Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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 07-13-2013, 11:25 PM
 
5,460 posts, read 7,736,198 times
Reputation: 4631

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFoulke View Post
Oh my, I always cry at weddings, and reading this just made tears come to my eyes!!! My husband was afraid to ask me outright (he had been married before and she left him for another man - who went to their church!!!) and he was behind me, giving me a hug. He leaned forward and hummed The Wedding March in my ear. When I heard that, I turned to look at him and I asked him if that meant what I thought it meant - and he could only nod at that point. We were both in tears. Obviously I said yes!!!
I am so happy for you....and you will know when the time is right. The hard part is done now - finding your life partner. Get ready to spend the very best years of your life with the woman who adores you. You sound like such a sweetheart - I hope she knows how special you are!!!
Again thank you so much for your incredibly moving and very touching post above, and also for sharing the amazingly lovely and very special and sweet, heartfelt story about your how your husband proposed to you! Simply beautiful...

Thank you also so much for the warm wishes! ((hugs))
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2013, 01:31 AM
 
4,163 posts, read 4,400,706 times
Reputation: 10078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009 View Post
Other than the fact that human beings have longer lifespans than they did in the more distant past, does anyone have any thoughts on what are other reasons why marriage at relatively younger ages has historically declined, within recent decades? If my current understanding is correct, as late and as far back as 1960 and into the 1970s, young people in the U.S. could still marry straight of out high school, if they wanted to?

Do you think The Pill and modern birth control methods were the primary factors (again other than increased human longevity), that were the primary historical cause for the huge decline in people marrying younger?

in MHO, not everyone and not all human beings should and not everyone is emotionally designed to have to marry at being 30+ years old, yet many people today have no other real choice because of modern social and financial conventions...modern society has made it largely financially difficult and/or impossible for people who are say 18-22 or so years old to have the viable economic means to support a family. 18-22 y/o's can barely make a living wage, for instance, due to modern societal education expectations, and have hardly the degree of earning power than say a 28-30+ y/o person. But this modern phenomenon wasn't always the case though and to the more extreme degree it is today though, vs. in the more distant past...
This has been the 'feel good' thread of the year. It is actually nice to read about people who can eloquently describe feelings of mutual attraction building and who desire to be together.

That being said, to your original question.
1) Marriage was/ is historically a social construct to allow sanctioned sex as Liquid Sword explained. It was more difficult in past societies and cultures to engage in the activity without approval and up until the past few generations, there was overall a general 'shame' element. Marrying early enabled said activity and the economic conditions, while harsher overall in past, I think forged many couples into longer term marriages for survival purposes, whether there was love involved or not.

I surmise in the past a larger percent of women endured hostile and abusive relationships due to limited options outside of marriage, or were ostracized and outcasts if they did not abide the social convention of sex after marriage. I'm reminded of a book I read on the so called romanticized American West and how the majority of women who moved out there on own (or were shipped to frontier) were usually victims of social castigation of some sort: Laundresses, milliner, weavers at military forts and company towns, dance hall girls etc..

Also the romanticized view of marriage and love in finding 'the one' is kind of ridiculous when you think how just a century or two ago the very limited scope of an individual's sphere of potential partners for marriage were. Do you think all those male dominant labor industries which had women 'shipped' in were truly looking for 'the one'? And how were those women's expectations of what qualities were important in a mate? Or arranged marriages? Or marriage or lack thereof based on ward / bondservant relationships?

2) As Ruth4Truth aptly pointed out, Women have much more opportunities to explore a life /career outside the construct of marriage via education and employment opportunities within the past few generations. Couple this with the changing educational needs for various careers and you have a natural delay.

Women have in some ways the worst conflict in economy - social constructs. Their peak years of desirability to the male population (for marriage) coincide with the same years needed to dedicate to education and careers to enable a decent launching point (for those who indeed want to pursue careers). Thus, many more women are delaying the pursuit of marriage, but often find themselves in a quandary (due to current societal pressures) to 'have it all'. The truth is, very few can have it all, but that's likely a different thread topic more fitting for 'parenting' and 'work and employment' and 'economic' forums.

3) Now couple these trends with the technological medical developments to enable sexual activity without consequences (children to care for) to hindering a career and you get more chronological age years before marriage - if it is even desired - as now, the sanctioned sex aspect / social stigma is lessened.

Note, I used the term chronological to point out that 'Age' alone while often an indicator is still not indicative of ones emotional maturity. So to your question, In the past the harshness of life's everyday toil forced a rapid emotional maturing, or at least a realization of the priorities in life to younger women (and men). There were significantly less distractions and chronological adults, 'playing house' which seem to pervade today's society. They had to endure the reality of survival and learn about everyday life. So I posit many 16-20 yo women of a century ago were more grounded and marriage ready than most women twice their age in today's society (in USA and westernized cultures).

Everything from birth, sickness, disease, death, agronomy, animal husbandry, hunting and killing for meals and countless other things most of todays' society of youth - and human kind in general - has gradually been sheltered. If something breaks or doesn't work they simply expect to go to a store and buy a replacement for the item or to a hospital / drug store for a treatment and medication for it.

When you couple all these things together, you get a transition from a 'bond early, sanctioned procreation environment' with few partner options and harsh realities for economic survival, to one of 'no fault marriage - social relationship acquaintance' (FWB, ONS etc..) with many options all the way around: good bad indifferent.

Best wishes in life and love. Our world needs more people like yourself.

Last edited by ciceropolo; 07-14-2013 at 01:34 AM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 02:41 AM
 
364 posts, read 557,326 times
Reputation: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciceropolo View Post
This has been the 'feel good' thread of the year. It is actually nice to read about people who can eloquently describe feelings of mutual attraction building and who desire to be together.

That being said, to your original question.
1) Marriage was/ is historically a social construct to allow sanctioned sex as Liquid Sword explained. It was more difficult in past societies and cultures to engage in the activity without approval and up until the past few generations, there was overall a general 'shame' element. Marrying early enabled said activity and the economic conditions, while harsher overall in past, I think forged many couples into longer term marriages for survival purposes, whether there was love involved or not.

I surmise in the past a larger percent of women endured hostile and abusive relationships due to limited options outside of marriage, or were ostracized and outcasts if they did not abide the social convention of sex after marriage. I'm reminded of a book I read on the so called romanticized American West and how the majority of women who moved out there on own (or were shipped to frontier) were usually victims of social castigation of some sort: Laundresses, milliner, weavers at military forts and company towns, dance hall girls etc..

Also the romanticized view of marriage and love in finding 'the one' is kind of ridiculous when you think how just a century or two ago the very limited scope of an individual's sphere of potential partners for marriage were. Do you think all those male dominant labor industries which had women 'shipped' in were truly looking for 'the one'? And how were those women's expectations of what qualities were important in a mate? Or arranged marriages? Or marriage or lack thereof based on ward / bondservant relationships?

2) As Ruth4Truth aptly pointed out, Women have much more opportunities to explore a life /career outside the construct of marriage via education and employment opportunities within the past few generations. Couple this with the changing educational needs for various careers and you have a natural delay.

Women have in some ways the worst conflict in economy - social constructs. Their peak years of desirability to the male population (for marriage) coincide with the same years needed to dedicate to education and careers to enable a decent launching point (for those who indeed want to pursue careers). Thus, many more women are delaying the pursuit of marriage, but often find themselves in a quandary (due to current societal pressures) to 'have it all'. The truth is, very few can have it all, but that's likely a different thread topic more fitting for 'parenting' and 'work and employment' and 'economic' forums.

3) Now couple these trends with the technological medical developments to enable sexual activity without consequences (children to care for) to hindering a career and you get more chronological age years before marriage - if it is even desired - as now, the sanctioned sex aspect / social stigma is lessened.

Note, I used the term chronological to point out that 'Age' alone while often an indicator is still not indicative of ones emotional maturity. So to your question, In the past the harshness of life's everyday toil forced a rapid emotional maturing, or at least a realization of the priorities in life to younger women (and men). There were significantly less distractions and chronological adults, 'playing house' which seem to pervade today's society. They had to endure the reality of survival and learn about everyday life. So I posit many 16-20 yo women of a century ago were more grounded and marriage ready than most women twice their age in today's society (in USA and westernized cultures).

Everything from birth, sickness, disease, death, agronomy, animal husbandry, hunting and killing for meals and countless other things most of todays' society of youth - and human kind in general - has gradually been sheltered. If something breaks or doesn't work they simply expect to go to a store and buy a replacement for the item or to a hospital / drug store for a treatment and medication for it.

When you couple all these things together, you get a transition from a 'bond early, sanctioned procreation environment' with few partner options and harsh realities for economic survival, to one of 'no fault marriage - social relationship acquaintance' (FWB, ONS etc..) with many options all the way around: good bad indifferent.

Best wishes in life and love. Our world needs more people like yourself.
Dope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 03:14 AM
 
Location: Moscow
45 posts, read 78,214 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by plmokn View Post
I didn't read anything in your link that addressed the original post.
Marriages and children are statistically related. Reasons to leave both will be close. Why should man or woman change its lifestyle, values, goals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 03:19 AM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,289 posts, read 32,217,362 times
Reputation: 21885
I remember growing up in a family neighborhood. The moms were at home raising kids. The dads went to work every day. Meal times were around the table with the entire family. Breakfast and Dinner anyway were family time. In our home we blessed the food before we ate. Family prayer and reading the scriptures as a family were a part of life. Going to church as a family was also a normal activity.

We grew a garden and all of us kids had chores to do. We worked around the house, washed the car, helped out in anyway that we could. In our family my parents had 8 kids. Going to McDonalds or any fast food place was something that may happen once or twice a year. No cable TV when I was younger, and even when I was in my teens I remember only HBO and one other chanell on cable any way. Everyone had a TV antena on the roof to get the other 12 channels.

What I am getting at is that life was differant back in the 50's, 60's, and even 70's. Values were very differant. I could look at my high school year book and even as late as 1983 I knew couples that had dated in high school that would write, when asked about life plans, "Heading for happily ever after" or something to that effect. Not sure if all of them found that but I do know a few couples that are still together and it would seem that they found it. These were couples that got married right after high school. I even remember one couple that got married while attending high school, and interestingly it was not because they had to get married. They did have to get permission to get married from their parents but they followed thru and did it while they were in school. It was a desired choice by many couples to settle down before they were 20 years old and start a life together.

Saying all that, it was possible back then to start a life, not attend college, get a job and build a carreer that would pay the money needed to buy a home and fill that home with a life. You could even do this with a single income, imagine that. It happened and it happened all the time all over the nation. Ideally why not desire that kind of life? I know some of our happiest times were when my wife was home and not working, with me as the sole provider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 03:53 AM
 
13,498 posts, read 18,102,786 times
Reputation: 37885
One reason is that we have created a society in which the individual - the isolated one person/ego, is what is of ultimate importance. There is nothing greater in our society from top to bottom than that person Me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,364 posts, read 17,020,027 times
Reputation: 36989
Public policy is assisting in the decreasing marriage rates.

In the beginning of welfare (about 1936) there was help provided for white widows only. Then government assistance was provided for all women with dependent children (1964) providing there was no man in the house.
The "man in the house" provision died in 1968, so it actually became more lucrative to not be married when children came. If the woman was not married, then the government usually paid for the delivery of the child.

And so it remains. An unmarried pregnant woman is able to get assistance, whereas a married woman may not qualify because both her salary and her husband's salary must be counted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Northern Maine
10,428 posts, read 18,576,666 times
Reputation: 11562
To return to the original post, the reason most young people don't get married is economic. It is far more expensive today that it used to be to either rent a home or buy one. It is difficult to save for a down payment. It also used to be common to rent from relatives or friends. We have lost much of our sense of community in recent years. It is intentional on the part of the "authorities". They want people to be dependent on government. They do not want people to be versatile and independent.

This from somebody who will be married 49 years next month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,569,414 times
Reputation: 24857
Please include the separation of sex and babies since really effective birth control became widely available. Many marriages as late as the 60's were sex, pregnancy, marriage in that order regardless of the ability to afford to raise children. Unwed mothers were effectively ostracized by society so marriage at whatever age was better.

Now kids look at the direct cost of children as well as the opportunity cost in terms of lost education or work experience and conclude the marriage before financial security is simply not affordable. So marriage is postponed until the financial security to raise children is achieved. For the lucky people this is in their 30's. For many this security never happens. For some sex and children come without any regard to the economics of the situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 07:06 AM
 
2,096 posts, read 4,753,913 times
Reputation: 1272
I think it has to do with the automation of labor. Up to the 60s/70s robots, self checkout, computers etc were rare or non-existent and the economy relied less on high-skilled and service work and more on brawn. This is also why women were more dependent on men - men being bulkier and more muscular are generally speaking better at doing physical tasks, but now that most of those blue collar jobs are automated men and women are equally valuable as workers. Women even more so in some ways because many of today's jobs require one to be social.

A blue collar job can be had even before you're 18, and women needed a man who worked to take care of them generally since there wasn't all that much physical work a woman could do as well as a man in those days. Nowadays you have to have a high skilled white collar job if you want to make enough money to rent a home and raise children. Capitalism has also caused housing etc to become more expensive.

This has essentially forced people to have to wait until they're 22, 25 etc to even think about starting a family. I wouldn't be surprised if 20-30 years from now having children will essentially become a luxury for the rich.
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 > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 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