Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2017, 08:45 AM
AFP
 
7,412 posts, read 6,889,678 times
Reputation: 6632

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by David A Stone View Post
the difference was our ancestors knew it was wrong and there was shame associated with it.


Today, the people partaking of pre-marital sex see no wrong with it and if they are single and have a few kids they see no need to marry.
They were conditioned to believe this as it appears you are as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2017, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
1,110 posts, read 895,767 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthwestResident View Post
Even some Royals and Aristocrats got pregnant before they got Married but more rare among that class.
What was even more common among royals and nobles was illegitimacy after marriage, or outside of marriage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...itish_monarchs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_bastard

Illegitamate Children and Missing Fathers - Genealogy.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:52 PM
 
537 posts, read 597,625 times
Reputation: 772
Kids and young people today are actually less sexually active than previous generations. Rampant internet porn quenches the sexual desire of many young men so that they don't need an actual lady to satisfy them. People in general are less social and more awkward around each other in real life, as digital interaction replaces in person interaction. Being a 20 something year old virgin is more common now than ever. Especially in some other countries like Japan.

The rise of modern feminism and the backlash against it by many males have led to a lot of distrust between the sexes as well, resulting in less sexual activity.

Last edited by BongoBungo; 02-22-2017 at 02:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 02:39 PM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,464,896 times
Reputation: 12187
You tell base on my maternal grandparents wedding date and when my oldest aunt was born that sometime went down. It was a shotgun wedding. Grandma was a good but flawed person who nearly disowned a son when he did the same thing she had done. My mom moved 3 hours away from my sister when she got pregnant at 18. I can't imagine doing such a thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 03:58 PM
 
9,837 posts, read 4,633,384 times
Reputation: 7292
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthwestResident View Post
There common thinking among people that our Ancestors all waited until their Wedding Night before they did it for first time.

In fact growing up we are told that or taught that our Ancestors waited until they got Married and that why we should to. Okay some may have just like today some or alot do wait until they are Married but even back then (and before victorian times to!) it wasn't always the case.

Found this article online today and was great read: Your Great Grandparents Were People, Too | FamilyTree.com

My Grandmother was 1 Month Pregnant when she Married ans My other Grandmother was 2 Months PRegnant. Two of My Great-Grandmothers were Pregnant when they married as were a couple Great-Great Grandmothers. One of My Great-Great Grandmother either got Pregnant just before she got married or on her wedding Night. Even some Royals and Aristocrats got pregnant before they got Married but more rare among that class.

So no despite common Victorian and pre Civil War/Industrial/Reconstruction Period thinking Our Ancestors did not always wait.

They were Humans and sometimes the love and passion got the best of them and couldn't help themselves


Sex is natural, marriage is not. marriage is a social construct...

Religion is just another artificial tool to manage people.

Picking a partner and sticking with them to raise kids makes sense, but lets face it the marriage part was simply a tool to bind people in case they are dissatisfied down the road..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 04:43 PM
 
Location: United State
672 posts, read 502,473 times
Reputation: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Though you talk about men, it really sounds like you bought the myth that only women are unfaithful. 0h, but how do they impregnate THEMSELVES? You at least seem to be more bitter about women being "unfaithful".

Anyway, only naive girls buy this crap about remaining "pure" - men never have for themselves, at least though they try to put all the burden on women and let themselves enjoy.
Oh of Course not. Both Men and Women Cheat. I was just brought those up to Alandros to show both do cehat. Trust me there plenty of Men in My Family who had Affairs also like any other family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 05:52 PM
 
13,754 posts, read 13,310,798 times
Reputation: 26025
I don't know if anyone mentioned this, didn't go through all 6 pages... In Bible times, once a couple were betrothed, he went away to prepare a place for her to live, often building on to the family home. Once he's done he goes to get her. She won't know when, she just has to be ready to go at any time. The feast/party/wedding goes on and on. Then he takes her to bed. Once they consummate the marriage (while the party goes on) he comes out and shows blood evidence of her purity.
I personally think it's better to wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,249,887 times
Reputation: 16939
One of my great grand parents lived in Ulser during a major episode of the 'troubles'. He proudly called himself an 'Orangeman'. He was married with three kids. There there was a major disruption where the 'Orangemen' were quite active, and he was apparently quite high up.

Very very shortly after this he didn't come home. His wife, not my great great grandmother, didn't seem concerned. He didn't surface in Ireland again. But he did in New York, a year or so later. This was when emigration was common but there was really no records. You paid your passage, got off the ship in NY, and that was all that was to it.

But he does show up in records with a birth in Ireland, and a wife who is one of my ggrandparents named Euphemia. Can't forget that name... He married her and had a family born in Kansas and Missouri. The grandfather in my direct line was the first born. It seems he was also a very early premie.

It doesn't surprise me that the wedding got postponed, but what's fascinating was that there was every sign that his other family in Ireland continued to have some kind of contact, at least the wife, though nobody openly made contact. One thing I'd LOVE to do is the dna test ancestry does to see if any ulster based people come out as closer relations than you'd think.

I'd say my ancestors at least were very willing to find a way to make it work.

I also heard the explation that the rest take 9 months, the first can be quicker when I did the math.

Last edited by nightbird47; 02-22-2017 at 06:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Southwest
2,599 posts, read 2,320,129 times
Reputation: 1976
My impression was about half and half. Half were "pure" on their wedding night, half weren't. This during period of time between say 1900 and 1965.


Sound about right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Arizona
8,268 posts, read 8,644,982 times
Reputation: 27662
Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousgeorge5 View Post
My impression was about half and half. Half were "pure" on their wedding night, half weren't. This during period of time between say 1900 and 1965.


Sound about right?
I agree for that time period. Some, and maybe still because of region, some religious, some because of nationality.

In my tree I never bothered with wedding dates so I never noticed this too much. I do wonder about the youngest child when there is a big gap from the oldest.
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 > Genealogy

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top