|
|
|
|
July 19, 2010
A Decline In Morals
I'm having an interesting discussion at Moral Authority about the homosexual plot to destroy American values and take down American civilization. That is not the first time American civilization took the short road to decline. Marriages were once decided on the basis of economic interests and personalities mostly by parents. And then by 1830 or so romance was all the rage and parents had lost much of their say in the matter. Would America ever be the same? Between 1708/9, when Samuel Gerrish courted Mary Sewall, and 1835, when Theodore Weld courted Angelina Grimke, the rituals of courtship underwent profound changes. Parental influence and involvement in the selection of their children's marriage partner visibly declined. Young women and men were increasingly free to pick or reject a spouse with little parental interference. At the same time that courtship grew freer, however, marriage became an increasingly difficult transition point, particularly for women, and more and more women elected not to marry at all.As you can see we have never recovered. Decisions that were once made rationally are now consummated based on half-witted ideas like romance. The Puritans had the right idea Puritan New Englanders, in sharp contrast, did not regard love as a necessary precondition for marriage. Indeed, they associated romantic love with immaturity and impermanence. True love, the Puritans believed, would appear following marriage. A proper marriage, in their view, was based not on love and affection, but on rational considerations of property, compatibility, and religious piety. Thus, it was considered acceptable for a young man to pursue "a goodly lass with aboundation of money," so long as he could eventually love his wife-to-be.Giving up the strict rules has lead to ruination.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, parental influence over the choice of a spouse had sharply declined. One indication of a decline in parental control was a sudden upsurge in the mid-eighteenth century the number of brides who were pregnant when they got married. In the seventeenth century, fathers--supported by local churches and courts--exercised close control over their childrens' sexual behavior and kept sexual intercourse prior to marriage at extremely low levels. The percentage of women who bore a first child less than eight-and-a half months after marriage was below ten percent. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the figure had shot up to over forty percent.So as I stated in a comment to Moral Authority in response to this comment: The legitimizing of homosexuality is one lynchpin in a program to undercut Western sexual morality, and to disrupt the legal and social constraints that give weight, strength, and stability to the family unit.Dude, You are not going to get that toothpaste back into the tube. The horse has left the barn. The culture has changed. Western sexual morality as you think you remember it (I saw a study once that in the US in the 1700s about 1/3 of the brides were already knocked up - true? I haven't cross checked - [see above]) is gone. You want to do something about Western morality? Forget gays. The bigger hole is adultery and divorce. If we could bring back stoning for adultery and 40 lashes for fornication we might get somewhere. It all started going bad long before women got the vote. But it didn't help. Cross Posted at Classical Values posted by Simon on 07.19.10 at 10:12 PM
Comments
Well, you must remember between the Puritans and the mid-1700s, more inhabitants had come over here that weren't attached to a family - young persons whose parents stayed behind in the old country. Therefore, the issue of parental control is rather moot. Further, the gene pool had widened - more people from less sexually repressive backgrounds than the Puritans, or social classes that didn't expect to marry for money or never had money (often, didn't marry at all). Don't look to the pregnancies, look to the near-certainty of marriage in that event. It may have become a way of pressuring a reluctant father-in-law to consent to the wedding. LindaF · July 21, 2010 06:00 AM Linda, So you are telling me that no matter what the laws are the government can't control the social order? It is a point I make over and over. Good to have you on board. M. Simon · July 21, 2010 11:16 AM "[I]n the US in the 1700s about 1/3 of the brides were already knocked up - true?" The traditions of the Scot-Irish settlers in the US (now know as rednecks or crackers) were that the girl could make her choice by seducing a marriable lad. When she became pregnant, she would inform her father who the lucky husband-to-be was. Papa would then ensure that the marriage contract was made - or there would be a dead lad. This is traditionally called a "shotgun wedding." I happened just like that to me so I know the tradition was alive and well, at least up through 1969. Whitehall · July 21, 2010 04:39 PM Re: toothpaste and horses--There's nothing new under the sun, including the current climate. It's all been tried before and then rejected. As Ambrose Bierce said so succinctly, being moral means "having the quality of general expediency." The generations that are vulnerable to so many STDs now have to be looking at the Fifties moral environment that, whatever else one can say about it, provided a rather safe environment for its children (today's parents and grandparents) to practice "free love" without a care in the world. Thus, today's generation are probably rediscovering the expediency of limiting sexual contact while still enjoying it, and realizing that marriage has no equal in that regard. Wise children and grandchildren that they are, they won't say anything about that right now; they'll just choose it. Then, when there's minimal risk of catching h*** from what few surviving and very decrepit members of the "free love" generation remain, they'll mainstream it. Again. That's how life works. There's no straight line to progress and the future; it's a wheel we're riding on, following the same track over and over again. BarbB · July 21, 2010 06:30 PM Whitehall, I had a Mormon girl try to pull that trick on me. She was rather free with her favors. But I decided to avoid going all the way with her. I wasn't interested in Mormonism. M. Simon · July 21, 2010 07:47 PM Another reason a lot of brides were already with child in the 1700's- it made no sense to get married for many until certain that both halves of the couple were fertile. In my family tree, traced back to the 1500's, there are a whole lot of marraiges with first-born coming less then 9 months later. gospace · July 22, 2010 07:03 AM gospace, Why the jump from 10% in 1700 to 40% in 1850? Taking a test drive became the norm? If so why? M. Simon · July 22, 2010 10:17 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
In protest, I quote your words!
Where's The Party, Man? The Problem Is Self Induced This I-dosing thing is giving me heavy flashbacks, man! We still have the First Amendment, right? The horse has left the barn, and the barn is gone! And we long since threw away the toothpaste tubes! barking back at authoritarian dogs House of Cards A Decline In Morals NAACP Audience Applauds Racism
Links
Site Credits
|
|
One of my grandmothers had Quaker ancestors. My father was able to find some old church records on a Quaker ancestor courtesy of a local library in Pa., which mailed him a copy.
This Quaker ancestor and her mate had been condemned in church for "fornication," but were back in good standing once they were married. And this was over 300 years ago!