Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
Would women a hundred years ago tolerated this?

I don't know. I suspect many women a hundred years ago would have expected it.

All except for one difference, which is that a hundred years ago few man would wait till age 33+ to get married in the first place ;-)

48 posted on 06/15/2003 11:45:34 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Frank
a hundred years ago few man would wait till age 33

A hundred years ago most men would be nearing the end of their life expentency. (Well, I think it was 45)

198 posted on 06/15/2003 2:19:14 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Frank
"All except for one difference, which is that a hundred years ago few man would wait till age 33+ to get married in the first place ;-)"

My paternal grandfather was born in 1879 and he waited until he was 31 to marry and he raised 4 sons and 4 daughters. Actually I think it was not that unusual for a man to be 30 or so before marrying someone who was often 10 or more years younger. In my own case I turned 21 in 1965 and in that era it was very common in the southeast for young men to be married and have children by 22. By the time I was 23 people were acting as though something was wrong with me because I was not married yet.
As for whether my grandfather was celibate until marriage, I seriously doubt it, I certainly wasn't.

260 posted on 06/15/2003 3:42:53 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Mercy on a pore boy lemme have a dollar bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Frank fan

The Irish did!!!


561 posted on 05/22/2005 3:35:19 PM PDT by jjmcgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson