“Before the 1970s, unmarried mothers kept few of their babies. Today they put only a few up for adoption because the stigma of unwed motherhood has declined. The transformation in attitudes was captured by the New York Times in 1993: “In the old days’ of the 1960s, '50s, and '40s, pregnant teenagers were pariahs, banished from schools, ostracized by their peers or scurried out of town to give birth in secret.” Today they are “supported and embraced in their decision to give birth, keep their babies, continue their education, and participate in school activities.” Since out-of-wedlock childbearing no longer results in social ostracism, literally and figuratively, shotgun marriage no longer occurs at the point of the shotgun.”
[quote]therajraj wrote:
“Before the 1970s, unmarried mothers kept few of their babies. Today they put only a few up for adoption because the stigma of unwed motherhood has declined. The transformation in attitudes was captured by the New York Times in 1993: “In the old days’ of the 1960s, '50s, and '40s, pregnant teenagers were pariahs, banished from schools, ostracized by their peers or scurried out of town to give birth in secret.” Today they are “supported and embraced in their decision to give birth, keep their babies, continue their education, and participate in school activities.” Since out-of-wedlock childbearing no longer results in social ostracism, literally and figuratively, shotgun marriage no longer occurs at the point of the shotgun.” [/quote]
OK…so what are these other guys talking about?
One other comment, to ignore the fact that divorce itself has decreased in negative social connotations along with the stigma of being single is just being lazy and biased.
In the 60’s, if you had a baby out of wedlock, it was actually an issue…so they rushed into marriages and didn’t get divorces because of religious restraint. That doesn’t mean it was a “strong family”.
These ideas presented in this thread are troubling.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.
[/quote]
25 and 40 percent still seem large enough for concern though, regardless of how much “better” those are than current numbers.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.
[/quote]
25 and 40 percent still seem large enough for concern though, regardless of how much “better” those are than current numbers.[/quote]
He said “risen only 25% as much as they have”…which means it is 25% of what it would have been otherwise, not 25% of the population.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That doesn’t mean it was a “strong family”.
[/quote]
Strong is not the best word, its more of traditional family vs non-traditional family. Regardless of their feelings toward each other just the fact they were “married” and living in the same house has to count for something.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.
[/quote]
25 and 40 percent still seem large enough for concern though, regardless of how much “better” those are than current numbers.[/quote]
He said “risen only 25% as much as they have”…which means it is 25% of what it would have been otherwise, not 25% of the population.[/quote]
Possibly misread but I think its still valid. Anything but small single digit percents over 1 generation indicate something big is going on.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That doesn’t mean it was a “strong family”.
[/quote]
Strong is not the best word, its more of traditional family vs non-traditional family. Regardless of their feelings toward each other just the fact they were “married” and living in the same house has to count for something.[/quote]
But see, that is the point. Tirib stated that he somehow KNEW that the black family of the 60’s was literally stronger. What is he basing that on…and why is it going on 3 pages of me asking and no one can answer that yet?
Not getting a divorce because you think you will suffer for it in hell does NOT mean you have a “strong family unit”…so what criteria are they using?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You want stronger families? Suppress female opportunity.
Women as a whole have shifted their focus away from the family and towards building careers. Coupled with this is the fact there is singificantly less incentive to stay with a man when you have financial independence. You’re seeing it now, the first sign of trouble women jump ship. It’s no coincidence that most divorce proceedings (by a wide margin) are initiated by women.
Our ancient societal roles are the best for a stable functioning society.
Also the removal of all restrictions on female sexuality hasn’t helped either.
Have casual sexual relations for 10-12 years, make a lot of money (plenty of female opporunity nowadays) and then magically turn into a devoted wife and husband in your 30s. That basically is the modern woman’s lifestyle nowadays. Sorry, but you can’t be a great mom and wife if you’ve been with several dozen different men before marriage.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t be a great mom and wife if you’ve been with several dozen different men before marriage.[/quote]
I don’t think this is true at all.
What leads you to this conclusion?
Women who have had 16 or more partners before marriage have an 80% divorce rate. I posted the study in another thread. Sitting in traffic right now can’t repost just yet.
Sorry but men aren’t like vitamins, you don’t get healthier the more you put in your mouth
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t be a great mom and wife if you’ve been with several dozen different men before marriage.[/quote]
I don’t think this is true at all.
What leads you to this conclusion?[/quote]
x2 this makes ZERO sense…so if a woman (heaven forbid) enjoys sex and likes to have it with more men than you feel is right, then she cannot be a good mother??
What exactly is your threshold of pain 2, 5, 10? SCIENCE BITCHES!!
If a man has sex with a few dozen women, does that mean he cannot be a good father?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Women who have had 16 or more partners before marriage have an 80% divorce rate. I posted the study in another thread. Sitting in traffic right now can’t repost just yet.
Sorry but men aren’t like vitamins, you don’t get healthier the more you put in your mouth[/quote]
What does the divorce rate have to do with being a good mother???..I was raised by a single mom, is she a bad mother?
Had to post this for Halloween.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Women as a whole have shifted their focus away from the family and towards building careers. Coupled with this is the fact there is singificantly less incentive to stay with a man when you have financial independence. You’re seeing it now, the first sign of trouble women jump ship. It’s no coincidence that most divorce proceedings (by a wide margin) are initiated by women.
[/quote]
You make some good points raj.
This thread has been a hell of a ride.
Raj, your intuition is better than I gave you credit for. Common grace manifests itself in truly wondrous ways indeed.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
x2 this makes ZERO sense…so if a woman (heaven forbid) enjoys sex and likes to have it with more men than you feel is right, then she cannot be a good mother??[/quote]
First off, here is the study that shows women with many sexual partners have a high rate of divorce:
It only takes 5 pre-marital partners before that risk jumps to 70%
Yes, I would say having many sexual partners irreversibly damages women from becoming good wives and mothers as it spits in the face in their ancient roles (I’m talking evolutionary psychology here). It’s unnatural for them.
Before access to contraception, abortion and economic opportunity women use to refrain having many sexual partners because there were NATURAL consequences.
These consequences no longer exist due to social engineering.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
If a man has sex with a few dozen women, does that mean he cannot be a good father?
[/quote]
Nope.
Men and women are wired differently. Men are naturally wired to seek out diversity and spread their seed while women are designed to seek out a single high quality male to have offspring with.
Why do you think there are several examples of polygamous societies (even today) while little to no examples of polyandrous ones?
Why do you think men can have children at practically anytime during their adult lives while a woman’s window to reproduce is so small? I just read about a man in India who had a kid at 96.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Women who have had 16 or more partners before marriage have an 80% divorce rate. I posted the study in another thread. Sitting in traffic right now can’t repost just yet.
Sorry but men aren’t like vitamins, you don’t get healthier the more you put in your mouth[/quote]
What does the divorce rate have to do with being a good mother???..I was raised by a single mom, is she a bad mother?[/quote]
I’m referring to a specific subset of divorced women, ones who have had several partners, not all divorced moms.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:<<< If a man has sex with a few dozen women, does that mean he cannot be a good father?[/quote]No. Or husband. Even after redemption in Christ, it is a battle. How well I know. This country is living (or dying) that right now. Sex was designed before the entrance of sin, for one man and one woman for life.
The incarnation, sinless life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ restored that perfect divine standard. We are dying and rotting as a nation for having abandoned that normative principal. Read DeToqville’s “Democracy in America” for a then contemporary scholar’s assessment of what life between the sexes was like here in the 1830’s when we were beginning our meteoric ascent.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
x2 this makes ZERO sense…so if a woman (heaven forbid) enjoys sex and likes to have it with more men than you feel is right, then she cannot be a good mother??[/quote]
First off, here is the study that shows women with many sexual partners have a high rate of divorce:
It only takes 5 pre-marital partners before that risk jumps to 70%
Yes, I would say having many sexual partners irreversibly damages women from becoming good wives and mothers as it spits in the face in their ancient roles (I’m talking evolutionary psychology here). It’s unnatural for them.
Before access to contraception, abortion and economic opportunity women use to refrain having many sexual partners because there were NATURAL consequences.
These consequences no longer exist due to social engineering.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
If a man has sex with a few dozen women, does that mean he cannot be a good father?
[/quote]
Nope.
Men and women are wired differently. Men are naturally wired to seek out diversity and spread their seed while women are designed to seek out a single high quality male to have offspring with.
Why do you think there are several examples of polygamous societies (even today) while little to no examples of polyandrous ones?
Why do you think men can have children at practically anytime during their adult lives while a woman’s window to reproduce is so small? I just read about a man in India who had a kid at 96.[/quote]
Fair enough on the wife part. But I can’t buy the “can’t be a good mother” line based on divorce rates.