nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

8kczg9v0swrydm

Just thinking about this recently, but did our grandparents have something great that the younger generations are missing?

The 'older folks' were married fairly young to a person who ticked a few basic boxes - had to be kind and hard working; health wise, without any major malfunctions. When they married, they married for life.

Dating was more along the lines of courting: basically, the two people discerned if marriage with the other person was feasible and would last.

Their expectations of each other were not sky high. A quiet, happy life with plenty of children was just about right.

When I look at a lot of people my age (late 20s), it seems like they are going through an endless cycle of dates. Tinder, online dating etc. 99% of these dates do not seem to go anywhere. Many of these folks are quite inward looking - they will go on these dates to satisfy some shallow craving, for example to get a confidence boost or a free meal (yes, I have personally heard that one!) Meanwhile, life goes on, said people become more disillusioned and unhappy. I think it gets especially tough for women, because of the biological clock and because they will have to compete with younger women for the better men. I have a female friend (late 30s) who will regularly burst into tears over not having a family, kids etc. It's heart-breaking.

The bottom line: has the sexual revolution of the 1960s been a good thing? It seems like a lot of people have basically been left without the love, security and comfort that comes with having a spouse (not to mention the joy of having children).

Now I know that there are some generalisations going on here, but nevertheless I think I have decent argument.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Leg End Reject

morebabies wrote: »

It's well known when you hit your thirties and start trying for a baby and maybe experience difficulties. Before that I was never taught it. Not once was it even alluded to.

Society is pushing women towards the "you can have it all" mentality, but hit your late thirties with a successful career and decide to have a family then... Biology will often tell you otherwise.

The decline in fertility and the risks associated with pregnancy after mid 30s has been well known for decades.

I don't understand how you couldn't have known.

Wanderer78

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Being a young parent really only suits those with no real career aspirations, or those content to live on welfare.

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You're the one who referred to them as "the lower classes" in a previous post. I never linked welfare recipients to the cost of living either.

I stated the reality of young working couples being unable to afford to start a family. Look at the rates of PAYE, PRSI and all the USC bands. Even if a young couple are starting out on €50k between them, they will struggle to save a deposit to buy a home or rent privately. Add up all the other costs and affording children isn't a possibility.

There's a reason working couples have fewer children and have them later. I don't know why you seem to be taking this so personally.

the above is a loaded statement, the root causes of long term unemployment are extremely complex, and we ve have decided its best to largely ignore these complexities.

the main causes of the rapid rise in the cost of living, and the issues you have outlined, has to do with policies that have been implemented over the last few decades, particularly the encouragement of the rapid rise in asset prices, clearly obvious in the housing sector. there has been also complimenting policies such as the contraction of wage inflation, which is causing the squeezing affect of the squeezed middle.

Leg End Reject

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the above is a loaded statement, the root causes of long term unemployment are extremely complex, and we ve have decided its best to largely ignore these complexities.

the main causes of the rapid rise in the cost of living, and the issues you have outlined, has to do with policies that have been implemented over the last few decades, particularly the encouragement of the rapid rise in asset prices, clearly obvious in the housing sector. there has been also complimenting policies such as the contraction of wage inflation, which is causing the squeezing affect of the squeezed middle.

None of that changes the fact that young working couples can't afford to have children early in their working lives.

It's not a loaded statement, it's not a pot shot at those on welfare.

Stone Deaf 4evr

whatever about dating, one thing I think they got right was regards having kids.

I've only one regret about my kids, and that was that I didn't have them sooner (and even then, in my friends group, we were the first to have them, aged 30). One of my friends is having their first now, and the idea of getting up in the middle of the night aged 42 is off putting to say the leat.

This is probably going to offend people, but I do wonder if theres a correlation between the (seemingly) increased numbers of kids with Autisim or other conditions and the fact that people seem to be having their kids later in life or the number of couples who increasingly have to turn to fertility treatments to have kids.

Wanderer78

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

whatever about dating, one thing I think they got right was regards having kids.

I've only one regret about my kids, and that was that I didn't have them sooner (and even then, in my friends group, we were the first to have them, aged 30). One of my friends is having their first now, and the idea of getting up in the middle of the night aged 42 is off putting to say the leat.

This is probably going to offend people, but I do wonder if theres a correlation between the (seemingly) increased numbers of kids with Autisim or other conditions and the fact that people seem to be having their kids later in life or the number of couples who increasingly have to turn to fertility treatments to have kids.

would be an interesting study, unsure if it exists though, from my own experiences, autism is probably largely genetic

El_Duderino 09

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

Just thinking about this recently, but did our grandparents have something great that the younger generations are missing?

The 'older folks' were married fairly young to a person who ticked a few basic boxes - had to be kind and hard working; health wise, without any major malfunctions. When they married, they married for life.

...

I mean, you're into nostalgia by the second sentence. Why do you think only kind, hard working and healthy people got married?

Why do you think people had much choice about who they married?

I think the ones who were cut out for marriage will find a decent partner. Those who aren't cut out for marriage will struggle as people have choice now and they may repeatedly choose not to marry them. it might have been better for those people back then as others didn't have much choice and, before long, someone would marry them.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Wanderer78 wrote: »

would be an interesting study, unsure if it exists though, from my own experiences, autism is probably largely genetic

yeah, that's why I was trying to couch my query somewhat - I think we all remember lads from school who were 'mad' or 'wild', but in reality, these kids likely had something that just wasn't diagnosed or acknowledged at the time, and never had the resources to help them in the way they needed.

Wanderer78

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

yeah, that's why I was trying to couch my query somewhat - I think we all remember lads from school who were 'mad' or 'wild', but in reality, these kids likely had something that just wasn't diagnosed or acknowledged at the time, and never had the resources to help them in the way they needed.

yea i believe this is the case, shur i was only diagnosed a couple of years ago, but your idea, in my mind, does have merit, god only knows what issues we re introducing by delaying child birth

El_Duderino 09

wench wrote: »

I think you have a very rose tinted view of the past.

Not all husbands were kind and hard working. Many were abusive arseholes.
Divorce was not an option and marital rape wasn't a crime.

Not to mention that lots of the women weren't kind, hard working or healthy. Plenty were arseholes and wenches (if you'll pardon the allusion to your username).

People didn't start being arseholes or wenches in modern times. There were always the same rate or arseholes and wenches. Now people have more choice and can choose not to marry those people. I'm sure there are some people who are kind, hard working, healthy and are also not good at dating. Those people will suffer in the modern system where people have more choice.

JohnnyFlash

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not to mention that lots of the women weren't kind, hard working or healthy. Plenty were arseholes and wenches (if you'll pardon the allusion to your username).

People didn't start being arseholes or wenches in modern times. There were always the same rate or arseholes and wenches. Now people have more choice and can choose not to marry those people. I'm sure there are some people who are kind, hard working, healthy and are also not good at dating. Those people will suffer in the modern system where people have more choice.

It’s the illusion of choice.

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I think it is obvious that a lot of the old values are basically gone now; namely loyalty and basic decency and respect.
...

Speak for yourself. Those values are alive and well in my house.

I, for one, demand and expect those qualities in my wife, among other qualities. And I wouldn't have married anyone who doesn't also demand those qualities from me. For me its a matter of self respect to expect those qualities and expect to marry someone worth self respect enough to expect them in return.

Maybe you mean your own standards of the behaviour you expect from yourself and your partner, have gone down?

Ash.J.Williams

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

Just thinking about this recently, but did our grandparents have something great that the younger generations are missing?

The 'older folks' were married fairly young to a person who ticked a few basic boxes - had to be kind and hard working; health wise, without any major malfunctions. When they married, they married for life.

Dating was more along the lines of courting: basically, the two people discerned if marriage with the other person was feasible and would last.

Their expectations of each other were not sky high. A quiet, happy life with plenty of children was just about right.

When I look at a lot of people my age (late 20s), it seems like they are going through an endless cycle of dates. Tinder, online dating etc. 99% of these dates do not seem to go anywhere. Many of these folks are quite inward looking - they will go on these dates to satisfy some shallow craving, for example to get a confidence boost or a free meal (yes, I have personally heard that one!) Meanwhile, life goes on, said people become more disillusioned and unhappy. I think it gets especially tough for women, because of the biological clock and because they will have to compete with younger women for the better men. I have a female friend (late 30s) who will regularly burst into tears over not having a family, kids etc. It's heart-breaking.

The bottom line: has the sexual revolution of the 1960s been a good thing? It seems like a lot of people have basically been left without the love, security and comfort that comes with having a spouse (not to mention the joy of having children).

Now I know that there are some generalisations going on here, but nevertheless I think I have decent argument.

i'd say there's as many indian style happy arranged marriages as there was happy irish marriages, ie it works for many but some end badly.

morebabies

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The decline in fertility and the risks associated with pregnancy after mid 30s has been well known for decades.

I don't understand how you couldn't have known.

Well known among a certain age group, the one it mainly affects. Is it taught in schools at an age where it potentially will affect people's life choices? Not that I know of. I was in a non religious secondary school, we were taught about sex, sexual health, unwanted pregnancies... Fertility was never mentioned.

pgj2015

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Those values are alive and well in my house.

I, for one, demand and expect those qualities in my wife, among other qualities. And I wouldn't have married anyone who doesn't also demand those qualities from me. For me its a matter of self respect to expect those qualities and expect to marry someone worth self respect enough to expect them in return.

Maybe you mean your own standards of the behaviour you expect from yourself and your partner, have gone down?

Cheating is rife, there are people cheating that you wouldn't believe. it is awful but a lot of people only think of themselves now and if they think they can get away with cheating, they will. it disgusts me to be honest.

Silentcorner

morebabies wrote: »

Well known among a certain age group, the one it mainly affects. Is it taught in schools at an age where it potentially will affect people's life choices? Not that I know of. I was in a non religious secondary school, we were taught about sex, sexual health, unwanted pregnancies... Fertility was never mentioned.

Isn't that curious....I wonder why not.

Church on Tuesday

Nokotan wrote: »

That is a sweeping and bold statement. How is this obvious?

Just take a look around you. We all know of broken marriages and homes and cases of cheating. Divorce is a good thing but really should only be used as a last resort if things simply can't work out, IMO it's too much of a quick fix these days with no real desire to work things out.

We live in a disposable, fairly shallow society as is, again plenty evidence of that, much of which has been already mentioned above.

There were no saints in our grandparents time certainly, but they were teak tough people, who respected their neighbor and looked out for one another, where is the sense of community these days?

eviltwin

morebabies wrote: »

It's well known when you hit your thirties and start trying for a baby and maybe experience difficulties. Before that I was never taught it. Not once was it even alluded to.

Society is pushing women towards the "you can have it all" mentality, but hit your late thirties with a successful career and decide to have a family then... Biology will often tell you otherwise.

All the education in the world isn't much use when people of both sexes aren't ready to settle down in their 20's. Judging people for wanting to establish a career, enjoy their freedom is unfair. When I left college it was the norm to go straight into a job, get a house etc. That has changed and for the better

eviltwin

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

yeah, that's why I was trying to couch my query somewhat - I think we all remember lads from school who were 'mad' or 'wild', but in reality, these kids likely had something that just wasn't diagnosed or acknowledged at the time, and never had the resources to help them in the way they needed.

I don't think age is a factor. I had my kids at 19 and 32, both are autistic. The parents at the support groups are a wide range of ages. It's probably genetic, there are a lot of older relatives in my family I suspect are on the spectrum.

wench

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Divorce is a good thing but really should only be used as a last resort if things simply can't work out, IMO it's too much of a quick fix these days with no real desire to work things out.

A five year wait is a quick fix?

El_Duderino 09

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s the illusion of choice.

Well, the ability to choose is real. It just isn't always helpful for all people at all times. I prefer the choice though.

It particularly isn't helpful to the people who aren't chosen.

kowloonkev

cost of living argument is a bit of a cop out in my opinion. young people are spending way too much money on their lifestyles and are unwilling to give up the nightlife, foreign holidays, two cars, dogs, cats, fancy clothes, takeaways etc. I think there's a lot more saving potential than people would have you believe. I don't necessarily blame young people for getting swept away in the culture but don't tell me that if you want to marry, have kids in your 20's and be working that it's not possible.

I think a lot of what's happening now is that you get a lot of very nice young couples in their early 20's who seem perfect for each other but the culture dictates that it's a bit lower class to marry early so they often either break up and settle for someone else in their mid 30's, or they tough it out in the relationship and marry well into their 30's having the big party even though nobody really cares cause they're an old couple already. It's a bit sad seeing all those brides in their mid 30's , past their best who you know have a battle ahead trying to have a baby, just cause it's the social norm of our time.

El_Duderino 09

pgj2015 wrote: »

Cheating is rife, there are people cheating that you wouldn't believe. it is awful but a lot of people only think of themselves now and if they think they can get away with cheating, they will. it disgusts me to be honest.

I believe cheating is rife. And the nature of the act means that the objective is usually to keep it secret so it's probably much more prevalent than we actually know about.

But what do you compare it to? How would you know if it was ever much different?

Salvation Tambourine

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Just take a look around you. We all know of broken marriages and homes and cases of cheating. Divorce is a good thing but really should only be used as a last resort if things simply can't work out, IMO it's too much of a quick fix these days with no real desire to work things out.

We live in a disposable, fairly shallow society as is, again plenty evidence of that, much of which has been already mentioned above.

There were no saints in our grandparents time certainly, but they were teak tough people, who respected their neighbor and looked out for one another, where is the sense of community these days?

A couple must have lived separately for four years in order to get a divorce. Doesn't sound like a quick fix. I also don't think many would take ending a marriage lightly and certainly not at the flick of a switch that you are suggesting.

I reckon you've just got a serious case of 'back in the days'. A view I try to stay away from because you'll only end up disappointed wanting things to be the way they were because they won't.

lainey_d_123

Funny you should say that it's especially tough for women because studies have consistently shown that single women are far happier than single men.

Yes, marriages used to last because it was next to impossible for women to get out of them, especially before women could work and earn anything like the kind of money men could earn. So they were basically trapped. They got married young because they had no choice, then they stayed in marriages because they had no choice. If a woman accidentally got pregnant, she was expected to marry the man and stay with him, whether or not she actually wanted to. Is that what you consider ideal?

Your post seems to be a thinly veiled 'women should stop trying to date around and just get married young' but it's often men who don't want to settle down in their twenties, or even early thirties. I know countless men who did settle down young and ended up cheating on their wives because they felt like they had 'missed out' on sowing their wild oats. Some of them left their wives with young children and went off to Australia or Canada to see the world.

The way I see it, women can never really win in dating or relationships. Meet someone young and marry young, and he's likely to get bored, cheat, maybe even leave. And of course, settling down young means that the woman doesn't get to travel, party and enjoy her twenties either. Wait until your thirties and then you're told that you're competing with women in their twenties on all the superficial apps and 'dating scene' and you're made to feel like you can't afford to have standards and have to settle for less than what you want.

I don't think there is any one strategy here. Some people are lucky enough to meet their life partner early on, in college, and stay together happily forever. Everyone else gets hurt along the way, either they never meet someone, or they meet someone and think that's it, and then they end up breaking up and having to start again. Lots of people find apps draining and soul destroying but then other people meet the love of their life on an app, and never would have came across them otherwise.

It's all luck, at the end of the day.

pgj2015

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I believe cheating is rife. And the nature of the act means that the objective is usually to keep it secret so it's probably much more prevalent than we actually know about.

But what do you compare it to? How would you know if it was ever much different?

Drink is a big factor these days, men and women off on lads/girls holidays, stag and hen dos etc when the drink is in the forget all about their other half. that might be a big difference from now and the past.

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

...

There were no saints in our grandparents time certainly, but they were teak tough people, who respected their neighbor and looked out for one another, where is the sense of community these days?

Lads, at some point we need to ease off on the nostalgia. If people were so great back then, there wouldn't have been so much crime, for example.

I really wish people would have a think before they speak about this stuff. If you presume these qualities applied to everyone back in olden times, then you're just saying "far away hills are greener".

[Deleted User]

Not that previous generations had it right exactly, but there seems to have been actual regression over the last 15 years.
An awful lot of people seem to me to think they are younger than they are and have little interest in a serious relationship or starting a family until their late thirties. Career and ‘experiences’ seem to rank higher. No doubt some people are happier with that kind of life, but doubt if most will be, particularly women who leave it too late to have kids.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

Just thinking about this recently, but did our grandparents have something great that the younger generations are missing?

The 'older folks' were married fairly young to a person who ticked a few basic boxes - had to be kind and hard working; health wise, without any major malfunctions. When they married, they married for life.

Dating was more along the lines of courting: basically, the two people discerned if marriage with the other person was feasible and would last.

Their expectations of each other were not sky high. A quiet, happy life with plenty of children was just about right.

When I look at a lot of people my age (late 20s), it seems like they are going through an endless cycle of dates. Tinder, online dating etc. 99% of these dates do not seem to go anywhere. Many of these folks are quite inward looking - they will go on these dates to satisfy some shallow craving, for example to get a confidence boost or a free meal (yes, I have personally heard that one!) Meanwhile, life goes on, said people become more disillusioned and unhappy. I think it gets especially tough for women, because of the biological clock and because they will have to compete with younger women for the better men. I have a female friend (late 30s) who will regularly burst into tears over not having a family, kids etc. It's heart-breaking.

The bottom line: has the sexual revolution of the 1960s been a good thing? It seems like a lot of people have basically been left without the love, security and comfort that comes with having a spouse (not to mention the joy of having children).

Now I know that there are some generalisations going on here, but nevertheless I think I have decent argument.

People have more options now and are aware of them, but this is more a result of the digital revolution that the sexual one.

I think it was easier to get married back in the day, but this never guaranteed happiness and without divorce, once you were in a marriage, you were never getting out of it.

People are more careful nowadays - it's a luxary our grandparents were never afforeded.

El_Duderino 09

pgj2015 wrote: »

Drink is a big factor these days, men and women off on lads/girls holidays, stag and hen dos etc when the drink is in the forget all about their other half. that might be a big difference from now and the past.

Ah come on. Drink is nothing new. The desire to cheat is nothing new. The people are nothing new.

The weekend stag and hen dos are new but they're not the only place people cheat.

Drink or drinking to excess is really not new. Maybe there was loads of cheating going on back in the day but people were much more careful about it.

Reality is you usually find out about someone cheating if you're part of their peer group (friends, work, community) and most people don't broadcast the news when they hear it. It's easy to think people didn't cheat back in olden times because you weren't there with your ear close to the ground to hear about it.

Gynoid

A lot of happy marriage is good luck. One haplessly hit upon the person out of all the many thousands who is funny, sexy and kind and willing to tolerate ones imperfections and eccentricities and vice versa for them. Damn lucky is all. It is not skill.
About babies, it is really handy to have them young. Not saying babies born later ain't groovy but young parenthood is not just the preserve of social outcasts. Not just because of energy, fertility, health etc but also because one has not settled too much into a pattern of, well frankly narcissistic, desires and expectations and so there is no hankering for the freedoms of before. Instead they are the adventure. You grow up together.
I would also venture to say the squarest thing boards has ever heard - brace now!- if one does not have to shag loads of people to find a prince/princess there is less comparison, disatisfaction or hankering for what once was or more likely was imagined to be. Less baggage. Less heartache. Instead the other is again the adventure.

For these and many, many other reasons I think the so called sexual revolution was not all it is sometimes cracked up to be. It caused a lot of sh1tty things eg ubiquity of gruesome porn for example. It was also a highly manipulated piece of social engineering. Hedonism has a very dark and lonely side. Michel Houellebecq's book Atomised is an interesting critique of the sexual revolution which he notes, like many others have done, attempted to destroy the family structure which is the last defense against the atomisation of the individual who is left naked afterwards, neurotic, coldly individuated, exiled, to be manipulated as a mere consumer. Anyways!