thats what i said Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I was just thinking about how a long time ago (up to 1920's or 1930's I think) men and women used to get together and get married mostly on the basis of whether they got along, liked each other and whether the man could provide for a family and if the woman could cook, etc. The divorce rate of those marriages is very, very low. But those couples also seem very happy in their old age. Nowadays, people get together only, it seems, when they are completely in love or infatuated with one another. A lot of the time it doesn't even matter if the guy can provide for the girl. Additionally, the divorce rate is very high nowadays and it seems rare for a marriage to make it into old age together... Do you think it's possible for an "old fashioned" relationship to work in today's times?
sagetalk Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I hope so. The current trend in dating does not work. I'm waiting for the day people wake up and realize how stupid they have been in their relationships. Most people choose partners based on: how their partner makes them feel and how attractive their partner is. Both of these are fairly stupid reasons to get involved in a long term relationship. Rapport, compatibility (personalities, religion, political, backgrounds), and financial stability are far better choices. Will my generation ever change their ways? Probably not, I just hope our children aren't the ones that have to suffer for it. They deserve one dad and one mom that stay together until death, but at the rate we are going, most kids will not get to live that wonderful life.
DiscoChick Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Rapport, compatibility (personalities, religion, political, backgrounds), and financial stability are far better choices. I look for these things and more in a guy. I don't think relationships like those will comeback. I'd like one...and some toast with blackberry jam.
OpenGL Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I'm waiting for the day people wake up and realize how stupid they have been in their relationships. I wouldn't hold my breath. Most people choose partners based on: how their partner makes them feel and how attractive their partner is. Both of these are fairly stupid reasons to get involved in a long term relationship. Actually, relationships are only built on physical attraction these days. That's it, nothing more. Rapport, compatibility (personalities, religion, political, backgrounds), and financial stability are far better choices. Women have little interest in these except the financial stability part, and even that only comes into play if the guy is loaded. Stable middle class guys need not apply. Will my generation ever change their ways? Probably not, I just hope our children aren't the ones that have to suffer for it. They deserve one dad and one mom that stay together until death, but at the rate we are going, most kids will not get to live that wonderful life. The children of today will be even worse, if that's even possible.
carhill Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Do you think it's possible for an "old fashioned" relationship to work in today's times? If the partners are compatible, sure. IME, such is exceedingly rare, at least amongst the marriages which I have awareness of. My parents had such a marriage and it ended in my father's natural death. My mother never remarried. One of those rarities just called me, inviting me to dinner tomorrow night; my best friend's wife is serving old-fashioned cabbage rolls made by his mother who resides in an assisted living facility. Grandma still cooks even in that little room. IMO, that's what family is all about. Married 28 years. Imperfect, as life is. Filet mignon, not. Satisfying, surely. A simple life lived by people with the means to live far beyond. One datapoint
D-Lish Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 My grandparents lived the latter part of their lives HATING one another. They got married in a time when you did what you were supposed to do, assumed traditional roles, and stayed together because they had no other options. When my grandmother fell sick and died, my grandfather didn't even come into her room. Had she lived in a more modern era, I am sure she would have blossomed and flourished. That's not romantic, and it's not something I want for myself.
BG1985 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 These people got married and stayed married because they had no other options. It was pretty much socially acceptable to beat your wife. Women had no means to make an income, so the only way they could have a roof over their heads and money to raise her kids is to have a husband who could provide those things. These were marriages of convenience as much as anything.
angie2443 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 My grandparents lived the latter part of their lives HATING one another. They got married in a time when you did what you were supposed to do, assumed traditional roles, and stayed together because they had no other options. When my grandmother fell sick and died, my grandfather didn't even come into her room. Had she lived in a more modern era, I am sure she would have blossomed and flourished. That's not romantic, and it's not something I want for myself. I was posting something simular but then it got deleted. I'm glad you posted this as I don't want to write my post over again!
Mr White Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Old school is awesome. In everything - from relationships, to manners, to clothes, to architecture, to movies. People understood that relationship was a job, not entertainment and ego trip.
BG1985 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Are old school race relations cool, Mr. WHITE? Haha. I just had to. Old school relationships are good for insecure men who can tie down the first girl they find into a marriage in which she has no choice but to stay in.
Phateless Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I was just thinking about how a long time ago (up to 1920's or 1930's I think) men and women used to get together and get married mostly on the basis of whether they got along, liked each other and whether the man could provide for a family and if the woman could cook, etc. The divorce rate of those marriages is very, very low. But those couples also seem very happy in their old age. Nowadays, people get together only, it seems, when they are completely in love or infatuated with one another. A lot of the time it doesn't even matter if the guy can provide for the girl. Additionally, the divorce rate is very high nowadays and it seems rare for a marriage to make it into old age together... Do you think it's possible for an "old fashioned" relationship to work in today's times? This is based entirely on generalizations, not statistics. Realistically, I think the divorce rate has risen because it's a lot more acceptable now than it was back then.
Mr White Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Right Speak for yourself. Your insecure granddads can lick my honorable, strong, and respecting their wives grandads' balls. Beats me where people come up with this crap about the poor opressed women of the past .
Barky Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 This is based entirely on generalizations, not statistics. Realistically, I think the divorce rate has risen because it's a lot more acceptable now than it was back then. Yes I agree with that statement. Personally, I think this is a point in time where single folks have had the most freedom of any era in history, and I love it. Being single these days is better than being married, IMHO. Maybe that's why there are so many divorces
Crazy Magnet Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I've got one set of grandparents who have been married over 65 years. I think they still love each other, but they really irritate the heck out of each other too. My other grandmother *gasp* got divorced back when she was in her 20's!!! It was a shocker for the time I'm sure. She's 91 and hasn't slowed down since. She did get remarried and have a few kids (otherwise there would be no me), but after he died, she's just been living her life the way she wants too.
Author thats what i said Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 Thanks for all your answers everyone! Wow, I never really thought about the fact that getting divorced was simply really, really frowned upon back then. Looking at it that way, I guess there were probably a lot of unhappily married couples. So there really should be that balance of old fashioned guy providing for the girl and love... not just like...
BG1985 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Why do you think Henry VIII kept killing his wives? It's because the Catholic Church wouldn't allow him to get divorced. There was much less mobility back then, meaning people didn't just up and move too often. If you lived in a small town, marriage options were pretty limited.
Eeyore79 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 It depends... My granny was widowed and remarried in the 1940s; she was pretty and could cook, and he was prepared to support her and her fatherless children financially. They were married for over fifty years and she hated him every day of his life; she only married him because as a single mother in the 40s she couldn't support her kids without a man's income. For his part, he was an abusive alcoholic who would never have got such a fine wife if she hadn't been desperate. In that case I think divorce would have been justified... even better if she hadn't had to marry him in the first place. Her ability to cook and his ability to provide certainly did not produce a happy marriage
Stung Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 My grandparents lived the latter part of their lives HATING one another. They got married in a time when you did what you were supposed to do, assumed traditional roles, and stayed together because they had no other options. When my grandmother fell sick and died, my grandfather didn't even come into her room. Had she lived in a more modern era, I am sure she would have blossomed and flourished. That's not romantic, and it's not something I want for myself. Ditto. I could have written this myself. Watching their dynamic was painful. As for what marriages today are based on, perhaps this varies somewhat by age, local culture? I knew some people who married young and disastrously because of sex and the like, but most of the people in my area wait until they're older and a bit more mature and established. Certainly that's not going to make them divorce-proof but I do think it changes the parameters significantly. In my own marriage, I do value my husband physically and sexually, and in my eyes he's very handsome, but that's at least partly because I see him with love. I would not expect other women to necessarily see what I see. In addition, I value his intellect, his sense of humor, his kindness, his love for his children, his integrity, his cock, his work ethic, the way his strengths shore up my weaknesses and the way he needs/values me for my own strengths and skills. I guess I believe it's possible to have both as long as you accept that there will of course be flaws inherent in every package too, including your own, and commit to working with them. Realism and love don't have to be mutually exclusive, and when the flames die down you can still have the glowing embers to warm your hands over.
DiscoChick Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 In my own marriage, I do value my husband physically and sexually, and in my eyes he's very handsome, but that's at least partly because I see him with love. I would not expect other women to necessarily see what I see. In addition, I value his intellect, his sense of humor, his kindness, his love for his children, his integrity, his cock, his work ethic, the way his strengths shore up my weaknesses and the way he needs/values me for my own strengths and skills. I guess I believe it's possible to have both as long as you accept that there will of course be flaws inherent in every package too, including your own, and commit to working with them. Realism and love don't have to be mutually exclusive, and when the flames die down you can still have the glowing embers to warm your hands over. Well placed. That would have probably been the first thing on my list.
Stung Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Well placed. That would have probably been the first thing on my list. I should have added, my list was in no particular order ;).
OceanTropic Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Yes I do. I am very old fashioned myself, and I expect my man to be able to provide for me, and take care of me, while I maintain the house and feed him. (I still want to work though). My parents are very old fashioned themselves, my mother doesn't work, but takes good care of the house, and my dad brings home the money. I think they could work, and quite honestly, I would enjoy it more. For instance, the man must pay on the first date, and he must ask the girl out, not the other way around. I see this as being a gentleman, and in return I must be a lady and treat him well.
DiscoChick Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I should have added, my list was in no particular order ;). Ahhh! Well done, indeed. If old fashioned relationships require me to stay at home while a man takes care of me, I want no part of it.
tigressA Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Why do you think Henry VIII kept killing his wives? It's because the Catholic Church wouldn't allow him to get divorced. There was much less mobility back then, meaning people didn't just up and move too often. If you lived in a small town, marriage options were pretty limited. Off-topic, but just had to expound on this because I'm a history geek--Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, he couldn't divorce, and that prompted him to break away from the Catholic Church and become the head of his own Church of England so he could "rule on his own marriage". Henry VIII did divorce the wives he had executed before they died--he executed them (Anne Boleyn, #2 and Catherine Howard, #5) because they were charged and found guilty of adultery. Anne was innocent of the charges; Henry just wanted a quick way to get rid of her because she didn't give him a son, and Catherine was actually guilty of adultery; she'd had an affair with a courtier. Anyway, referring back to the OP--I do think that a lot of people these days choose their partners mostly for the wrong reasons, but going back to the old-school ways won't fix anything. I think that people just need to know themselves and their needs better than they do.
BG1985 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 My bad on the Henry VIII deal. It's been a while since I learned that whole story. I figured he had created the Church England after all the killing because he figured there was a better way to get rid of these wives.
make me believe Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Yeah... as others have pointed out, the reason the divorce rate was so low way back then is because it simply wasn't socially acceptable to divorce in that time! So, no, I would not want one of those marriages. I would not want to be stuck in a miserable marriage because society deemed it unacceptable to get a divorce. I *do* think that people marry & divorce way too easily today, but the solution isn't "old-fashioned relationships." The solution is people having good communication, and waking up & realizing that getting married is about more than just a fancy wedding and lots of presents.
Recommended Posts