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 fail to see how being stuck in a marriage contract due to social pressure means that families were necessarily whole and healthy, that people adhered to the bounds of fidelity and respectful treatment, etc. People did just as rotten of things as they do, now...there just were fewer accepted methods of exiting the situation.
I honestly think some of the men who post about these kinds of things don't stop and think that people are the same now as they always were. Women and men weren't like the romanticized version you see in movies. Just read the literature of the times and you can see the same personalities you have today. If you have a great, wonderful and loving wife today (and you are a great, wonderful and loving husband) you are going to most likely have a successful marriage. If either you or your wife is horrible, unloving, etc the marriage is going to be just as horrible.
The difference between now and then is now you have an easier out where then it was a life sentence (unless you could prove adultery)... and that applies for men as well as women. You could just as easily have been stuck with a woman who "hen pecked" you and made your life miserable because you were often stuck with her (especially if you married her for her money.. which men with titles often did. Marry the daughters of wealthy men so they could get some of the wealthy man's money--which was often held in trust to the woman, so she still controlled the purse strings).
Of course, if you were working class, you just left without a formal divorce.
Divorce rate is a terrible yardstick in which to compare marriage success across large blocks of time.
The nature of divorce has changed drastically just in recent times, much less going back to the "good old days."
Civil law has changed, altering who can seek divorce, how they seek it, and their burden of proof to get it granted. The widespread ability for women to be employed at living wages has drastically altered the landscape in a short period of time, as women have the financial freedom to go back on their own. Society's movement away from strict adherence to religion has caused more widespread acceptance of divorce, and shed some of the religion placed stigma and negativity on it. Plus, many other nuances in culture and society have changed things as well.
I really think it is amazing the divorce rate has been on the decline, given that it is becoming easier, cheaper, and more acceptable to end a marriage than at any other time. (Yet, even that is not a barometer of success in marriage either). Maybe its just a statistic.
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?
LOL actually since intermingling between classes was frowned on it was rare, thus average guys did not have to compete with the privileged class. if her father was a blacksmith odds are her husband would be a blacksmith, or a cooper or cobbler, but most likely not a banker.
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.
Yeah, taking care of the children and the house, instead of slaving away 9-5 in a cubicle, sounds really aweful. Its a bit odd that women report their happiness has decreased dramatically in the last 50 years. 25-30% are on SSRIs and anti depressants, so they can get out of bed every morning. Sounds like great advancement.
While part of your post may be true, some parts are strictly based on what you have been taught by feminized modern society. Its rewritten history has a purpose, much like destruction of marriage has a purpose of destabilizing western civilization. Im not asking you to take my word for it, im just asking to seek out the truth and make your own judgments, not believe what youve been fed.
Another downfall (for men at least in Victorian times) is if you had a horrible wife (a shrew they were called) and you left her and took on a lover.. no matter how much you loved your new "woman" in your life, you were still bound to the other. Imagine being married to a wife you hated and being with a woman you adored (who loved you back) and not being able to really provide for the new woman or have a respectable future with her.
I guess a back-up plan could be to keep knocking the wife up, considering the likelihood of her dying in childbirth. Victorian men were only expected to mourn for a few months, at which point he could marry the mistress. And repeat the entire process if she turns into a shrew as well.
Pretty simplified, romanticized, and not-really-that-accurate view of dating in "the good ol' days."
This. OP, it's not as simple as you describe. Women who went to public universities often ended up socializing with people from all walks of life. If a guy was from a poor family but was in a fraternity and she was in a sorority, or they met working on the school newspaper, she might decide he was her ticket to happiness, for any number of reasons, over the guys from her socio-economic group. She might fall for his personality more, or he might have plans to go to law school, whereas the other guys might not have much direction in their lives, or they might only plan to take over the family business.
Maybe you should ask the elders in your family about this, so you can get some real-life examples, and really educate yourself.
Marriage and realtionships have changed as the world surrounding them has, not the other way around.
Yes, yesteryears couplings where "more" conducive to long term situations by virtue of their purpose and methodology. Was it better? Was it worse? That depends on the perspective and time you are looking at them from.
"Better" and "worse" is a poor way to look at things in context.
Last edited by rego00123; 07-29-2015 at 12:56 PM..
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.
