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.
Let's not forget Caligula. Bat-**** crazy, but an alleged freak in the sheets.
I'll up you an Alexander the Great, but if I remember correctly he liked boys.
__________________ ____________________________________________
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
Marriage whether arranged or by a love choice is the same institution it is now as it was decades ago. Maybe more people stayed trapped in a miserable relationship decade ago vs today because women had little choice back then. I watched my psyco mother get beaten up by her alcoholic, womanizing husband. She was a product of that 50's mentality and never worked until he finally left her and she had to find a menial job. She never drove either. Had she been raised in a different time and been a stronger woman my childhood may have been drastically different. Crap rolls down hill. I'm glad women have more choices today. Happy wife happy life vs put up and shut lest you lose your meal ticket.
Marriage whether arranged or by a love choice is the same institution it is now as it was decades ago. Maybe more people stayed trapped in a miserable relationship decade ago vs today because women had little choice back then... .
Human nature is the same as it was decades (or millennia) ago, but our social/cultural norms and our social institutions have changed dramatically.
The perennial debate is whether the old institutions were an artificial and cumbersome straightjacket, so that their evolution is a welcome return to Mankind in its natural state; or whether those institutions were necessary for shackling of our internal demons and unruly spirits; or whether instead it is our new and modern institutions that shackle us in ways that former institutions did not. I've seen all three perspectives in this thread.
What strikes me as being noteworthy is the results (thus far) of the poll anchoring this thread: the women are split 50/50 regarding preferring aspects of the past vs. present, while the men overwhelmingly (by a factor of 4) favor the past.
Human nature is the same as it was decades (or millennia) ago, but our social/cultural norms and our social institutions have changed dramatically.
The perennial debate is whether the old institutions were an artificial and cumbersome straightjacket, so that their evolution is a welcome return to Mankind in its natural state; or whether those institutions were necessary for shackling of our internal demons and unruly spirits; or whether instead it is our new and modern institutions that shackle us in ways that former institutions did not. I've seen all three perspectives in this thread.
What strikes me as being noteworthy is the results (thus far) of the poll anchoring this thread: the women are split 50/50 regarding preferring aspects of the past vs. present, while the men overwhelmingly (by a factor of 4) favor the past.
Not surprised in the results that men favor the past. Why wouldn't they when they were by and large the winners in most situations? Today's world requires them to compete in ways they never had to in the past.
The results for women are interesting, but I suspect if there had been an age range included in the poll, you would see the Yes votes more weighted toward older women and the Nos to the younger. Might be a case of supporting the option that most closely matches your lifestyle.
Not surprised in the results that men favor the past. Why wouldn't they when they were by and large the winners in most situations? Today's world requires them to compete in ways they never had to in the past.
The results for women are interesting, but I suspect if there had been an age range included in the poll, you would see the Yes votes more weighted toward older women and the Nos to the younger. Might be a case of supporting the option that most closely matches your lifestyle.
In regards to the originating question as a side to all the men vs women/ personal feelings bs...the past was more conducive to longer lasting relationships.
I would say the poll isnt very indicative of much of anything other than how this particular forum swings.
Not surprised in the results that men favor the past. Why wouldn't they when they were by and large the winners in most situations? Today's world requires them to compete in ways they never had to in the past.
The results for women are interesting, but I suspect if there had been an age range included in the poll, you would see the Yes votes more weighted toward older women and the Nos to the younger. Might be a case of supporting the option that most closely matches your lifestyle.
I don't disagree. For similar reasons, reactionary political movements in America are far more popular amongst white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, than amongst other ethnic, racial or creedal groups.
Some societal changes have universal benefit, in the sense of the famous quip about rising tides lifting all boats. Other changes are zero-sum, benefiting some groups at the expense of others.
The subject of age-correlation in women's voting is curious. Presumably the older women, who have experienced the drawbacks of bad old days, would have personal reason to vote in favor of the modern condition. They ought to have the most at stake in repudiating the past as being an age best left to history. If however it's the younger women who prefer the present, while the older prefer the past, wouldn't that imply that the younger misapprehend the past, as being worse than it actually was?
Women oppressed, were considered property of her husband, and was expected to fulfill a specific role of tending house, caring for children, keeping her husband happy, silencing her voice, wants, and needs in favor of her Proverbs 31 duties. She didn't have options, as far as opportunities outside the home, or dating outside the circle of her upbringing, a circle that centered around, you guessed it, puritanical beliefs, church life, and being a "good Christian girl/woman."
Relationships often lasted longer because women had few options and were not considered equal partners in relationships, so even if they wanted out, it wasn't an option, and divorce was taboo, a social black stain.
It's comical that folks, often with fairly backward and misogynistic thinking, think relationships were superior 40+ years ago. I don't consider being relegated to another class, confined to a few specific roles/identities, having my voice/needs/wants silenced or trivialized, and dealing with mental/physical/emotional abuse (if that were the case, it wasn't uncommon then) as things to look up to or get nostalgic about, but that's just me.
I think a lot of what you stated does make sense (my opinion). A friend today to a woman is a man that is decent, loving, thoughtful, sweet you know all the nice words to describe him. And of course that would definitely be the sort of guy you would want your parents to definitely meet back then. But there is another side to that. He must also have a decent Job, come from a good family etc. So, it was a complete package.
With the advent of all the new technology I think society started to decline. Girls are now attracted to the bad boy.
Huh? What "girls" are these? Not women in my social circle. "Bad boys" never interested me, and neither did "good, wholesome" boys, which was synonymous with Christian back then... still is in many areas of the country, sadly. No thanks on that.
Quote:
The society is in a mess. However, despite that other men in whatever socioeconomic , and race can compete in much level field. So there are advantages and disadvantages.
It is a mess, but less of a mess than years' past. There's still many issues that need to be addressed, like classism, and deep seated issues involving institutionalized, system racism, and social injustice.
Yeah, I much prefer where society is hopefully heading. I have no delusions about how it used to be "back then." It might have looked nice on the outside, but reeked of transgressions, human nature, "moral decay," injustices toward women and minority people.
There's that one wholesome family whose name starts with a "D." They were known for their old fashioned, idyllic life, and look what a hideous sham that was. *cough* Duggars.
Well, back in the day, if you raped a virgin, you had to give her father fifty shekels of silver (dunno if this has been adjusted for inflation or not) and you get married with no possibility of divorce.
I guess that's pretty long term.
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.
