What do they want? What did they want in the Golden era?

[sheeplady]

So are you suggesting there wasn't even one honest cop in the entire police force of the town? What about the County Sheriffs or the State Police, if applicable? I have a very close friend who is a cop in small town America and he regularly attends calls where three or even sometimes four different agencies show up. If it's just the old "cops never go against each other" mantra, I find it a little insulting, and frankly it just isn't true. There have been plenty of crooked cops arrested and charged by their fellow cops, and many convictions. For every cop who's willing to cover for a lowlife dirtbag like the criminal you describe, there are probably five more who would love nothing better than to strip off his badge and throw him in the deepest darkest prison not only for being a wife beating piece of scum, but for disgracing the uniform they are proud to wear every day.



The restraining order makes it extremely easy for the cops to arrest and charge a person who violates it. The idea is that all buddy has to do is come too close and he's liable to be arrested and charged; it's one more tool in law enforcement's tool box to use against these criminals. Would I expect a restraining order alone to keep me safe? No, but I'd sure get one anyways and then take other steps to protect myself.

This situation you describe is becoming more and more unusual, to the point where it really loses all applicability to the topic at hand. I don't really think the original poster was even referring to actual abuse, but rather women who stay in bad relationships (short of abuse) with assholes because they seek them out in the first place and then fail to do anything about it after the fact.

Also, I sure hope the person you know did something to assist this poor woman.

I have no idea why you insist on drilling this point into the ground. I really don't care if the original post I was replying to wasn't specifically speaking about this level of abuse- I replied to that and you replied to me. I then brought up a specific example of the level of abuse some individuals face and the two of us have been speaking to a very specific scenario that involved horrendous physical abuse since that time. Throughout this discussion you have picked apart an abuse victim's decisions, questioning her actions.

As far as your comment about if the person I know did something to assist, she tried, but the abuser blinded her in one eye with a wrench. She was 5 years old.

 

[Flicka]

Used to be you could date a person, take them to a movie, meet the family - progress like two civilized people. We have that now, too, but it's at hyperspeed and if you're not pants down in the Chevy by date#3, one of you is either struggling with their identity, a prude, or both, or worse...

This is a pretty accurate description of how 'dating' is done in present-day Sweden - every Swede I've shown it to has cracked up and said "OMG! That's so true!"

http://www.thelocal.se/17566/20090216/

 

[John in Covina]

Used to be you could date a person, take them to a movie, meet the family - progress like two civilized people. We have that now, too, but it's at hyperspeed and if you're not pants down in the Chevy by date#3, one of you is either struggling with their identity, a prude, or both, or worse...

This is one of the differences for some - the concept that sex outside of as in before marrige being an automatic thing for date number three. What does this do to the concept of sex being part of the "glue" in marrige when it is so readily available without marrige. (What's the line from the CW song about: Free milk and the cow?)

I have always been told that it takes good and similar value systems to make a basis for marrige, the concept that there may come a day when you're angry and don't love them that you will try to work thru to re-establish that love.
(What's the song: Called me names and called her dad!)

 

[John in Covina]

This is a pretty accurate description of how 'dating' is done in present-day Sweden - every Swede I've shown it to has cracked up and said "OMG! That's so true!"

http://www.thelocal.se/17566/20090216/

Sounds like my cousin in Denmark in the 70's a bit - when she finally married her common law husband they got the kids Baptized at ages 8 and 2.

 

[Flicka]

Lot's of people here never marry, despite living together for decades. No one thinks it's strange. I'll never forget at my grandfather's funeral when my 87 year old aristocratic great-aunt asked my ex if we were married and he replied: "No, we live in sin!" She didn't even bat an eyelid. Just said: "Oh, that's nice!" I did tell him afterwards that he needn't have put it exactly like that and he went: "But it's true, isn't it?" :lol:

Not getting married doesn't seem to affect the survival rate of the relationship though. Every single one of my friends have met their respective partners in the exact way described in the article, and most of them are celebrating 10, 15 or even 20 years together. Most eventually married for legal purposes -- it's such a nice legal package, marriage, especially when you have children.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Common-law marriages weren't uncommon in the Era -- if you lived with someone for a particular amount of time, varying by the state, you were considered married in the eyes of the law. Probably the most famous person involved in such a marriage was newspaper/radio personality Walter Winchell, who never legally married his wife June -- although they lived together for over forty years without a formal marriage, they were considered married so far as the state was concerned.

 

[Undertow]

This is a pretty accurate description of how 'dating' is done in present-day Sweden - every Swede I've shown it to has cracked up and said "OMG! That's so true!"

http://www.thelocal.se/17566/20090216/

Hahaha, oh dear lord, that sounds terrifying! I would be a miserable failure in Sweden. If it weren't for the music and food...and climate...and people...and archit...Okay I love Sweden, but there's no way I'd do well in those situations.

I'd get drunk, make a fool of myself, end up under a bridge overnight and then not get invited to anymore parties.
(Not that that's already happened a number of times already...er...:whistling)

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Reminds me of an old joke about a guy who wins the lottery. He has all kinds of wonderful plans for his newfound wealth but only gives his father $20. When asked what's he's going to do with the twenty the father says, "I'm going to marry your mother with it."

"Marry my mother???" says the son, "You know what that makes me, doesn't it?"

"Yeah, and a cheap one!"

 

[HoosierDaddy]

It is interesting. I can't remember one post in this thread promoting the joys of marriage. What a man or woman can find with each other. A oneness..or united purpose that includes joyful sharing and deep caring of togetherness rather than the idea of separate lifestyles with only the occassional or now and then appearance of some similarity of a marriage bond. A trend to advertise the failures of others to suggest that appreciating another through struggling together beyond infactuation into true caring that niether would want to be without...as certainly only a pipe dream. Surely a fairlytale for most. If it is to exist..it is not denying self as much as it is getting over one's self. Valuing what sharing can actually bring. The miracle of a child together. A home. Whiping the tears away. The process of learning to care about the things that you know you should. Not so much Me Me Me...but us. Looking back at just how tough some things were...but we made it through together and found more and more importance in just what that can mean. Gratitude. Nothing is always a bed of roses...or complete perfect happy happy. Often it comes down to 'allowing' one's self to realise what is really precious. The journey may even lead you to find that it was really you..in spite of yourself and even regardless of the past.
HD

 

[Flicka]

Common-law marriages weren't uncommon in the Era -- if you lived with someone for a particular amount of time, varying by the state, you were considered married in the eyes of the law. Probably the most famous person involved in such a marriage was newspaper/radio personality Walter Winchell, who never legally married his wife June -- although they lived together for over forty years without a formal marriage, they were considered married so far as the state was concerned.

In Stockholm they were extremely common in the 19th and early 20th century. In fact, co-habitation used to be popularly called "Stockholm Marriage". If I remember correctly, somewhere around 1/4 or even 1/3 of all children were born out of wedlock around 1900. And we're not talking flings; people lived together married in all but name. It was a class thing, obviously -- the bourgoisie certainly married. The most common explanation for it I've seen is that working class women didn't want to marry because they didn't trust men enough to give up their financial and legal independence. Unmarried, they could simply kick him to the curb when he drank or misbehaved or acted abusively. Married, they were legally obliged to let him into their homes and even share their wages with them.

To use the analogy of the cow someone mentioned; they weren't willing to be put in a situation where a man might milk them to the point where their calves might starve.

 

[Flicka]

Hahaha, oh dear lord, that sounds terrifying! I would be a miserable failure in Sweden. If it weren't for the music and food...and climate...and people...and archit...Okay I love Sweden, but there's no way I'd do well in those situations.

I'd get drunk, make a fool of myself, end up under a bridge overnight and then not get invited to anymore parties.
(Not that that's already happened a number of times already...er...:whistling)

Given the housing shortage here and how Swedes drink, that'd just make you mainstream.

 

[Angus Forbes]

It is interesting. I can't remember one post in this thread promoting the joys of marriage.

I agree, and I find it to be very offensive. What kind of people congregate here? I hope some of the heavy hitters in the thread have had a good time. Some of you need to learn to keep your sordid opinions and anecdotes to yourselves. I am taking a vacation from Fedora Lounge for a while. Bye . . .

 

[Touchofevil]

It is interesting. I can't remember one post in this thread promoting the joys of marriage. What a man or woman can find with each other. A oneness..or united purpose that includes joyful sharing and deep caring of togetherness rather than the idea of separate lifestyles with only the occassional or now and then appearance of some similarity of a marriage bond. A trend to advertise the failures of others to suggest that appreciating another through struggling together beyond infactuation into true caring that niether would want to be without...as certainly only a pipe dream. Surely a fairlytale for most. If it is to exist..it is not denying self as much as it is getting over one's self. Valuing what sharing can actually bring. The miracle of a child together. A home. Whiping the tears away. The process of learning to care about the things that you know you should. Not so much Me Me Me...but us. Looking back at just how tough some things were...but we made it through together and found more and more importance in just what that can mean. Gratitude. Nothing is always a bed of roses...or complete perfect happy happy. Often it comes down to 'allowing' one's self to realise what is really precious. The journey may even lead you to find that it was really you..in spite of yourself and even regardless of the past.
HD

Great post.

 

[sheeplady]

I agree, and I find it to be very offensive. What kind of people congregate here? I hope some of the heavy hitters in the thread have had a good time. Some of you need to learn to keep your sordid opinions and anecdotes to yourselves. I am taking a vacation from Fedora Lounge for a while. Bye . . .

Several people have commented on the joys of marriage. There's several posts about the importance of partnership, loving one another, supporting one another, etc. Why does a discussion on why people get married or chose not to only have to focus on the joys of marriage?

I doubt that not knowing the joys of marriage have made people chose to not get married. There are likely other reasons and probably have to do with knowing the negatives of marrying the wrong person.

 

[SHOWSOMECLASS]

This is a classic example of why I don't reply. You folks should re-read the original question.
Yes marrige can be disfunctional or great.
The question was (paraphrased) what did the previous generation want and has that changed?
A married friend worked at a bank when I was single. She said their is this beautiful girl I work w/ who you should meet.
I never met the girl.
Later my friend told me, we never met because, as she said, I didn't have the, "thug appeal" her friend was looking for.
It would seem some really do want a bad boy

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I agree, and I find it to be very offensive. What kind of people congregate here? I hope some of the heavy hitters in the thread have had a good time. Some of you need to learn to keep your sordid opinions and anecdotes to yourselves. I am taking a vacation from Fedora Lounge for a while. Bye . . .

It is the same few who always seem to present a resentment toward much of anything to do with commitment or the idea that that the opposing viewpoint may actually offer fulfillment to much of anyone. Certainly not them. It is only fun or tolerable if they stay their distance...and display an independence that they don't really need much of anyone except for possibly certain mechanical things. Much of anything else can/should be positioned to be discarded if not up to snuff(or them). Throw in a leader...and all hell will break loose. In fact..easily..several personal 'reasons why' are publically revealed in order to justify why this opinion must dominate any opening that can lead to the same topic. The insistance that 'I don't need anyone' must overwhelm any joy of good partnership or blessing that others happily claim to achieve. They seem to want little to do with surely such frivolous efforts to overcome their demons. Thus their persuasion is imperative to persuade. A sore point. Understandable to an extent..but also harsh alternatives to propose. What would most prefer to hope for..strive for..seek to achieve..even if it means sacrifice? A oneness that 'can' make it through practically anything that comes with what seems like a spiritual connection and bolsters the commitment that is awaiting to easily be accepted if valued for what it is. Look at the alternative. Is it good enough?..and 'for everyone involved'?

 

[MikeBravo]

I agree, and I find it to be very offensive. What kind of people congregate here? I hope some of the heavy hitters in the thread have had a good time. Some of you need to learn to keep your sordid opinions and anecdotes to yourselves. I am taking a vacation from Fedora Lounge for a while. Bye . . .

I posted that a successful marriage is hard work. If you choose to see that as a negative, then that is up to you.

 

[Flicka]

And my Paul Newman quote was certainly meant to comment on the question of how some people make it work. He's certainly a great advocate for lifelong partnerships. I don't remember saying anything against the joys of partnership, beyond that working class women here 100 years ago obviously questioned it and that was a historical fact, not an opinion.

I suppose those comments are partially directed at me. I'm sorry if I made anyone uncomfortable, but obviously my cultural bias makes me define 'sordid' differently.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Maybe I'm going to come off as a prude, or old-fashioned, but things like this just baffle me. I wasn't even aware this was anybody's 'rule' until just a month or two ago. I had been out with a girl on 7 or 8 dates and someone had asked me about that. Maybe I'm strange, but that wasn't my goal, I was trying to get to know the lady as a person, and after 7 or 8 dates, I decided I just wasn't interested. I think more folks need to do some clear thinking with their minds rather than with anything else. There's more to building a substantial relationship.

This is one of the differences for some - the concept that sex outside of as in before marrige being an automatic thing for date number three. What does this do to the concept of sex being part of the "glue" in marrige when it is so readily available without marrige. (What's the line from the CW song about: Free milk and the cow?)

I think that this is very much true. I have a very high opinion of marriage. My parents have been married since 1988, grandparents on Dad's side since 1951 and on Mom's side since 1963. All couples are still together and love each other regardless of their faults. Folks want to give up on a relationship because things get tough, and the married people in my life, my mother in particular, have always told me that you don't just throw a relationship away, you take the good with the bad and know that everything isn't always perfect. Anybody remember the song "Rose Garden" by Lynn Anderson?

In the U.S. at least, more Gen Xers (born from about 1965-1981) grew up in families raised by a single parent or had their parents go through a divorce than the generation following (Millenials- born about 1982-2011). They're predicting much higher marriage rates for the Millennial than Gen Xers and much lower divorce rates. Millennials had more intact families than the previous generation and they think this has something to do with it. Gen Xers got hit really hard by extremely high divorce rates of the boomers (born 1947-1964) and the back wave of divorce among the lucky few (silent) generation (born 1924-1946) before them.

 

[MikeBravo]

The whole "third date means sex" thing started as a sitcom contruct, surely?