brilliant, Valedictorian, Summa Cum Laude, PBK, Woodrow Wilson Fellow, NSF Fellow, mathematical social science Ph.D. from two of the world's top experts. But that's NOT what Mother Nature wanted. It flopped. She died. Her effort to be equal ("this equality stuff got me in a lot of trouble") was fatal. Now I'm lonely. Never, never, never again, never should any man ever, ever, ever consider a marriage with two Ph.D. degrees and close in age. NEVER. It's begging for disaster. In a word, are trying to do without the "zing".

Early on she said "Women don't have to be just cared for. Women can do things, too." Well, that was a deeply convoluted statement: Being cared for is what she really expected, wanted, and knew she needed. But she wanted to pretend to me that she could also paddle our little canoe. She knew she wanted to be cared about, cared for, taken care of. And for young women with children, those feelings are nearly universal and universally strong. So, you just learned one of the facts of life.

Ages 35 and 15 have a LOT going for them: Then at 38 and 18 they can be married and right away start their family. GOOD. TOUGH to do better than that. But you look at this terrific situation and find something wrong -- you need to study Women 101 for Dummies -- Men.