Why were women in the 50s more accepting of Mistress's? (marriage, love)
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.
30 years ago I worked for a man who was financially stable - I wouldn't say millionaire, but he had money. He was a retired cop who owned a security/investigations company; he had a wife and three boys, a nice house in the suburbs - and a mistress. I'd met his mistress a few times; she bore a strong resemblance to the actress Jane Curtin. I often wondered how his wife didn't know or find out.
By the way, here's the side to things that's a little more sensitive to the man and his plight, and he did have one, at least if he were struggling to fit into the almost-impossible Leave it to Beaver stereotype.
There was a mythology (despite women who didn't feel this way, and the men who observed this and either very quietly embraced it with their wives, OR did the madonna/***** thing and could not longer respect the wife for it) that sex was for men, and women endured. Girls had this drilled into their heads as much as the guys did, and for many, a complex was created in the woman as well. She was told over and over again (including cautionary tales) not to "do it." DON'T DO IT, DON'T DO IT, DON'T DO IT. You might get (whisper) pregnant (gasp!) and have to be sent away and you'd never be the same and somebody would find out and then no man would ever want you. Oh no!
So it was: don't do it. DON'T let a boy talk you into it! Sex is bad. Plus, it's dirty. It gets you messy. It stains your clothes and your body and it also stains your reputation. According to my mother at least, pregnancy was a huge, huge, huge fear for her age group (in the mid to late 50s). You didn't do it. Only maybe one girl in school "did it" and "word got around" and no boy would go out with her on a real date because she was dirty and "just for that" and the boys would laugh that they put a bag over her head while they did her. It was a social fate worse than death.
Then, marriage: and literally overnight...Okay, Judy. Do it now.
Um.
Can you even imagine? Seriously. Who wouldn't be royally effed up for good and for all sexually based on this, and how easy could it have possibly been to do a 180 and suddenly not only "let" your husband have his way but...you know (whisper) maybe... (lower whisper) like it? Sometimes. Don't tell ALL your friends, though. Some were never going to look at you the same way again...
So here we had a situation where the woman herself might have been terrified into never really being able to relax and accept sex as okay, and the man, her husband, having also grown up to believe the only girl who "did it" was the you-know-what (starts with an S or a W) in school nobody would marry or even date. Even if the man's wife by some miracle were able to throw away all those years of anti-sex conditioning to enjoy it within legal boundaries, could he? Could he see his wife as a good person and a woman who really liked sex?
Yeah, sometimes. But many times, from what I understand, not. So he had to find some other woman to satisfy "that side" to him, the side that had to just ravage a woman, because it couldn't be his wife. Not Mary! SHE was no w----.
And again, that's assuming the wife was willing to get a bit dirtier than missionary and hurrying to change the sheets after so they wouldn't stain. Otherwise, the husband might want to whisper something in the dark friskier than "I'm not hurting you, am I?" and receive a horrified and judgmental rebuff. Who wouldn't go seeking elsewhere?
Because of this (horrific, IMO) dynamic, yes, it was "expected" that men wanted sex and women didn't so if a man wanted to satisfy HIS "natural" urge for any spice at all (because women couldn't possibly have that at all and still be someone worthy of marrying), he had to find some other woman on the side. And again, because that was "only natural" for him, it was, even if quietly, accepted by many, yes. Not all, but many. His Pop may have had his own girl on the side and he may have grown up hating Pop for it but wind up doing it himself anyway once he himself was trapped into this awful situation. Finally he understood Pop, let's just say.
Now, with that said, there were happy couples...but divorce absolutely skyrocketed by the 70s...so they ultimately were in the minority. The numbers speak for themselves.
That's a lot of writing on the subject but I read a lot, and I got a lot of intel from my mother and aunts. Some of that time was loads of fun and they all remember it with smiles BUT some was really, really, really unnatural and helped cause the extreme sexual backlash of the 60s, which should tell you something.
From what I understand coming directly from people who lived during/were married during this basic time period, people didn't talk about it in polite company so it's not like it was "in the open" in that way, BUT when it did happen a woman who complained to, say, her mother that she caught Jim cheating was likely as not to be given a quiet scolding from her mother that Jim was otherwise a good man, and to put up with it since Jim was providing a roof over her and her children's heads.
That's an encapsulation and vague, but you get the idea, without me feeling I'm posthumously betraying people here.
There was never a universal way to deal with this - there were always exceptions - but in the end, what was a woman to do? Divorce made her a castoff, tainted, and possibly turned away by friends and family alike; with a husband clever enough to hide his assets or if pushed, to threaten to get his friends to back him up in court that she was a cheater so that she'd never see her kids again...How many women were willing to literally give up their lives, because Jim was quietly cheating? Not a lot.
Again: things changed, and drastically, a decade or so down the line. It's JMO that when people, the instant they're given the go-ahead to do so, start divorcing in a seriously steep curve like prison inmates who've discovered the gate has been left open, that just doesn't scream "everybody was so happy then." Just my view, though. I'm sure there were happy couples, and then again I'm equally sure, again, from direct intel, that there were either miserable (including cheating) couples who stayed together for propriety's sake or tradition's sake, or fairly happy couples who stayed that way by turning their heads.
Actually, though they married in the 1930s, my grandmother and grandfather fit this description. They could not live without one another, that was clear, and they were sweet to one another, but years later I learned Grandma "cut Grandpa off" after her last child (she was a "good woman" who did "that" to get children...again, this must have been changing just a little by the 50s, or I hope it was, but sex was still highly taboo) and Grandpa got his for the rest of his sexually active life by looking (quietly and discretely) elsewhere. This arrangement was fine with my grandmother. I think she was relieved. That's sad. And these are two people who did love each other. Turning sex into "bad, bad, bad!" for just one side of the equation hurts both genders, IMO, and badly.
IME, the people who cry the loudest about these "good old days" 1. didn't live through them and don't talk in any depth to anybody who did; 2. are generally in what would be the dominant position (sorry to be offensive, but...males, often white males); 3. believe there was "less cheating" then simply because (apparently) women were more afraid to cheat, and glaze over the men-cheating thing like it's nothing and 4. tend to take an underlying view that it's okay for a guy to get his before marriage but it's disgusting for a woman to. We can see how well those attitudes worked back then; the backlash was people jumping the marriage ship - men and women alike - like rats deserting a burning ship.
Not all cultures alike. Japan is notorious for women readily knowing and understanding that their men will stray and have mistresses. Their own rule is never to bring the mistress to the house.
I can tell you of my escapades as a US Marine in Australia. I would literally come down to the breakfast table with the husband reading a newspaper. It was a thing that Australian women wanted the taste of American military black men.
Like I said, different cultures for different folks. So I don't want to hear this "I don't, therefore it doesn't exist" from
anyone...
As a Japanese saying puts it: Suezen kuwanu wa otoko no haji (It is shame for a man not to eat a feast placed before him). In other words, any real Japanese man would never turn down a sexual offer from an attractive female — whether he’s married or not. Adultery and infidelity are time-honored Japanese traditions — for the nation’s men.
Not all cultures alike. Japan is notorious for women readily knowing and understanding that their men will stray and have mistresses. Their own rule is never to bring the mistress to the house.
From what I understand coming directly from people who lived during/were married during this basic time period, people didn't talk about it in polite company so it's not like it was "in the open" in that way, BUT when it did happen a woman who complained to, say, her mother that she caught Jim cheating was likely as not to be given a quiet scolding from her mother that Jim was otherwise a good man, and to put up with it since Jim was providing a roof over her and her children's heads.
Good point. I think it's not so much women are less tolerant of cheating, as not even getting into the position of being cheated on. If one goes into a marriage understanding this may be a part of it, they aren't as shocked and hysterical.
Which may be why young women who aren't the least bit tolerant of cheating, or aren't all that interested in sex, like your example, simply don't get married anymore. If women are now allowed to think they may or may not want children or a husband, they can wait and see if they change their mind later, or have the impression they don't have to think a certain way, if they don't see that as happily ever after.
We don't have to worry about tolerance of affairs if we don't put ourselves in that situation in the first place.
Is there really a problem with your husband having 1 if he still loved and provided for you and your family?
As others said, women probably felt they had no choice as most did not work and were not educated. If my husband had a mistress I would divorce him. I can provide for myself and my kids just fine. Thank goodness I don't think I need to worry about it. We have a very happy life.
Because they had less choice. They were morw likely depending on their husband to support them and their children. Also if your family is your only accomplishment in life you have more pressure to keep up the delusion.
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.
and still be someone worthy of marrying), he had to find some other woman on the side. And again, because that was "only natural" for him, it was, even if quietly, accepted by many, yes. Not all, but many. His Pop may have had his own girl on the side and he may have grown up hating Pop for it but wind up doing it himself anyway once he himself was trapped into this awful situation. Finally he understood Pop, let's just say.
I'm sure there were happy couples, and then again I'm equally sure, again, from direct intel, that there were either miserable (including cheating) couples who stayed together for propriety's sake or tradition's sake, or fairly happy couples who stayed that way by turning their heads. 
