U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Hudson County, NJ
1,493 posts, read 2,674,791 times
Reputation: 1177

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
If suitable partners were easy to attain, this forum and others like it wouldn't exist. Nor would so many divorces.
I think for the general population, it is pretty easy to pick up a partner. I mean partner in the sense of someone to date for a little while, not a long term commitment. I'm just an average guy and don't have much of a problem. Finding someone for the long haul, that's another story, and then making that last, seems pretty grim nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:18 AM
 
7,774 posts, read 4,973,719 times
Reputation: 13377
I’ve posted much commentary in this thread, with the majority being gender-neutral. But at present it is incumbent to broach a controversial subject, which silently dominates this thread.

Generations ago, if you were a white male with property, and of the “right” religious denomination, ethnic background and so forth; if you were not gay or handicapped or mentally ill… well then, in many regards life was privileged. By expanding rights for all, the privileges for the few have been attenuated. Those few are going to lament the loss of privilege.

Not all of social reform is zero-sum. Sometimes the gains by a downtrodden minority are actually gains for all. Sometimes all of our collective rights are advanced when gross injustices are corrected. But not always. Sometimes person A loses status precisely in complement to person B gaining it. We see some of this in modern family law.

Generations ago, in most societies the wife was regarded as her husband’s ward. She was seamlessly passed from the father to the groom.

One more thing about changing times. Before the Industrial Revolution, a vast swath of people never married. They lacked the resources. Family property would go exclusively to the eldest son. In wealthier families, younger sons joined the army or the Church. In poorer families, many people worked as servants, or outright serfs. In one major quasi-European nation with which I have some personal familiarity, serfdom was not abolished until 1861. Marriage was a luxury, and NOT the de facto expected condition of all right-thinking people. Even for those with the means, marriage occurred later in life. In the West, marriage around 18-25 is another novelty of the Industrial revolution. People used to marry at 28-30, and die at 50. “Gray divorce” was obviated simply by a shorter lifespan. And if the very act of getting married was a privilege, terminating that marriage would not be taken lightly.

So many of our modern problems stem from abundance of modern luxuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Verde Valley AZ
8,568 posts, read 9,627,370 times
Reputation: 10887
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
This is one of those threads which won't accomplish much. There's no standard, as it were, for the age groups we're talking about.

Grandparents born in the 1940's?
Or, like mine, born in the 70's? The 1870's.
Same here. My paternal grandparents were born in 1876 and 1880 respectively and they married later than most did back then. He was 32 and she was 28. They had four kids by 1920 and stayed married for over 50 years. However, I guess my granddad was a bit of a 'ladies man' and when Grandma found out she stayed with him because of those kids. I think they had a good marriage in spite of that though. My maternal grandparents were born in 1899 and 1902 so, basically, a full generation younger than my maternal grandparents. Grandma married young but divorced young as well. She and her second husband also were married over 50 years and I don't think HE was always faithful either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
77,999 posts, read 69,929,188 times
Reputation: 75772
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat View Post
Same here. My paternal grandparents were born in 1876 and 1880 respectively and they married later than most did back then. He was 32 and she was 28. They had four kids by 1920 and stayed married for over 50 years. However, I guess my granddad was a bit of a 'ladies man' and when Grandma found out she stayed with him because of those kids. I think they had a good marriage in spite of that though. My maternal grandparents were born in 1899 and 1902 so, basically, a full generation younger than my maternal grandparents. Grandma married young but divorced young as well. She and her second husband also were married over 50 years and I don't think HE was always faithful either.
Moral of these stories: the one holding all the cards gets to mess around without consequence. If women back in those days had anyone on the side, the husband could demand a divorce, and move on, along with his money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:36 AM
 
3,592 posts, read 4,708,310 times
Reputation: 4735
I think they were successful because they had different attitudes from men and women today.
Today it seems that all men and women want to do with each other is sexual intimacy and then each have their careers, "the girls" or "the fellas" for what our grandparents found in each other when they were in their courtship and later marriage phases. Just this right here is going to cause different outcomes in relationships. Man says to woman: "I don't need you. I got all this (whatever) to keep me on track. Woman says to man: "I don't need you. I got all this (whatever) to empower me and make me independent, so I will not be needing you to boss me around as if you are some kind of surrogate father to me."

The one thing women and men still pretty much seem to need each other for (sexual intimacy) is an emotionally laden dangerous landmine when it is operating at its best. So get ready for trouble when two possibly angry, broken, confused, anxious hopeful people attempt to navigate it together. So, with the attitudes and emotional baggage from each partner's past, no wonder relationships have become pretty much disposable.

Also, in our grandparents' day, Judeo-Christian ethics were more prevalent, or more openly embraced than they are now. Tenets of this ethic actually helped men and women get along better. For example, it used to be the man had a code of honor that would stop him from mistreating the woman he loved and wanted for his wife. He did not want to live with her, he did not want to have sex with her before marriage, and he did not want to live with her before marriage. He certainly did not want to hookup and then shove off for sunnier shores. A man thinking this way considered a woman he sought to be a prize. This is no longer true. Today men want all the benefits of marriage with none of the responsibility to the woman. The Judeo-Christian ethic also compelled the woman to abstain from sex until her wedding night, to be "true blue" to a man who was courting her, and accept his role as leader, provider and head of household once they married. The woman of that time may well have been independent in some aspects, but it existed within the framework of her husband being in charge of their marriage and their house; this was not true independence, rather a form of inter-dependence necessary to keep the life she built with this man together.

Lastly, in our grandparents day:

Community ties were stronger and more supportive.
People knew how to mind their own business
People know how to be discreet and keep their mouth shut.
People were more comfortable with the ideas of discipline,
self-control and delayed gratification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:45 AM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,906 posts, read 36,204,400 times
Reputation: 42502
None of my grandparents or great-grandparents divorced, and because everybody in my family (seriously, everybody) of those generations and earlier was a teenager when married, most of my great-grandparents and great-great-uncles and aunts were alive when I was little. Everybody stayed married until someone died, so I saw a lot of that. Emphysema, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. There was no abuse or infidelity that I know of, there was no fighting and little bickering. Wives took care of their husbands when they became sick, and their houses were always clean. Success! I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 10:48 AM
 
35,325 posts, read 24,992,571 times
Reputation: 32369
Quote:
Originally Posted by laorbust61 View Post
I think they were successful because they had different attitudes from men and women today.
Today it seems that all men and women want to do with each other is sexual intimacy and then each have their careers, "the girls" or "the fellas" for what our grandparents found in each other when they were in their courtship and later marriage phases. Just this right here is going to cause different outcomes in relationships. Man says to woman: "I don't need you. I got all this (whatever) to keep me on track. Woman says to man: "I don't need you. I got all this (whatever) to empower me and make me independent, so I will not be needing you to boss me around as if you are some kind of surrogate father to me."

The one thing women and men still pretty much seem to need each other for (sexual intimacy) is an emotionally laden dangerous landmine when it is operating at its best. So get ready for trouble when two possibly angry, broken, confused, anxious hopeful people attempt to navigate it together. So, with the attitudes and emotional baggage from each partner's past, no wonder relationships have become pretty much disposable.

Also, in our grandparents' day, Judeo-Christian ethics were more prevalent, or more openly embraced than they are now. Tenets of this ethic actually helped men and women get along better. For example, it used to be the man had a code of honor that would stop him from mistreating the woman he loved and wanted for his wife. He did not want to live with her, he did not want to have sex with her before marriage, and he did not want to live with her before marriage. He certainly did not want to hookup and then shove off for sunnier shores. A man thinking this way considered a woman he sought to be a prize. This is no longer true. Today men want all the benefits of marriage with none of the responsibility to the woman. The Judeo-Christian ethic also compelled the woman to abstain from sex until her wedding night, to be "true blue" to a man who was courting her, and accept his role as leader, provider and head of household once they married. The woman of that time may well have been independent in some aspects, but it existed within the framework of her husband being in charge of their marriage and their house; this was not true independence, rather a form of inter-dependence necessary to keep the life she built with this man together.

Lastly, in our grandparents day:

Community ties were stronger and more supportive.
People knew how to mind their own business
People know how to be discreet and keep their mouth shut.
People were more comfortable with the ideas of discipline,
self-control and delayed gratification.

I think you have an overly romantic notion of how things used to be. He did not want to have sex with her before marriage? Do you honestly believe that?

In fact, I think you have it backwards. Today the relationships that last seem to be much healthier. They're based on true loving friendships and partnerships more than inter-dependency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
22,457 posts, read 24,010,923 times
Reputation: 48668
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
I think you have an overly romantic notion of how things used to be. He did not want to have sex with her before marriage? Do you honestly believe that?
I've read a statistic that at least 30% of 18th/19th-century brides were pregnant at their weddings. (I'm not sure how it was quantified--maybe by comparing dates on marriage certificates to dates on birth certificates.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Verde Valley AZ
8,568 posts, read 9,627,370 times
Reputation: 10887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Moral of these stories: the one holding all the cards gets to mess around without consequence. If women back in those days had anyone on the side, the husband could demand a divorce, and move on, along with his money.
True. And I had the misfortune to marry men who had the same mindset. Too bad I didn't know that before I married them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Ubique
4,141 posts, read 3,142,475 times
Reputation: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Still, it's always heart-warming to hear stories of couples who still love each other after 50 years. Those, however, are the exception to the rule, in any era.
I don't know if it's an exception. In my extended family that was more the "rule." My dad died in his 44th year of marriage. My father-in-law died in his 48th year of marriage. Both wives cried their eyes out and honored their husbands. Both my uncles died after being married a "hundred" years. My aunt's husband also died in his 4th or 5th decade of marriage. Did they have flaws? Sure, so did their spouses. But they were hard-working, normal people. Some were more educated than the others. And they were all born citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:20 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top