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.
Lots of cool stories and statistics in the current Rolling Stone article, same name as the title of this thread (we're not supposed to link, right?).
Polyamory, getting married without dating, all the stuff you folks tell me I am crazy for talking about .
Getting married without dating? Virtually all native-born Americans will cohabit before marriage, described trends about "casual marriage" are just wrong, especially if compared to previous trends in the past when there were probably more folks who saw marriage as a license for sex or a license to live together and have children together. In today's world people don't date the same way and they "play the house" much more often, they marry far less. There are plenty of couples who actually "play the marriage" while unmarried. I think marriage is at its low and get lower each year.
I'd say it's just that people are much more casual than ever and they have more sexual partners than ever. A number of relevant medical and social surveys that don't involve any biased source (either liberal or conservative university/educational facility) have confirmed such trends each time. Another fact is that people are having less sex along with the increased "casualness", but it's rather because they have less permanent/stable relationships.
Polyamory isn't a new trend and real trend is rather an increase in promiscuity. Polyamory usually involves multiple "serious" relationships with no desire/incentive to introduce new folks into the equation, while new generations are keeping it casual and tend to involve more and more folks in their casualness.
These casual relationships (not one-night-stands) are what went into compelte mainstream and every-day behavior. One-night-stands probably increased in occurrence but are still not mainstream behavior, most folks who do it will do it a few times max.
I'm sure that future generations will be more and more promiscuous (more casual relationships or outright just one-night sex fun) and less and less sexual activity overall - simply because previous generations felt the need to have sex on regular basis with their constant partner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Aren't the Baby Boomers known for pioneering "Free Love"? I can't imagine them being viewed as "conventional". Have the Boomers become stodgy?
I'd say they openly "pioneered" sex before marriage which was a shocker some half a century ago - but it was widespread before it already.
Today's generations openly "pioneer" casualness and having children out of wedlock, which majority among newer generations are practicing (pay note that lots of couples will have at least one child born out of wedlock before marrying and eventually have another one within marriage).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilaJones
No, 'free love' is a phrase from the beginnings of modern feminism, in the late 1800s / early 1900s.
Birth control, also, comes from early feminism. It used to be against the law, a subversive act. Too sexy to be legal!
But in the 60s BC became legal even for unmarried women (that was a huge breakthrough), and so free love became a possibility for many more people.
Birth control didn't come from early feminism, it was present since the oldest written records existed. However, Europe "miraculously" lost official records of birth control although the rest of the world always had it. Main reason with birth control knowledge becoming scarce in recent centuries among Western world is now increasingly related to Catholic Church and witch hunting. Nevertheless, by the 1800s contraception usage and any "knowledge" about contraception among Westerners was related to people involved in prostitution - which caused a major stigma even after witch hunts were over because knowledge of "modern" contraception (herbs, teas, devices) was considered obscene for public audience. It was available among the rich folks, though. Feminism was one of major factors that de-stigmatized the knowledge of birth control among the western civilization.
When it comes to hormone pills bringing sexual revolution, it's just a marketing myth. Same changes occurred in a number of countries outside of USA and on a global level, even though many of those societies didn't legalize the pill usage for another decade or two. The truth is that there were numerous birth control options available and many of which were safer and more reliable than the pill even during these 1960s and usage of pills needed a lot of time to reach the level that it has today (as well as the safety and reliability) - and it mainly worked at the expense of other birth control methods during the first decade or two.
I personally don't think there is any revolution, I really just think that the younger generation is giving names / terms to activities that have been going on forever and acting as if they're cutting edge.
True. Sexual openness, fluidity, expression, etc., is not "new" by any means. However, when Western society has lived in bondage for centuries due to religious dogma and society is at a point where it is progressing, moving beyond this religious indoctrination/dogma, we see a resurgence of these "behaviors" that are perfectly in line with our biological wants or needs.
I will say that with anything that has been squelched for a long period of time and later reemerges there is an appearance of there being "trends" or "fads" when they're very much not. This normal, biological behavior existed long before the Church's tentacles reached every corner of the earth and unleashed the nonsense that is dogmatism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound
I'm a Gen X'er myself. I'm not married, I have been in a LTR for a while. I didn't read the article but I get that there is a "more fluid" sexuality. Polyamory has been around longer than the Millennials, but I think the lessening of the religious institutions and relaxing of standards have definitely happened in the last 25 yrs or so, so it makes sense that younger people are more "liberal", but this has always been the case, each generation is generally more liberal than the previous. Nothing new here.
I think it's funny that they made a big deal about the Beatles with their cheesy pop music and their "long hair"
Now the Beatles and the like seem positively bubble gum comparing to todays standards.
People can do what ever they want, sex, drugs, prostitution, gambling, I'm for it all, many people here have accused me of being some kind of stodgy conservative.
My conservativeness comes from a place of not impacting others with your lifestyle.... in general terms do what you like, just don't hurt others and cost the tax payer money in the process...........
I'm Gen Y. I've done the "Biblical marriage"/Proverbs 31 woman thing, ditched Christian fundamentalism, classical theism, after the cognitive dissonance snapped and I saw the light, leading the way for more "normal," progressive thinking and lifestyle by embracing heathenism and subsequently falling into the traps of evil Satan when my ex-husband and I, former Bible-thumping fundamentalists, turned away from "the lord" and became evil doers who do other people. Did that for some time, the poly/open marriage thing, before realizing it wasn't my thing, and concluded I am much better suited for a monogamous relationship, though realizing multiple partnerships is perfectly fine under consensual and ethical conditions.
I've explored and experimented plenty, am intimately familiar with different relationship types, and am not confused or put off by commitment or marriage considering I re-married pretty much as soon as my first marriage dissolved (took longer than expected). Oh, and the second husband and I didn't "date" very long before we had our handfasting -- the heathen way, of course. We also didn't cohabit before marriage, and neither did my first husband and I.
Way too big a range. Those born in early 80s have little in common with today's teens. We saw the Internet become mainstream but they were born into it. Technology is speeding up changes. Generations are shorter.
I hear GenY usually defined as 1980-1994 or so. 1995 to 2000 would be the Millennials.
Lots of cool stories and statistics in the current Rolling Stone article, same name as the title of this thread (we're not supposed to link, right?).
Polyamory, getting married without dating, all the stuff you folks tell me I am crazy for talking about .
Applying ridiculous overgeneralizations to each generation is a favorite pastime of the media. It sells copy (or generates page clicks, in today's world). None of this is new or unique to this generation.
There’s nothing revolutionary about a generation of men who refuse to eat kitty, wear their sister’s jeans and would rather play video games over getting busy.
Applying ridiculous overgeneralizations to each generation is a favorite pastime of the media. It sells copy (or generates page clicks, in today's world). None of this is new or unique to this generation.
True... most of this drivel has been spouted off forever........ recycled chit... sold as a new idea...a way for Rolling Stone to circulate papers in a dying medium........
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.
.
