I can’t think of any couple, female 17-22, male, 17-27, who are ready without substantial financial backing from their parents or an ethnic/religious community to get married and start their family.  The only ones I know of are Amish or Hasidic Jєωιѕн.
That’s just my personal experience.
At present, I know of three “traditional” Catholics who married young, had one to four babies, and two of the women and one of the men were abandoned, left to raise the child(ren) on their own or have had to move back home with parent(s). The grandparent(s) are raising and homeschooling while Mom or Dad is at work.
I’m supporting or refuting using average or median statistics as to when Catholics ought to marry. I’m just sharing my personal observations.

This is everywhere. Not just you.

I honestly think it is wreckless to try to encourage men to marry young. There is a tension of course with his coping with chastity. 

The less family friendly our world becomes, the more we need to run to the Holy Family ideal, which is a young woman with an older man. 

St. Joseph, pray for us!

I dont really believe you. Because you can claim all you want that its not all that matters, however your emphasis is so so strong that it begs the question of how sincere you are, and how much respect you actually have for a man who has lived a life. Even if single.

I think you confirm this suspicion of mine by hand waving away modern men past their twenties, even if traditional. Truth is, that a traditional single man who has stayed chaste and wise in this crazy world will earn far more reward for his efforts than a man in the past. Because the challenges are greater. So, as Christians, we should have even greater honor and respect for such a man as his reward and wisdom will be greater.

 Instead, the prevailing idea now is a perverse one which seeks to elevate youth, and attempts to rope men into marrying young, where they are probably doing just fine. I suspect that this comes from a desire to seek men who are more easy to manipulate by the wife or mother in law, (or boomer father), rather than a man post 30s who is less likely to be moved by fear or manipulation.

But hey! Feel free to try to prove me wrong...

The point of the thread was age men typically got married + their prime which was based on fertility and healthy offspring. There is no need to manipulate men into marriage. If anything the younger ladies might need it since they may not want to marry a man too much older than them. Do you think the ladies should not get married young? Or just then men? And do you consider young to be different for both of them?

I dont really believe you. Because you can claim all you want that its not all that matters, however your emphasis is so so strong that it begs the question of how sincere you are, and how much respect you actually have for a man who has lived a life. Even if single.

I think you confirm this suspicion of mine by hand waving away modern men past their twenties, even if traditional. Truth is, that a traditional single man who has stayed chaste and wise in this crazy world will earn far more reward for his efforts than a man in the past. Because the challenges are greater. So, as Christians, we should have even greater honor and respect for such a man as his reward and wisdom will be greater.

 Instead, the prevailing idea now is a perverse one which seeks to elevate youth, and attempts to rope men into marrying young, where they are probably doing just fine. I suspect that this comes from a desire to seek men who are more easy to manipulate by the wife or mother in law, (or boomer father), rather than a man post 30s who is less likely to be moved by fear or manipulation.

But hey! Feel free to try to prove me wrong...

You are trying to make bachelorhood into your 30’s look like some sort of virtue. It’s not. 
If you have means to marry younger, you should. 

And St. Paul says:

What is St. Paul’s meaning here? Does he mean to imply avoiding marriage until older, or avoiding marriage altogether? I have always thought the latter. 

Remaining unmarried is more Christ-like (provided you live a rightly ordered, celibate, chaste life)

It is not better to wait until older for those who may not be able to refrain from sins against the sixth and ninth commandments.

Right, earthly/temporal prudence always takes a back seat to mortal sin. In this case, it's the best thing for your soul to get married early to avoid sin when you're not ready. (Not condoning getting married if not prudent to do so)

For a man, getting married in this century is high risk. He has to be absolutely sure his wife doesn’t turn into a nagging harpy. Gain a bunch of weight, denies him the marital embrace, etc. And that she’s not going to destroy him in the court system financially, mentally, and emotionally. Specifically, him never seeing his kids ever while he has to pay child support.

Since I AM a woman, I think in today’s world, a tradcat woman should know “what’s out there before seriously thinking of marriage.” In general, females are slightly less apt to cast themselves into concupiscence than men. Once you see the long term results of a worldly, immoral or amoral life, the desire for experimentation is a lot less. That’s what happened to me within a few months of starting college at age 17. No way did I want to become a 40 year old, dumpy, AFDC and government cheese block collecting, trailer trash sort of woman with a bunch of kids whose dads were all absent.  That’s how most of the college age popular party girls looked after two decades, that or the urban version in the projects.