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.
But what OLD and its endless choices really means, is that people are having to slog through an endless supply of bad dates and people completely unsuited for them. They're spending a lot of time spinning their wheels with poor matches, and becoming demoralized, eventually burned out, until they recover enough to give it another go.
Quantity of choice does not by any means imply quality choices.
What I'm reading on these threads is that exposure does not necessarily mean there is an quantity of dating.
The type of people doing a lot of OLD probably correspond to people picking up lots of people at clubs in the 70s-90s.
I don't know if it was easier, exactly, and I haven't dated for almost 40 years, but when I did date, there wasn't as much worry about possibly being exposed to a fatal illness until AIDS came along. Sure, there was the risk of an STD, but those could be cured. (The last date I had before settling on my current husband was in 1983.)
Back when I was dating, the men I dated were NOT expected to have dozens of sexual partners before setting down, and certainly most women weren't. And until the time of Woodstock or so, in most places, if a woman was promiscuous, she was looked down upon -- and in fact, in many places, that was (is?) still the case.
What I'm reading on these threads is that exposure does not necessarily mean there is an quantity of dating.
The type of people doing a lot of OLD probably correspond to people picking up lots of people at clubs in the 70s-90s.
You're right; different people use OLD differently. Some really study it, have their criteria, and look carefully for a potential good match over time. They don't date willy-nilly. They're very selective and patient, and eventually find a good match. They're smart about it. Strategic.
What I'm reading on these threads is that exposure does not necessarily mean there is an quantity of dating.
The type of people doing a lot of OLD probably correspond to people picking up lots of people at clubs in the 70s-90s.
I would kinda say the opposite…the people who would go out and are more extroverted probably still go out and meet people — plus have OLD. OLD opened up dating to people who wouldn’t go meet people…everyone really.
I don't know if it was easier, exactly, and I haven't dated for almost 40 years, but when I did date, there wasn't as much worry about possibly being exposed to a fatal illness until AIDS came along. Sure, there was the risk of an STD, but those could be cured. (The last date I had before settling on my current husband was in 1983.)
Back when I was dating, the men I dated were NOT expected to have dozens of sexual partners before setting down, and certainly most women weren't. And until the time of Woodstock or so, in most places, if a woman was promiscuous, she was looked down upon -- and in fact, in many places, that was (is?) still the case.
I agree. OLD has probably upped many people’s notch count significantly. It just made it so much easier to approach people and from behind a screen you can really say anything (many people lie about so much stuff to get what they want). I mean back then how many women were being approached by 100s or 1000s of men? Nowadays even average women can get more messages than they have time to go through.
I feel as though I learned something from this thread in the sense that I had the impression that 1950's dating was superior to 1960's and 1770's "dating" which in my mind did not really exist. In that era, people "hung out." They didn't "date." That was considered old fashioned and undesirable. In many cases I was even expected to go Dutch, which in many cases I actually did. I think I should have insisted on being dated in the old fasioned way, but that's just me looking back on an undesirable time in my life.
In reality I think young people (and old) are still"hanging out" and working out in individual ways how they approach their "dating/hanging out."
As for dating pre-1960's, my eyes have been opened to how it really was for many women. I say women, because men have always been after easy sex.
...
Let me know your thoughts if dating was easier for socially challenged people or introverts?
In general, those times the idea of being an introvert or socially challenged was not acknowledged. We were not expected to "get in touch" with our feelings. We had social expectations to adhere to, and if our inner life was contrary we were expected to subsume that part of ourselves. We were told to "buck up." If we cried, we are told to get ahold of ourselves and go wash our faces.
Males were expected to get a good paying job, find a girl and get married so you could start a family. Women were expected to be weak, not too smart, learn to cook and clean, and get a man right out of school, to marry and get pregnant.
Men were expected (by other men) to "fool around" while they were going steady, engaged, and married. They were happy, out-going, and liked to fish, hunt, and go have drinks with the guys.
Women were taught to respect men's "needs" and console themselves with making a happy home, raise well-behaved children, and engage with their churches -- we were all expected to belong to one and attend every Sunday. If women had an "affair," or if they were raped, they were seen as "fallen" and "sluts."
Stories of the society "dregs" who were part of the Beat Generation, or later the Hippies, were considered depraved and to be ignored and shunned by their communities. Queers were beaten, sometimes killed.
Of course, that's just the whites, everyone else was just beneath thinking about at all. If they were not "the help," they didn't exist.
So, no I don't think life was easier in the 50s and 60s, for dating, or for anything else.
Well, I mentioned the college environment. Back then, it was pretty common to get married after graduation, at some point. During the 4 years, there was plenty of time to date around. And as I also mentioned, plenty of guys weren't dating to get married. They were dating for sex. Although not too many women were receptive to that, or maybe depending on the college: Berkeley--maybe. More conservative locations that hadn't experienced the hippie wave and maybe never have--there was a disconnect between the expectations of some of the men, and those of the women, who expected to get to know a guy over time, expecting him to actually be interested in her as a person.
Does that sound familiar? Things really haven't changed in that regard; there will always be mismatches of that kind. People who end up dating each other once or twice, only to find they have nothing in common.
In 1965,Mod cut.. Similarly in 1973, Mod cut.
One area, where I suspect dating was better in that era was that women likely did a much better job of vetting men.
What I have noticed is that once a woman has decided to have sex with a guy, most women no longer want to second guess their decision of who they choose to sleep with. Vetting unless the guy does something incredibly aggregious mostly collapses after a woman has decided to sleep with a guy.
In that era, though women had a much longer period of time to get to know a guy before deciding to have sex with him. So I actually suspect that women did a much better job of vetting guys.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 08-28-2022 at 08:25 PM..
Reason: Off-topic.
You should be able to have sex without the intent of marriage.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I don't think so - based on family lore. Maybe the older members of my family had worse luck with deaths, widowhood, broken marriages, etc.
There was pressure to get married young, in many places. If a woman wasn't married by the time she was 21 or so, people would wonder what the problem was.
It wasn't unheard of for kids' parents to encourage them to get married young, to get them out of the house so that they wouldn't have to support them.
If a woman got pregnant while single, her choices were: get married, hide the pregnancy in some way (i.e. get sent out of town/state/country to have the baby), or live in disgrace. An aunt of mine got pregnant, married the guy, then the baby was stillborn. Catholic marriage though, so no annulling it or getting a divorce at that point. They stay married and had several more kids that she didn't appreciate having to raise.
I'm sure there were tons of happy marriages too. Dating was probably exciting for most teenagers. But life was a lot harder in a lot of ways, and society was very unforgiving of anyone outside of the norm I guess.
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.
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.
