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 02-20-2017, 01:25 PM
 
Location: United State
450 posts, read 306,656 times
Reputation: 376

Advertisements

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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2017, 02:09 PM
 
4,315 posts, read 3,081,367 times
Reputation: 7751
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
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 02:24 PM
 
Location: United State
450 posts, read 306,656 times
Reputation: 376
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.
Good point. they always did get married if Women became PRegnant usually to tr and hide it but that probably didn't walys work. Simple Math
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 02:37 PM
 
950 posts, read 985,693 times
Reputation: 1362
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.
I would just add that it's completely cultural whether or not you think such a thing is wrong in the first case. Back then most thought it was wrong, though did it and hid it. Many these days simply don't believe it was wrong.

We should remember that cultural standards change both from culture to culture and from time to time, we should be careful to suggest one is "wrong" or not just because it was different. Some religious figures in the Old Testament are polygamists for example. Roman society involved all sorts of affairs that were deemed acceptable.

We should be careful not to apply our own personal views across all time and all people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 02:41 PM
 
Location: United State
450 posts, read 306,656 times
Reputation: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alandros View Post
I would just add that it's completely cultural whether or not you think such a thing is wrong in the first case. Back then most thought it was wrong, though did it and hid it. Many these days simply don't believe it was wrong.

We should remember that cultural standards change both from culture to culture and from time to time, we should be careful to suggest one is "wrong" or not just because it was different. Some religious figures in the Old Testament are polygamists for example. Roman society involved all sorts of affairs that were deemed acceptable.

We should be careful not to apply our own personal views across all time and all people.
I definitely don't judge any of them for engaging in Premarital Sex before Marriage. And even if one didn't became PRegnant didn't mean they didn't. I tihnk for some of them (Because let be honest not all of them had happy marriages) when they do that before MArriage they knew they were or wanted to spend rest of their life together and were in love and though it would be oaky as long as it was discreet and they hid it. Now days everyone has tell you everything.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 02:42 PM
 
950 posts, read 985,693 times
Reputation: 1362
I'll add that in a lot of ways older American culture valued hiding things rather than dealing with things that were social stigmas. I found out long after my maternal grandfather died that he not only was abusive but he slept around and was widely known to do so (apparently my grandmother's brothers roughed him up once for that). My mother in her 40s-50s she met a half brother for the first time and she probably has more half siblings out there (and I have half-uncles/aunts out there).

Apparently some neighbors to my grandmother knew some of the specifics but never told her about it, since often back then abuse and elicit behavior was not actively stopped, it was hidden. Basically public image and avoiding divorce was more important to many than abuse.

Additionally I have heard stories of male ancestors who for multiple generations violated their daughters. Again something that was kept secret and the society in general valued an image of values over the reality of values.

These days there's often a value on transparency, on not hiding things, and in the case of abuse of encouraging women to not have to put up with it. Of encouraging children to speak out about violation.

People are the same then and now, they do the same things, the culture around them is all that changes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 02:43 PM
 
35,104 posts, read 44,356,231 times
Reputation: 62297
I don't know anyone who has any delusions that *everyone* was a virgin before they got married. Hopefully common sense would tell one otherwise.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Honolulu
1,573 posts, read 1,867,513 times
Reputation: 3971
I certainly never thought this. I'm sure there were conservative and liberal time periods regarding this subject but I've never thought our ancestors in general waited until their wedding night. There were probably certain time periods where waiting until your wedding night was more common than it is now just as there were certain time periods when it was less common than it is now. This is another version of the "good ole days" misconception that things in the past were better than they are now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 05:14 PM
 
Location: State of Denial
2,210 posts, read 1,247,891 times
Reputation: 12006
You have to realize that a lot of marriages back then got started before the "formal" ceremony, problem being that the circuit preacher or traveling priest only came around a few times a year or less often to make things "proper".


A young couple might have some sort of hand-fasting ceremony in the community, but not be "church" married for several months. It would not be unusual for a preacher to marry a couple and christen their first-born on the same day.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,545 posts, read 18,949,214 times
Reputation: 16886
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.
I don't think it was shame or considering it was wrong. The fix was you just got married. The sex which produced the child likely happened in a couple. I read a while ago where they figured the time between 'offically pregnant and birth. It was amazing how many first births happened a meer few months before the wedding. After that, it took nine months.

I remember reading based on stuff written in the time, that our ancestors were not nearly as prim and proper as it sounds like. Generally, as long as there was a marriage, even if it required a 'trip' somewhere so nobody would notice the exact span of time, it was the family's business.

Having a child OUT of wedlock was the big huge bad no no. I'm sure this was in part because if the mother married they and the child would have a place of respect, and alone that might not be possible.

I personally don't have a problem if a couple do not marry. I wouldn't if the relationship was good and fun but didn't have the stuff which makes them last. Not all relationships, no matter how good they begin, are fated to stay that way. But if children are born, BOTH parents owe a full commitment, married, together or not.
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2021, 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