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.
I’m wondering if Some cultural norms of yesteryear were a bit More conducive to long term relationships. The idea that you’re supposed to find someone and pursue them. Years ago men used to court a woman, You would ask a woman’s parents or father for dating or marriage privileges. Also people dated and married pretty close to their own socioeconomic group, meaning a woman could only marry up one maybe two steps up the social ladder, and because of that most men only had to compete with other guys who were pretty much on the same playing field as them. and from the womans point of view, no matter who she chose within her available options her life was going to pretty much be the same, so things like how nice the guy was, or similar interests mattered a lot more. also picking the type of man who is less likely to someday, "leave for a pack of smokes and never come back" was a must.
every woman had atleast one sad lonely spinster aunt who got swept off her feet by a charming romeo 20 years prior, only to get abandoned after he deflowered her. So basically the man that would be put in the friendzone today would have been the first choice for a husband then. simply because he would be the safer choice, and back then women had too much at stake to risk on romeo. They did not have the safety net of section 8 housing, food stamps and court ordered child support. They had to pick the guy who would be there through thick and thin(the type of guy who today stays in the friendzone for years).
Flash forward to today, with reliable birth control, the breaking down of social stigmas, That smokin hot redhead from the trailer park can attract and marry a doctor or lawyer, So basically an average guy is forced to compete with the top 20% of men for the women that were once in their dating pool.
I do not think it was more conducive in a positive way.
It was different, and that is about as far as I would go. Some of what you describe may be a bit romanticized too. Just because courting was different than modern dating, or even further, that arranged marriages were done doesn't mean the relationships were happier or of higher quality. They may have lasted longer, but there were other social reasons in place that would factor into that as well.
I cant say I agree with your analysis but I think people took marriage more seriously in the past and I think people actually needed each other to secure a better life for themselves.
I believe most people marry within their socioeconomic level now as much as in the past. I don't believe dating and marrying is a competitive sport. Even in the past women married jerks and aholes and men married crazy byotches the difference was they were stuck in that marriage. As far as safety nets women had their families in the past if they were abandoned at least now women can get a good education and job so she doesn't need section 8 and food stamps.
Sure, pairing up was probably less complicated, rules and expectations were clear-cut... but bottom-feeders like me (no parents, no money, no "good name") had little choice beyond domestic servitude or prostitution. Thus, I am grateful to live in an era with more opportunities than the "good old days"; however more complicated and challenging mating may be today, at least I can make choices and own the outcome.
Sure, pairing up was probably less complicated, rules and expectations were clear-cut... but bottom-feeders like me (no parents, no money, no "good name") had little choice beyond domestic servitude or prostitution. Thus, I am grateful to live in an era with more opportunities than the "good old days"; however more complicated and challenging mating may be today, at least I can make choices and own the outcome.
Going along with this, what the Op is describing is pretty much the upper middle and upper classes and generally white/privileged people in society. And the lower and such classes... well, they did indeed have premarital sex and it wasn't looked down upon in their own class (the upper classes looked down on them though). If the woman became pregnant, then it was looked down upon.
So there is a bit of romanticizing in the original post. Most of that didn't apply to the vast majority of people and couples.
People didn't divorce much (there was still divorce, alimony, and custody issues), but instead of divorce, miserable people just stayed together. I'd liken being "forced" to stay together conducive to a long term relationship the way a prison sentence is conducive to having a long-term place of residence. Yeah it works, but do you really want to be there?
"im just not that happy anymore" was usually not good enough reason to destroy a family. Today, its encouraged.
No, back in the "good old days" when women could not easily make a living in a respectable job on their own, they were more apt to "stick it out" when they were unhappy in their marriage. It did not matter if their unhappiness was flippant, or whether it was from their spouse cheating on them, or abusing them, or using them, or whatever. They would be on the street due to society making them financially reliant on their husband... and if you go back far enough, virtual property of their husband.
Of course, I am not sure those scenarios really included healthy and happy families either, but thats another thread somewhere.
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.
