What was life like in the 1950's before the sexual revolution?

Reddit View
June 21, 2019

What happened to a women if she had a child outside of marriage? What happened to men that left there families What happened to people that had a divorce? Would they become social pariahs?

Post Information
Title What was life like in the 1950's before the sexual revolution?
Author knowledgeseeker999
Upvotes 110
Comments 41
Date 21 June 2019 06:21 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit askTRP
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/242956
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/c3ebhn/what_was_life_like_in_the_1950s_before_the_sexual/
Similar Posts

[–]Zanford237 points238 points  (26 children) | Copy

Real talk time. The modern cultural trope, that we project back onto past decides, is that people in the 1950s had arbitrary whims and customs to the effect of "doing certain things (like sex outside marriage) make you a Very Bad Person and we will shun you for no practical reason."

The practical reason, though, was that single moms and bastards tend to be a pain in the ass and a drain on resources and sanity on everyone around them. And now we have mountains of data that single mommery leads to much worse life outcomes for the kid, including more criminal behavior and being a net economic drain rather than contributor.

Also, men prefer debt free virgins without tattoos. So, wise and loving parents would tend to encourage their daughters to not get knocked out of wedlock, as they didn't want shitty bastard for grandkids who drained their retirement accounts b/c there was no involved dad to be a provider.

Now, due to the pill and to redistributive welfare, the stigma has largely lifted. Women can avoid getting pregnant accidentally, or if they get baby fever they can play 'oopsie' and then get paid for their carelessness (via child support and/or your taxes). Modern Western governments are massive machines to cuckold you at gunpoint by taking a third fo the fruits of your labor and giving it to people who just want to lazily outbreed you (and use that outbreeding to vote for even more gibs from you).

....and that's why your ancestors tried to discourage single mommery and recklessly having kids the parents couldn't afford and take care of. To prevent Idiocracy at gunpoint.

[–]knowledgeseeker99932 points33 points  (12 children) | Copy

That makes alot of sense. Do you think it was also to prevent hypergamy? So everyman could have a wife and every woman could have a husband.

[–]Zanford72 points73 points  (8 children) | Copy

Ah yes, that is very true and quite important.

Due to the omnipresent current 'men oppress, women are victims' trope, people often forget that the anti-promiscuity social mores actually feel hardest on men, and men were much more likely to face direct repercussions like violence from debauching girls (and if the knocked one up, face social pressure to wife her up and provide for the kid(s)).

And polygamy is closely related to violence, because it produces a bunch of men with nothing to lose and no saner way to get laid (see: modern suicide bombers). Islamic polygamy is basically a sexual pyramid scheme: a few rich guys monopolize all the women, creating an incel caste of low status men who can only get laid by serving as cannon fodder in wars to expand Islam to other places. This is how and why Islam spread, almost always at swordpoint and with lots of rape. (And, in modern times, young adult men going from the Middle East and Africa to tolerant Western countries who put up with high rates of molestation of their women and do almost nothing about it.)

Viking society may have been this way too, and much of India throughout its history.

[–]Blaze-Bless21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy

Dude thank you for saying everything you say, sincerely

[–]Nergaal3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

And polygamy is closely related to violence, because it produces a bunch of men with nothing to lose and no saner way to get laid

They are promised 40 virgins in the afterlife.

The Western society has mostly avoided the Islamic polygamy and the Viking lifestyle due to the church

[–]shipiaozi-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

As the most extreme form of Gynocentrism patriarchy, Islam countries are almost strictly monogamous. Only 0.3% man in Saudi Arab married more than once(including divorced and widowed), polygamy is extremely rare.

[–]urbanfoh1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Only 0.3% man in Saudi Arab married more than once(

How many women on average?

[–]shipiaozi0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Even if every one of them marry 4 women, polygamy still only affect ~1% of women, compare to 10-25% single mom in West. Polygamy is tens of times more common in rich, liberal society where woman could raise children alone than in traditionalism society where woman need a monogamous provider.

[–]Protocol_Apollo21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yep absolutely.

Religion was used to prevent hypergamy or at least curb it.

They made it bad to divorce and to be slutty

People don’t realise that those religious “fanatics” are following what our ancestors knew/saw first hand. The rules that religion push were not random at all. They were made with meticulous insight

During those times, all kinds of societies were present and all kinds fell.

They saw first hand what female nature, if left to its toys, could do. Those societies that allowed females to do whatever they wanted like now literally crumbled and were no more.

That’s why religion was set up- to make sure female nature was in check so societies could actually thrive and not self destruct

[–]capodonca-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I wouldn't say that those rules were made. It was just an evolution of religions and the ones who made more productive societies prevailed.

[–]Nergaal5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think hypergamy was kept in check by the Church. As bad as say the Catholic Church has been sometimes, it has managed for the past ~1000 years to encourage women to pick a man or shame her into not becoming a prostitute or something. That has created a meaningful level of civilization that the dark ages kinda lacked, and allowed men to pursue more constructive paths rather than pillaging. That being said, a lot of men died in wars or went the pirate lifestyle route, and most of the single females still had babies, even though like half of all babies didn't reach adulthood.

[–]blissfullyaware0021 points22 points  (2 children) | Copy

Also, men prefer debt free virgins without tattoos.

This is gold.

[–]dszmaj9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

I actually like tattoos, but that part about debt is so real :-D

Too bad that currently tattoos are a sign of this regressive leftist thinking...

[–]Zanford1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yes it is, but I can't take credit, as you may know it's a meme that's been going around

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Based. I was the product of such a situation. I think many others who come from similar backgrounds that have the ability to think through the situation end up opposing it and everything that supports it. Democracy and socialism aren’t the end of history, just phases.

[–]TheGoblinTurkey3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

I agree with most of what you say, but let's be honest - Mr Everyman back in 1950 did not have that understanding, it was simply just whim of the times and tradition.

[–]TheRealBrotherLouie5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah and then the stoned hippies came and said "well fuck tradition, man, let's hug trees or something"

Tradition is there for a reason - it kept us alive and civilised untill now. But of course, we are now free and modern, we now know better than everyone in the past and consequences don't exist anymore

[–]Zanford0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's kinda the point. These customs arise over time as an aggregate of many small individual choices (like few men willing to wife up some single mom with some other guy's bastard).

[–]ugluk10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

How about the negative selection? Countries populated by Chads and Tyrones?

[–]Zanford0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

k-selection vs r-selection is the idea you seem to be referring to, and those would be terms to look up. There are other societies with relatively low paternal investment.

[–]jackandjill220 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Interesting. That's actually not as "real talk" as I thought. assumed it would be much worse.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Did you live in the 1950s?

[–]IndiansSmellLikePoo-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

And that is why I am a Libeterian

[–]hmsthinkingmeat36 points37 points  (1 child) | Copy

People got married to have a family and stay together for good.

Today women are being told that if they do that they are being oppressed by men, that they should want a career instead of a family, and that they should always be looking to upgrade on what they have "because they're special and deserve it because vagina".

I would say looking at the state of society now compared to then that people in general are actually a lot more miserable and unfulfilled following this ideology.

The number of articles in womens magazines and websites where some old post-wall chick is moaning about being single and not having anything to show for her life really sums up the stupidity of their choices.

But of course - it's not their fault - it's the men you see.

[–]kayfab7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy

Honest most people married and where miserable all there lives..... this is why today everyone is divorced and separated.

Its that insane

[–]knowledgeseeker9992 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

So people had to stay unhappily married or society would shame them?

[–]jackandjill220 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I'm not sure how young you are but you need to talk to someone from the "Greatest generation".

[–]uptimex0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It is better now I guess, in terms of free sex, but also men need survival skills as hell. Women will lead civilization to chaos, as their nature wants. On the other hand, it'd be extremely interesting.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

There were religious homes for unwed mothers. They'd be taken care of, put the baby up for adoption, and return as if they'd just been on a long vacation or retreat. The disappearing act was also used by more progressive families that wanted to both maintain their reputation and keep the kid. The mom would go on a "vacation", then someone would bring over the baby who'd be introduced to society as a "cousin" who had come to live with the family or something.

I've seen some evidence that shotgun weddings were fairly common and respected as the 2nd best option. I saw an advice column from the 50's where the writer was commenting on a newborn in their family who was supposedly born early not looking like a preemie. The columnist told them to let the matter lie.

It wasn't unusual for people to get an early start on sex after engagement in the 20's/30's with the advent of cheap cars, so women who'd been engaged would sometimes sue their fiance if he broke off an engagement since fewer guys would be interested in her. The diamond wedding ring was pitched as a sort of downpayment that showed he was serious about tying the knot.

People from lower classes would sometimes just "shack up" so you had common law marriage laws.

Divorce was definitely more stigmatized but not unheard of. EG, if you study the love lives of people like Charlie Chaplin. Edward the 8th gave up the throne to his brother George(Queen Elizabeth's dad) in order to marry a divorced American woman.

[–]Olram_Sacul0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

same shit, different day

[–]celincelin0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Boring monogamous crapshit I assume.

Thank fuck for birth control.

[–]Remsod33 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah dude let all our women become sluts wtf?

Sexuality is a small part of ones life as opposite of how the left thinks.

Morality(honour, virginity, loyalty) and stability(family, well raised offsprings, socialization in ones huge family) are key to a well rounded adult and with already a person with social encourgment from huge family, monetary/land inheritance, marriage through connections from family's pride(status).

Now the left wants the remove the fuction of family leaving broken individual with no stability whatsoever and thus more enclined to political spectrums that involve populism.

Some go alt-right-wing which exploits money and alt-(i.m.o non alt)left-wing for numberal votes and consues of no freedom(communism).

Which is why conservatism and liberalism(not the pro-choice bs) in a (i.m.o even better anarcho) capitalistic economical structure and traditional based values give the best result for a person's worth.

[–]celincelin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You sure put a lot of weight on that small part of one's life, person's worth wise.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter